This transcript has been labeled based on the list of officials provided and the internal context of the meeting. *Note: As timestamps were not provided in the original text, placeholders have been used.* [00:00:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Recording in progress for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Right. Next order of business is the oath of office for Greg Anderson. We have Amanda on. She—Yes, you're up. Oh, yeah. She's here now. Okay. She's the new—All right, for tonight. Go ahead, Amanda. Please. [00:00:30] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** Mr. Anderson, please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Greg Anderson... [00:00:35] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I, Greg Anderson... [00:00:37] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** ...do solemnly swear... [00:00:38] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** ...do solemnly swear... [00:00:40] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** ...that I will support the Constitution of the United States... [00:00:42] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** ...that I will support the Constitution of the United States... [00:00:44] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** ...and the state of Minnesota... [00:00:46] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** ...and of the state of Minnesota... [00:00:48] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** ...and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of council member... [00:00:50] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** ...and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of council member... [00:00:52] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** ...of the city of Grant... [00:00:53] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** ...of the city of Grant. [00:00:54] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** ...in the county of Washington and state of Minnesota. [00:00:56] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** ...in the county of Washington and the state of Minnesota. [00:00:58] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** To the best of my judgment and ability. [00:00:59] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** ...to the best of my judgment and ability. [00:01:00] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** Thank you. [00:01:01] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. Well, the council welcome. All right. Next agenda, approval of regular agenda. Can I get a motion to approve? [00:01:05] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I move to approve. [00:01:06] **Council Member John Rog:** Second. [00:01:07] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [00:01:08] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [00:01:09] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [00:01:10] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [00:01:11] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [00:01:12] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [00:01:13] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [00:01:14] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [00:01:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Next is approval of the consent agenda. Should have had a chance to look at that and as a note, the consideration of the previous meeting's minutes has been moved as a separate item to new business. Due to Greg being new, he cannot—he has to abstain from approving the minutes from the last meeting. So that's what's moved to new business. And then the resolution for the amended CUP for Two Silos. We're just formalizing that decision by adopting the resolution as part of the consent agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? [00:02:00] **Council Member John Rog:** Move to approve. [00:02:01] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I'll second. [00:02:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [00:02:03] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [00:02:04] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [00:02:05] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [00:02:06] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [00:02:07] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [00:02:08] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [00:02:09] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [00:02:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Next staff agenda items. Our city engineer Brad Reifsteck has no action items. City planner Jennifer Swanson. Jennifer is with us tonight. Jennifer, could you start us out by walking us through the minor subdivision request for 11225 Julianne Avenue North? [00:02:25] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Yes. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. So, before you this evening is a request for a minor subdivision or a lot split. I do have a short presentation. So, I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Can everyone hear? Okay. [00:02:40] **Council Member John Rog:** It's a little fuzzy. [00:02:41] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. Can—can we get Jennifer's volume turned up a little bit? Yes, she can go. You can start, Jennifer. [00:02:45] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Okay. Just let me know if you can't hear me and I'll try to speak up a little bit, too. Um, so the request this evening, the applicant and owners are Michelle and Christopher Bond. The site, the parcel is approximately 52 acres. It is located at 11225 Julian Avenue North. It is in the rural residential egg land use designation and is zoned A1. We did notice a public hearing for this evening. So, the request this evening is essentially to create three lots from one. It's essentially creating two new lots that would not have structures which are parcel A and parcel C. There is an existing homestead or farmstead that is on the property that is located on what is proposed parcel B. That proposed parcel B is the smallest parcel in the configuration that's approximately 6 acres. And there's no development proposed at this time on parcel A or parcel C. Obviously, both of those created lots exceed the minimum lot size standard and then also meet our density requirements. [00:03:50] So, as it stands, parcel A is just over 10 acres. Parcel C is just about 36.24 acres. All created lots comply with our minimum dimensional standards. As I stated, there's no structures proposed at this time. We do see this every once in a while. We've seen it in some of our larger plats, but also in some of these minor subdivisions because there's no structures proposed at this time on parcel A and parcel C. We really can't verify setbacks, etc. Which is why you will see in your conditions of approval tonight that basically all future development of those parcels is subject to the ordinances in place at the time that that application is made. [00:04:40] On parcel B you will notice in the staff report and then also within the conditions that by creating this smaller parcel from this larger 50 plus acre parcel, it does result in those existing accessory buildings and sheds to become non-conforming from the standpoint of it exceeds the maximum combined square footage and also the number of buildings. This has happened in the past and typically the way we have dealt with it is said that they need to submit a demolition plan that shows what—what of those accessory buildings are going to be removed to make sure that we comply with the maximum combined square footage and number once it is actually subdivided. So we have done this in the past. It's a little bit tricky just to make sure that from a timing perspective we get that commitment of what is going to be removed to become compliant. But essentially they cannot record the subdivision until we have a plan for how that is going to be achieved. [00:05:40] As it stands there are two larger accessory buildings and several smaller. So it will be up to them to figure out exactly what combination of removal they would like to do to become compliant with that standard. We have included a condition within your resolution this evening addressing this item. The way that we have also identified or ensure that this occurs is if something were to not be removed prior to the plat or the subdivision being recorded, the deeds being recorded, we have also taken a letter of credit in the past to ensure that that removal does occur. [00:06:20] In terms of the access you will note that there is a area of shared access point between parcel A and parcel B. We do allow shared access but we do not allow shared driveways. So at the time that parcel A were to develop, that lot—that driveway would need to split after that area where that shared access point extends from the right of way. In terms of the lots in the past when we've looked at some of these larger created lots, parcels that are created that are undeveloped exceed 10 acres. Both of them have at least an acre of upland area and actually in both cases have well above the one acre. And so from that standpoint we want to make sure that there's a condition that septic permits must be pulled at the time that any development is occurring or proposed on those two lots but because they exceed that 10-acre parcel we have in the past allowed that to be a condition of the lot split. [00:07:20] The city engineer did not have any comments to pass forward. There are other agencies that are involved in this but they really come into play after the subdivision is approved. So for example we need to file the—they need to file the subdivision and also the associated deeds that describe the new lot configuration. And then also ensure that all future development is subject to all standards that are in place at the time of proposed development. So, as I stated, there are a handful of conditions that are provided in your draft resolution this evening. Essentially the big one is making sure that that demolition plan is submitted so that parcel B is brought into conformance with the lot standard now that it would be a six-acre lot. And so, timeline for what that demolition looks like would have to be submitted and approved and we would need to make sure that we have that information prior to any deeds being recorded unless we were to receive a letter of credit. The future development as I noted would be subject to all standards and regulations in place at the time of development since we don't know when parcel A or parcel C or if they were to be developed. We would make sure that the condition is clear that they are subject to those standards that are in place at the time. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the requested minor subdivision with the conditions as noted. And we have prepared a draft resolution for your consideration this evening. So with that, Mr. Mayor, members of council, I will pass it back to you. [00:08:50] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Um, does the council have any questions for Jennifer now or would you like to hold those until after the public hearing? Okay. Um, so before I call for a motion to start the public hearing, just a quick reminder that the purpose of public hearing is so that members of the public can express their opinions, but the council does not answer questions or deliberately discuss matters during the public hearing. So there's no back and forth. It's just we listen. So can I get a motion to open the public—move to open the public hearing? [00:09:15] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Motion to open. [00:09:16] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Second. [00:09:17] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. [00:09:18] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [00:09:19] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [00:09:20] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [00:09:21] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [00:09:22] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [00:09:23] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [00:09:24] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Aye. [00:09:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. So anyone who'd like to speak, please remember to sign in with your name and the address so the clerk can properly record the minutes. And anyone? Nope. Going once, going twice. This is for the subdivision. Okay. All right. Can I ask for a motion to close public? [00:09:45] **Council Member John Rog:** Motion to close. [00:09:46] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I'll second. [00:09:47] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Aye. Mayor Giefer. Aye. Okay. So, who would like to start the discussion? [00:10:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I can. If no one else would like to jump in. I mean, this one seems pretty straightforward. It doesn't violate the 5-acre minimum 10-acre density and I agree with Jennifer's conditions. There's one thing Jennifer I want to point out. In your analysis you had mentioned including a condition that recognizes no determination has been made regarding the buildability of parcel A or C and that a septic permit must be obtained from Washington County prior to issuance of any building permits for that parcel. That's pretty standard language they have, but it wasn't in the condition—the resolution. Can you just— [00:10:45] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for reminding me of that. Yes. That was obviously not an intentional omission and that should be included. So, if you were to make a motion for approval this evening, just make it with the amendment that that be added. So, my apologies that it was [not in] resolution. [00:11:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I didn't—I caught this like an hour before myself so I would have mentioned it to you earlier. Okay. So, any other—okay, looks like we have ready for a motion. [00:11:10] **Council Member John Rog:** I do have one question. So, on B, you said that it could be greater than 2500 square feet. Um, and that includes the outbuildings or are those additional? Is it 2500 square feet on the six-acre parcel period across three buildings? [00:11:30] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Correct. Okay. So if you had a main house of 1500 feet, then you could add another 1000 feet on two other buildings and that would be the end of it. [00:11:40] **Council Member John Rog:** Um, okay. I think on the accessory buildings, correct? [00:11:43] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** It's a total of 2500 square feet or three [buildings]. So maximum square footage, they could have, you know, one building that's 2500 square feet or they could have three buildings spread across that 2500 square feet. [00:11:55] **Council Member John Rog:** All right. And none of the buildings that are—I mean where they're—where they're living now it's much bigger than 2500 square feet I believe. [00:12:00] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** I—so the house is not included, it's the accessory buildings. [00:12:05] **Council Member John Rog:** Right. Right. Okay. But if the house is bigger than 2500 feet now what do you do? [00:12:10] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** That's fine because the house—the principal structure is not subject to the 2500 square feet or three maximum. [00:12:15] **Council Member John Rog:** Okay. Even if it was a barn? [00:12:20] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Uh, is the barn being lived in today? [00:12:22] **Council Member John Rog:** Um, that's up to the building inspector and you, I think. [00:12:25] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Well, that is a separate question that has not been brought up. I don't—the principal structure is excluded. So, if the principal structure is a home and that they're living in, that is excluded. And then there are 2500 square feet of accessory building, that's permitted. [00:12:40] **Council Member John Rog:** Okay. But if the building that they're living in has never been uh used or been inspected as a primary home, what do you do? [00:12:50] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** So, that would be I think up to the building inspector in terms of whether or not it is in fact being lived in and if it qualifies and meets the conditions of a principal structure. [00:13:00] **Council Member John Rog:** Okay. All right. Thank you. [00:13:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any other questions? If not, someone can make a motion. [00:13:05] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** No questions here. [00:13:06] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** No other questions. I'll move to approve resolution 2025-07. But to add in that there is the additional requirement for getting approval for septic and no determination to build. [00:13:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Sorry. And no determination that these parcels are buildable. [00:13:20] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Thank you, Lindsay. [00:13:21] **Council Member John Rog:** I'll second that. [00:13:22] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Aye. Mayor Giefer. Aye. Next item for Jennifer. Could you please walk us through the variance request for 89th Street North? [00:13:40] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Once again, I have a short presentation, so I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Right. So, the request before you this evening is a variance from dimensional standards for an existing lot. We will look at the configuration in just a moment. The applicant this evening is Daniel Huca. The owner—owners are Bertha and James Philippowski. The property, the lot is approximately 1.1 acres. The location is an unaddressed parcel at the curve of 89th Street North. It is guided rural residential agriculture and it is an A2 zoning district. There is a public hearing that has been scheduled for this evening. [00:14:30] So the applicant is requesting a variance from the following dimensional standards: the first being the minimum lot size (obviously our current standard is five acres); the minimum buildable area (this has just shy of 1 acre of buildable area available on the lot); the minimum lot width (it does not meet that standard); and then also the density requirement for the area. The applicant, as I understand it, has a purchase agreement for the subject property from the current owners. The applicant, for those of you that were on the council prior in 2024, did submit a land use application inquiry looking for some background information regarding the subject lot since it is well below our required standards. [00:15:20] During that 2024 review process, we did look into the information available through RecordEASE, which is the Washington County Recorder's Office that provides information back to the early 1980s. When we did that review, there were no deeds or property transfers dating from the current time back through the 1980s where that online information was recorded. So based on that, the applicant was informed that there was no information with respect to how this lot was created and whether or not there were any property transfers of ownership over the last 40 plus years. [00:16:00] The existing site conditions are such that we've got approximately 1.1 acres. The site is currently vacant. It has never been developed or improved, at least from the records we have. There are no wetlands on the site based on the National Wetland Inventory and other information available. The site for reference has been taxed at a rate that suggests it is not buildable. That tax rate has been approximately $17,800. That was based on the 2024 tax for the property. [00:16:40] Of course, the question this evening is whether or not the subject lot can be built upon. So some other information that exists is that there is a recorded easement between this particular parcel and the parcel to the east for the driveway. You can see that actually on the graphic just to the right where the existing driveway extends. The applicant has submitted a record of when the first deed was available for the subject property. It was in 1971 and that deed shows that the 1.1 acres was created—or not created but it existed for transfer in 1971 from Mabel and Glenn Tubbs to Bertha and James Philippowski, which are the current owners. The deed also notes that that transfer occurred for a dollar. [00:17:30] With respect to what they're proposing today for the variance dimensional standards wise, we're looking at a minimum lot area of approximately 1.1 acres is what's proposed. Our ordinance requires 5 acres. Minimum lot depth is met and complies with our ordinance. Minimum lot width the proposed is 135 feet; the variance is approximately 165 feet. Likewise with that frontage on the improved road, the setbacks, you can see from the graphic just to the right that the yellow is essentially the setback area. They've got a proposed house sited on the lot. You can tell from this proposed location that it would comply with those required setbacks. [00:18:20] In terms of the buildable area, as I stated, the buildable area is just shy of the minimum, which is one acre or 43,560 square feet. It's coming in around 39,000 square feet. Just a note that this was inaccurately reflected in your staff report and so staff is correcting that this evening for your reference. Another point which has to do with dimensional standards—obviously the 1-acre buildable area is typically associated with ensuring that there's enough area for both the principal structure and then also the corresponding septic primary and secondary drain field that's required to serve the property. You can see in this red rectangle that this is the area identified as septic field location. I would just note that typically we see a primary and a secondary drain field identified by the septic designers. That is not the case here. And we did not receive the septic report or test for this particular drain field area. And so, within the applicant's narrative, they state that Washington County has reviewed it, but we were not provided with any correspondence demonstrating that they had approved this location or that the septic test complied. [00:19:40] In terms of our existing standards with respect to undersized lots, Section 32-246B establishes exceptions to some of those minimum dimensional standards. It essentially states that we determine whether the lot is an existing lot as the definition. You can see from this definition that the lot does comply with the existing lot definition. That moves us to number two. It says that if you sort of pass that threshold as an existing lot, what are some of the exemptions that we've provided? You can see by these standards that we essentially have said that if it was created, it's an existing lot and it's at least 2.5 acres, it can then qualify for certain exemptions. In this case, obviously, we're well below that 2.5 acres. So then we move to number three, which is undersized lots. This states that in a group of two or more contiguous lots that the parcel—if the adjacent parcels are controlled by the same entities—that you must combine them with that adjacent parcel. In this case, it does not meet the exemptions provided in number two and the condition provided in number three cannot be met because the adjacent property owners are not the same entity as the applicant or the owner. So as a result, it does not qualify for those exemptions. And so therefore the variances were required to be requested. [00:21:00] In terms of our variance review criteria, our ordinance lays out a few conditions that we have to review. So the first is: is the proposed use of the property—the proposed use cannot be established under the current conditions allowed by the ordinance? So from that standpoint they could not develop it with the single-family residential uses. Number two: the plight of the landowner must be due to unique physical conditions of the land and are not applicable to other lands in the same zoning district; and the unique conditions of the site cannot be caused or accepted by the landowner. [00:21:40] Briefly, in terms of what is provided in your staff report for an analysis based on the existing conditions and configuration, we could not consider this buildable under the definition of the ordinance. As a result, it is zoned and guided for rural residential uses. So it's reasonable to consider this for development with single-family uses. And that would not be permitted under the strict interpretation of the ordinance as it's written. The deed for the subject property was recorded by the county in 1971 prior to the adoption of the current ordinance. This becomes a bit nuanced just to establish whether it's an existing lot of record, how it was created or when it was created. By way of background, regulations in the 60s did permit lot sizes that were less than our current 5-acre minimum standard. However, in 1968, Washington County's zoning ordinance did require a 2.25-acre minimum per lot. That was established primarily or very much in correlation with ensuring that there was appropriate area for a primary and a secondary drain field. At that time when these ordinances were getting put in place, we had substandard lots with septic systems that were not functioning properly and there was no area for a secondary drain field. That was the impetus or one of the impetus for creating the minimum lot size. [00:23:20] And so, if you'll recall, we saw that the deed was created in 1971—or not created, but there's a 1971 deed that shows the property transfer to the Philippowskis. It's unclear when the lot was created, if it was created in 71 or if it was created prior to that. You may have noticed within your packets that there was a picture of half of the abstract from the property, but it was unclear from that picture what had occurred and whether or not there was a subdivision or how how that information relates to then what was memorialized in the deed. Finally, the rural residential agricultural land use designation establishes that the density is four dwelling units per every 40 acres. If this lot were to be developed, it would increase the density to approximately eight dwelling units per 40 acres based on what's happening in the section. So as a—as a result, obviously it would not comply with that density standard. [00:24:20] Number two: the plight of the landowner must be due to unique physical conditions of the land and are not applicable to other lands in the same zoning district. As part of actually the 2024 application process, land use review process, we did a GIS analysis and we identified approximately six unplatted parcels in the city that do not meet minimum lot size requirements or the exception requirements that are not currently in a group of two or more contiguous lots or parcels owned by the same owner or entity. That results in approximately less than 0.2% of all parcels within the city that are similarly situated. There are no other vacant parcels in the area that are less than the 5 acres or the lot exemption that are independently owned. [00:25:20] So, you may have noticed if you were out taking a look on GIS that there are a couple other smaller parcels that are also along 89th Avenue that have been combined with the adjacent parcel to at least meet that 2.25 or the 2.5-acre minimum. Since the adoption of the current ordinance, landowners with similarly sized substandard lots have combined their parcels to meet the minimum acreage. I can think of at least three or four over the past 10 years or so that I've worked on applications similar to this where that combination has occurred to get to at least the minimum 2.5-acre exemption criteria that's established. At this time, neither the current owners of the subject property or the applicant have common ownership. So that would require them to purchase area from an adjacent parcel. [00:26:20] The unique conditions of the site cannot be caused or accepted by the owner. It's unclear if the lot was actually created prior to the 68 ordinance or whether or not the 1971 deed is actually when it was created. If the lot was created after 1968, it would have likely had to have been created for either purposes other than single-family residential uses or by a variance for the minimum lot size standard. Obviously it's unclear if it was prior to 68 or if it was after, but we do know that that deed was from 1971. We don't know what it was created for. I have seen examples within the city where there are some of these geographically described areas that were not for single-family purposes but for other purposes, agricultural purposes in the past. So we're not sure exactly why this parcel was created. And we don't have any information in terms of: was a variance granted if it was in 1971, etc. Um, so it's not—it's not actually possible to determine whether the owners created the situation or not because the Philippowskis, from what I can tell based on the records, were the owners in 71 and continue to be the owners. [00:27:40] Additional criteria includes the essential character of the neighborhood or local. Obviously the rural residential use that's proposed is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. However, the lot size is certainly smaller than other parcels within the area. There are some that are in that 2.5 or 2.25 range that are along 89th, but none are as small as the 1.1 acre that is being discussed this evening. Economic considerations alone cannot be justification for the variance. Obviously it's reasonable for them to want to utilize their property. However, this is clearly due to economic considerations because they're trying to develop and build on the subject parcel. I will note that if it's determined that other variance criteria are met, that would obviously demonstrate that economic conditions alone are not the only basis for determining the variance or approving the variance. [00:28:40] In terms of engineering standards there's nothing really at this time to review because we have a concept plan. Obviously if there—if this were to be deemed buildable and construction plans were put together, obviously the grading plan and all of that information would be reviewed by the city engineer. In terms of other agency review, apparently based on the applicant's narrative, the Watershed District has indicated that they do not require any sort of permit for the proposed construction of the home. They also have indicated that Washington County reviewed the septic design and approved it with no objections. No documentation was provided to evidence that that county approval was provided. We did not receive the septic tests and given the way that the septic area is denoted, we don't know whether the primary and secondary drain field was intended to be located in that particular area. [00:29:40] So this evening staff is requesting that you discuss the proposed variances. You have three options this evening: deny the requested variance with findings (direct staff to come back with a resolution at your next meeting); you could approve the requested variances with findings and conditions (and once again direct staff to prepare a resolution for your next meeting); and third, you could table the application if there is additional information from the applicant that you think would be helpful to assist in making your determination this evening. So, with that, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I am happy to answer any questions you might have. [00:30:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Wait for a public hearing. [00:30:22] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Mr. Mayor, Council members, the applicant's representative is here for the applicant. If you would like to hear from him or have any questions for him. [00:30:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Shall we do that outside the public hearing or can we do it after? [00:30:33] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** You can do it after, you can do it before, you can do it whenever you want. I just wanted to let you know. [00:30:37] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** After. Because then he might want to respond to some of the public comments. So, okay. That being said, like to have someone call a motion to open the public hearing. [00:30:50] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I'll move to open the public hearing. [00:30:52] **Council Member John Rog:** Second. [00:30:53] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Aye. Mayor Giefer. Aye. Public hearing is now open. Anyone who'd like to speak again, please remember to sign in with your name and—Yep. Go ahead. D. You can announce your name and address and write it on the slip so it can be properly recorded for the minutes. [00:31:25] **Dave Hedin:** My name is Dave Hedin. We—Barb and I—live at 8223 89th Street North. Our property is directly south of the lot that you're considering. And we moved out there in 1973, bought five acres, built a house, raised a family, been there ever since. We love Grant, but we are asking that you do not approve this variance. For one thing, we think it's a very small lot. I think the actually in the engineering report, I think they're saying that it's about 24,000 square feet for a buildable site because there are two roads and one driveway access going through this property and part of it is somewhat landlocked to the south because of the roads. [00:32:15] So, it's a very small lot. And we also think that this is going to have a very strong negative effect on our neighborhood. For one thing, if—if this structure is built, it's going to be closer to three residences than any of the residences are to each other currently. Does that make sense? I mean, it's—it's going to be closer to three homes than any residences currently are to each other. So, it's really being forced into, I think, a tight area. And like, for instance, Barb and I will be looking out our front window right at this structure. We have a neighbor to the east whose driveway is going to be going like eight feet away from—from the structure as they go back to their place. And another neighbor who's going to be 30 yards away from the structure. So, we feel it's really being pushed into a tight area. It's going to definitely increase the density and the congested feel in that area. [00:33:15] So, and we also think that this is going to dramatically affect our property values having structure and a house so close to all these—these places. So, that's kind of where we stand on the neighborhood. I also think it's maybe the wrong way for Grant to go with by approving this variance. It seems like you might be setting a precedent where it's going to make it easier for small properties to be developed in the future. And I'm concerned if we get a trend like that going that we would get the attraction of the Met Council. And I don't know if something like this could happen, but it certainly happened in Lake Elmo where they decided that they could no longer be rural, had to put in sewer and water. And I don't think we—any of us—want that to happen in Grant. So because of the negative effect on our neighborhood and the possible future effects on the city of Grant, we're asking that you do not approve this variance. Thank you. [00:34:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Thank you. Could you sign in? Could you sign in there? Dave, did you sign in the sheet? Okay. So she can get you on the minutes. Thank you. And then we have someone else that wish to speak, just let him finish signing. We'll have you do the same thing. [00:34:25] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Well, they're signing in. Mr. Mayor, Council members, I did receive some comments for the public hearing. Nancy Erickson at 8143 89th Street. She said she is opposed to the variances being requested. Basically that's what she said. I had another email from Dave and Barb Hedin at 8223 89th Street. Oh, okay. We got it covered then. And then is there anyone online? [00:34:55] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Hi, my name is Dave Mample. Um, I was the first one to move out there, on that property. It was a Sunday afternoon and my wife and I were driving around and there was a two-track going across the field and so we drove back and—and Glenn Tubbs came out and was kind of irritated that we were driving around back there and said he didn't want any hanky-panky going on and all this, but we'd just been married and we were looking for a piece of property out in the country. We want—we're—I'm a farm boy and so was she. And so anyway, we had a real good talk with Glenn that afternoon. We got to be pretty good friends. And that—that was on a Saturday—Sunday morning. He called me and he said, "Yeah, I'll sell you some. You got to take five acres." And I didn't know we had to have five acres out here. I lived in White Bear and I never got out here. [00:36:00] So anyway, he said, "You need five acres." And I said, "Well, what—what—" you know, we worked out a price and that was—I had to pay on that for two and a half years before I could get a loan to build a house. Anyhow, what happened is Glenn said that he was going to sell off the rest of the property and everything. And I said, "Gee," I said, "I really don't want to put a road in here into my house. I want it to be closed up so people don't see me and I'm in my own little area," and he said, "I'll tell you what. I'll put it—" and they put the road in. He said, "I'll build it up to where it is and I'll give you an easement on that." And I said, "Great. That'll work." [00:36:40] Then about three or four years later, the rest of these people all moved in. And every one of them has been there 50 years or longer. You know, we spend a lot of money. We spend a lot of time fighting power lines and all this to—to keep it rural, to keep it where it's supposed to be. And there's a few of them there—Johnson's and myself and a few of us that hunt there and we have our five acres we can hunt on and we—you know—everything works out good. We haven't had any problems in all the years. Then I would find out that this—that Glenn had either sold or given away this little piece of land. So Mr. Johnson, Tom's dad—I mean the kid's dad's there—he and I got together and went up to see Glenn and said, "We'd like to buy that little piece of land." Glenn said, "Oh geez, I already sold it or gave it to a relative or something." I'm not sure just what it was. And I said, "Well, how—why would he buy that? He can't build a house on it." I said, "It's, you know, not—not up to snuff. It's only less than an acre." And he said, "Well, that's—that's what it was in it." [00:37:40] And then he said, "They didn't really want to sell it to people that had it." I said, "Okay, well, listen. I—I look back and I think evidently the town board or something made a mistake when they looked at his plan for the land or something and they knew that little acre was on there. Why they let him get by with it at that time, I don't know." Personally, I hope right now you don't make—they don't make—that same mistake again. There—there should be no reason for that house there. And I don't want them there. And none of us do. I know it's not nice of us and everything to say that, but we had to buy five acres that he should have to buy five acres, too. And I don't—I don't want to set a precedent. You know, if—if James wants to start selling land or—or Gunderson wants to start selling land there, they'll say, "Geez, let's—a little acre on the side here land. They got—we—he got away with it. We'll get away with it." [00:38:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. Well, thank you for your comments. Thank you so much. Thank you. And I've been a little bit remiss in not mentioning it. If you could try to hold your comments to three minutes. No, we go a little bit long. That's fine. I didn't—I—I would rather have people go a little bit long than worry about time. So, I'm just don't—So, no pressure, but— [00:39:00] **David Johnson:** Sure. No worries. David Johnson, 8196 89th Street North. Um, so on behalf of my mother, Kathleen, who's the property owner, and I'm the—the current resident and future owner, and my brother Tom... my—I grew up on this property that is adjacent to this property in question. And so did my whole family. And we've been there most of our adult lives. We've seen it not change once—once in that time. And really the whole purpose of Grant is to keep it rural, right? That's been a continuing theme. Um, I think much like my neighbors have said better than I can... our—I would urge you to deny this request for variance. I think it does open up possibility for other properties of this nature to be developed and also it really sets a bad precedent for the future of Grant and I don't want to see that happen. Um, also it is like was mentioned about 30 yards from me and I certainly don't want to see a structure that close when all the other neighbors are quite a bit farther away. It will fundamentally—if it were to pass—it will fundamentally change the nature of the neighborhood and the density and affect our property values. So with that— [00:40:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Did you—did you get signed in? [00:40:21] **David Johnson:** I will. I will. Thank you. [00:40:23] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** While he's doing that, is there anyone else that would like to come up and speak? [00:40:25] **Jerry Heander:** Jerry Heander, 6261 Jasmine Avenue North. No, I don't live in that neighborhood, but I've been around here for a while and seen things happen. Up until 1968, you could have a 1-acre lot. I live in a neighborhood that's full of those. And then it turned out that if you had a 1-acre that was platted before 1968, in subsequent years, you could still build on it because it had been platted. That was really the question. In fact, a one-acre lot that's one block away from me right now was built on two years ago. And at the time, I don't think the council was aware of it because the property owner went and applied for a building permit. And the building inspector, as I understand it, consulted with some legal authorities that said, "Yes, because it was platted back in the 60s and it satisfied the sewer requirements, it could be built on because those are the rules." [00:41:40] I think the applicant is going to have a—a longer story and I would just like to comment that I hope in the future you have the applicant make his presentation before you have the hearing. I think that would be a better order of doing the business. But moving on with this, I understand neighbors not liking change. I guess none of us do. We get our little place and we can look at woods and we have our view. But the real question is, was that property platted before 1968? That's the question. And as I understand, maybe that hasn't been resolved yet. And if it hasn't, then I would say you can't proceed to build on it. But if you can find proof that it was platted, then I think that property owner has a perfect right to build on it as long as they satisfy the septic requirements like everybody else that has to do. There's a long history of houses being built after various Met Council decisions were made. There were a lot of houses built on 1-acre lots after 1968. There were a lot of houses built on 2 and a half acre properties after the 5-acre rule was brought in. But the rule applied to new developments, what you could develop. The question is when was that one acre platted? And that's really what it boils down to. Thank you. [00:43:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Thank you, Jerry. The representative, do you want to close the public hearing? Is it—I'm the—I'm the applicant. Yeah. [00:43:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, Amanda, is it—it typical to close a public hearing before the representative of the applicant speaks? [00:43:25] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** Yes, Your Honor. [00:43:26] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. So we can do that. We can close the hearing. Anybody that is on Zoom speaks—the owners that might [be] on Zoom? [00:43:30] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** No, it's during the public hearing where people speak. Okay. [00:43:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Anyone in Zoom? [00:43:36] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Uh, Jennifer, it looks like James has his hand up. Sorry. Mr. Philippowski it looks like is with us. So I'm going to bring him in. So James, it looks like you—if you unmute yourself, you would be able to address the council. [00:43:55] **James Philippowski:** Can you hear me now? [00:43:56] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yes. A little echo. Yes. [00:44:00] **James Philippowski:** Okay. Well, I know this property was platted prior to July 18th, 1966. It was sold in July 18, 1966 and recorded August 5th, 1966 in Book 291 of the Deeds, page 226. So I got that off the abstract for the property. So you look it up. It was platted prior to 1966 and I think it's buildable because it's grandfathered in. [00:44:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any other comments, Mr. Philippowski? [00:44:42] **James Philippowski:** Oh, that would be all. [00:44:44] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. And anyone else on Zoom? [00:44:46] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** I think that was it. [00:44:48] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Is there anyone else dialed in that would like to speak during the public hearing? Raise your hand. There is not. We can close public hearing and then have Mr. Representative—Entertain a motion to close public hearing. [00:45:00] **Council Member John Rog:** I'll move to close the public hearing. [00:45:01] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Second. [00:45:02] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Aye. Mayor Giefer. Aye. Mr. Hill, would you like to address the council? [00:45:15] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Mr. Mayor and Council members, this is a representative for the applicant. Represent the applicant. Oh, you are the applicant. Oh, you tell me you're a representative. Probably represent miscommunication. [00:45:25] **Daniel Hill:** Yeah, Daniel Hill, the applicant for the property. Um, so I know there was a question on if there was two drainage approved, two drainage sites approved for the property and there was... I have a copy of a document here that I printed off. [00:45:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Clerk, is this—is this a proper procedure? Shouldn't all the information be in the packet before the meeting? [00:45:45] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Mayor and Council members, the applicant and I spoke about that earlier and yes, it should have been submitted with the—the application should have been in the packet. Um, I—he did email it to me and it has been forwarded to the planner, but clearly the information he's passing out was not part of the review or the planner's report. So I don't know what he's passing out. Okay. [00:46:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** This is one of the things that I—Yes. Which nobody's reviewed yet. Sure. Um, this is a little bit of unusual circumstance. Please proceed. Please proceed briefly. Go ahead. [00:46:25] **Daniel Hill:** Okay. So this just shows the design two subject. So there's not efficiency. It was approved by the county of Washington. Um, so if there's any questions on that, that's remedied from there. Um, I also would like to say there are 1-acre lots in the area. I mean, down at the street where it turns into Ideal Avenue, there's a 1-acre lot where the house is built in 1964. Um, so I think and then there's one across the street that's 1.2 acres. I think this 1.1 acre lot is certainly well within the kind of the form of the neighborhood fits in well. [00:47:15] As the seller was saying there's a recording on the abstract of a sale at in the year of 1966. So I think our contention is, you know, this is a grandfather lot has statutory protections for development. I think that's pretty clear at this point and I don't know of any other items that would that you guys would need. So, if there's any questions at this point, I'd be willing to answer them. I actually—I did reach out—I know there was some question about the council and their thoughts on these smaller lots. I did reach out to them and asked them about grandfathered lots and they don't care that these are developed. These are developed in many jurisdictions throughout Washington County and around the metro area. So, if there's—I have an email and a copy of it that I pass to you and I can share it with you guys now if you guys want that. Um, but otherwise, any questions otherwise? [00:48:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any questions? [00:48:16] **Council Member John Rog:** I have no questions. [00:48:17] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** No, no questions. [00:48:19] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All right. So, end of the public council discussion. Do we have any questions for staff? Either Amanda or Jennifer? [00:48:25] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I do not. [00:48:26] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Mr. Mayor. [00:48:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yes. [00:48:28] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Um, I do have a question. I just briefly looked at the email that was forwarded to me that has the attachments. Um, and I do not see anything in the attachments about the septic approval or review from the county. Was that delivered to you up there? Just because I don't know exactly what he handed out. I'd like to know what—what it is. I see a site map that has two what I presume are primary and secondary drain fields, but I don't have anything indicating Washington County's reviewed it or soil borings or anything. So, I just want to make sure I understand what you received. [00:49:05] **Daniel Hill:** That is what they received. I can—that should have been provided in the packet. There is an email that of correspondence between me and Jennifer and at the bottom there's a link where she was able to access the document but for whatever reason—but she's saying that she—Yep. I understand. Okay. But I—I was not aware that she had not received it at all. I mean I— [00:49:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** The link is in the email that is in the packet. I assume that she had it. So did we lose Jennifer? [00:49:35] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** No. Oh, Jennifer, um, in that email, did you, um, see anything about, um, the Met Council? You forwarded something from the Met Council as well. Did— [00:49:45] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Um, I haven't seen that. Mr. Mayor, I saw the email from Met Council. I also—I see the site plan. I'm just checking previous emails. Uh, does he seems to suggest that it was prior sent prior? Is that correct? Am I understanding Matt? [00:50:00] **Daniel Hill:** Yeah, in January. I mean, I can send another one right now that has the full septic design if you want. [00:50:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, anything that was sent... I'm just checking my emails, Mr. Mayor. So, if you just... Anything that was sent before the application, I think you would send again. I don't know if it's staff's responsibility to go back and—and determine on their own what you intend to be included in the in—in the variance request. So Jennifer can spend some time looking at that. [00:50:35] But I think we—I've got some points I would like to share if no one else does. So regardless of these other comments, Mr. Hill, about the—the supposed Washington County approval of the septic, there's a couple other points that stuck out to me in Jennifer's presentation. And I haven't seen any evidence provided that the lot was ever part of a approved plat or any document that was registered with Washington County that says that lot was deemed buildable. There's no variance from the 1968 standard of the 2.25 minimum acre lot size. So there's nothing for us to say if this lot was buildable. So that's one point. [00:51:30] And then the second point, I don't see any evidence that the lot was independently owned of any adjacent parcels before 1982. Obviously it's—it's easy to say that now there's no current ownership of adjacent parcels, but we don't know if there is an opportunity to combine lots since that time frame. And so that's point number two. [00:51:55] And then kind of going back to the septic, I mean this... if I'm to look at this, is... it looks like the—the primary and secondary are overlapping. It's the overlap of the the actual drain fields are overlapping. Okay. But I guess this is beside point for me if—if I don't see anything from Washington County that says it's approved. [00:52:20] **Daniel Hill:** Yep. I just forwarded the email with the whole septic design and approval to Kim and you can forward it on to Jennifer if you would like to. As far as the ownership, it's been owned since 71 by the current owners. So, the ownership has been— [00:52:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** That doesn't address the question if there was any time from them till now that adjacent parcels could have been combined into that a buildable lot. [00:52:50] **Daniel Hill:** I think they've owned all the adjacent parcels since the 70s. So, I don't think there's any opportunity to combine them. You guys have not owned—When did you guys buy? So, yes. [00:53:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, John, you had something to say? [00:53:06] **Council Member John Rog:** No, I mean when I—when I hear Jennifer's presentation, it seems—it seems as though um she has dug in a lot about what—what is buildable and what is not. And um you know when we look for things that we would like to know, we lean on our planner and—and I would believe what our planner has put together for us this evening. [00:53:30] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Any other comments? Greg, you've been kind of quiet here. [00:53:33] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I'm just kind of taking it. I—my question would be... I'm still not resolved in my mind: was this a lot before 68 or not? I mean Jennifer couldn't find that it was not. We heard tonight that maybe it was. Um, the—the picture in the back I don't think is conclusive to me. Yes, those are the dates that the owner recited, but I don't—I think we're missing some of the information on that deed. So, in my mind, I'm not completely clear on what side of the fence on it. With this septic information now coming in, I—I don't know if I'm clear on what the—what the direction should be in my mind. [00:54:10] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** No, we—we can't go into back and forth here. All right. Um, so would anyone like to make a motion and how to proceed with this? [00:54:20] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I have a question first, Mr. Mayor. [00:54:22] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. [00:54:23] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** So, just for our understanding as this is more complicated than—than usual, you know, as right now as I read the—the thing that was mentioned in the public comment by the current owner that it could have been platted, but that's very unclear. And how do we rectify that or understand what's what in that situation? Because I don't think as far as I understand it, the onus is not on you to clarify that. It's on the owner. So as I see it, like nothing's been determined to actually say that this is something that is—was ever deemed buildable. Am I correct in that assumption? [00:55:05] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, you—we've heard some information this evening that is um well, it's—it's new information or additional information to help clarify um maybe the history of the parcel um and how it was or wasn't created. But we do not have the documentation that shows it. So, likewise the septic information for whatever reason was not submitted with this specific application but it sounds like may—may exist. [00:55:40] So, what I would say is that we are certainly within the timeline that we could ask for that supplemental information to be provided um and table it this evening so that we actually can review it. It's very difficult to try to review those documents on the fly and confirm how it fits with a timing perspective. And especially, you know, the excerpts from the abstract that were provided were very unclear in terms of how or when the parcel may have been created. So, it sounds like that information may be valuable for us to understand. And it's just very difficult for myself or the attorney to make that determination reviewing it in 15-20 seconds as we're up here. So, hopefully that helps. I—I do believe that it sounds like there might be additional information that would be helpful in the analysis. [00:56:40] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Looking at our ordinances, we have it: existing lots of record exemptions. And it indicates if this lot or parcel was created in accordance with the city at the time lot was created that was at least 2.5 acres in size, there would be an exemption. So I'm trying to rectify the... if it was already a parcel at that time in 1968, how would that impact our analysis? Because just looking at our city ordinances, we had already created this 2.5-acre exemption I believe in the—regardless of whether it was platted or not. [00:57:20] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** The exemption would allow someone to proceed without any variances provided they can meet the other dimensional standards. So if they met that exemption of 2 and a half acres and can meet the other dimensional standards, they would not be required to come before you for any sort of variance. [00:57:40] So I guess from my—my question is more so: how does—how does the fact if it has been platted before 1968 or not... how would that impact our analysis? Is it still the same? It just goes through the variance process and we still—it is still a variance from the standards regardless of the size and so that because it is below that exemption standard of the two and a half acres. So as a result, it's just basis or findings associated with whether or not you approve or deny the variance requests that are before you. [00:58:20] So obviously when we do the variance analysis, we like to have as much and complete information as possible to create the findings associated with whether or not you approve or deny it. In this case, we—it sounds like we're missing some information that regardless of whether you recommend—or whether you approve or deny it, those findings may be or that—those facts, excuse me, may be helpful to you making your findings one way or the other. If they do not, you certainly could be in a position to make a decision this evening, right? [00:58:50] Because I mean just looking at it regardless if it was a plat or not before 1968, I think that really kind of just goes into what the possible purpose of this lot might have been, right, when they created it? Because... and that's—Yeah. Yeah. Right now... Yes. Because like looking at it right now like you indicated, you know they could have created and like what we heard during public comment is that perhaps this plot—regardless of when it was created—wasn't ever created to create a home. It was just created by this individual and he gave it away or sold it to this individual. He just simply did. And it sounded like there were discussions about building a house on it and it was something that sounded like was not their intention at that time. [00:59:40] Also could—I want to make one clarification. The lot has not been platted regardless of... because that's been mentioned a couple times. The lot is described through meets and and bounds, but it's not part of a platted subdivision. So, it—it was created. We know that we've got this description. The meets and bounds description is there, but the—it has not been platted. So, I only bring that up because we do have platted subdivisions where you have the typical lot configuration. And that usually comes along with the development agreement that specifically defines which lots are buildable, etc. This lot does not have that condition. So, just for the record, it—it's described through meets and bounds. It was likely some kind of simple lot split at the time. But it is not a platted lot. So, just for the record. [01:00:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And there's no other documentation to suggest that there was a variance created from the 1968 standard either. [01:00:50] **City Planner Jennifer Swanson:** Not—not that's been provided. No. [01:00:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, to me, that's the crux of the—the situation here. I mean, the—the septic information... I mean, I don't know if that would change my mind from what we just talked about. The fact that there's no document to say that this house was ever deemed—this lot was ever deemed buildable, wasn't platted, there's no variance. Question? No, no. Um, can we have Amanda back on? [01:01:25] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** Can you hear me? [01:01:26] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yes. Amanda, could you speak to what I just said in terms of—of making a decision if—if there is no proof that this lot was ever buildable? Does it even make sense to talk about septic permits? [01:01:45] **City Attorney Amanda Johnson:** Council, potentially it would be advantageous to give the applicant the opportunity to put forth whatever they want to on the record so that council is making a decision based on a full and complete record. That said, that does not mean that the septic is going to change the ultimate decision that council makes because it really goes back to that practical difficulties test that you have to ask yourself, which is, you know, the... if—if the use of the property is reasonable. If—and it—and it cannot be accomplished under the current code, which it can't be accomplished under the current code. So is it reasonable for that property to be built as a single-family residence? The second thing is: is the need for this variance—is that due to something unique about the property? And then you know, has the property owner caused that situation or have they not caused that situation? And then the third thing being really this essential character. So by approving this variance, does that change the or alter the essential character of the neighborhood? And if you can't get through all three of those tests essentially or pieces to the test, the septic system is sort of a moot point. [01:03:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Thank you for answering my question. Does that answer everyone else's questions? Ready for a motion? We got—Go ahead, John. [01:03:10] **Council Member John Rog:** I will move to deny. [01:03:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** A motion to deny. Do we have a second? [01:03:15] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** A second. [01:03:16] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Sorry. Point of order. [01:03:18] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah. [01:03:19] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** So, could we clarify the findings for for that—the motion to deny? So, and—and what I would be looking for, what—what Jennifer would be looking for is simply to say based on the findings in the staff report, if those are the findings. If you have different ones, certainly please by all means lay those out on the record. [01:03:40] **Council Member John Rog:** Based on the findings of the—the planner report, I move to deny. [01:03:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Can I do a friendly amendment? As well as the information we received tonight of the documentation, as well as the information we heard orally at public comment, as well as from the applicant and the owner, as well as the information we heard via Jennifer that she received in the email. [01:04:05] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Council member Cornett, the second of the motion, you need to agree to that. Both of you need to agree. [01:04:10] **Council Member John Rog:** Agreed. [01:04:11] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Friendly. [01:04:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And can I get clarification? It was the—the findings in the staff report as well as everything that was heard this evening. Heard this evening. Based and received this evening. Okay. All right. So, we're ready. Council member Cornett. [01:04:30] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** Aye. [01:04:31] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Rog. [01:04:32] **Council Member John Rog:** Aye. [01:04:33] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cremona. [01:04:34] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Aye. [01:04:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Anderson. [01:04:36] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Nay. [01:04:37] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Mayor Giefer. Aye. Okay. City Attorney, we don't have any items from our City Attorney. I don't believe so. Chairman, do we have anything for you? Nope. Okay. Um, new business: consideration of February 4th, 2025 city council meeting minutes. Council Member Anderson will need to abstain. Can I get a motion to approve the February 4, 2025 city council meeting minutes? [01:05:10] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Move to approve. [01:05:11] **Council Member John Rog:** A second. [01:05:12] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Abstain. Mayor Giefer. Aye. [01:05:25] Next, new business: consideration of 2025 appointment list revision. Um, last meeting we agreed to add Jeff Schaefer to the 2025 appointment list. I make that motion. Uh, specifically as fire marshal, excuse me. Um, can I get a second? [01:05:45] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** A second. [01:05:46] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Oh, you're moving. Okay, I'll—Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Aye. Mayor Giefer. Aye. [01:05:55] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** I—I will just note Mayor and Council members, the—on for the appointment list it was kind of supposed to be part of the motion... the webmaster Hogan, they've kind of reorganized and it's PageCraft now, so I'd like to make that change as long as we're making the additional changes. [01:06:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay, can—can do we need to do the re—redo the motion? Sure, why not, let's just do it. All right, we'll just redo the motion. Oh no, no, just do another motion for PageCraft. [01:06:25] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Oh, PageCraft. Okay. I'll make—I'll make a motion to do what Kim just said for the webmaster. PageCraft. [01:06:35] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** I'll second. [01:06:36] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Aye. Mayor Giefer. Aye. Thank you. Next item, consideration of community event. Um, this agenda item was added at the request of council member Rog subsequent to our last February meeting. Um, I didn't see any new information in the packet from when council last talked about it last year. [01:07:05] So, before I turn it over to you, John, I'll just give a bit of a history on the topic for the new members and to refresh our current members. So, in the July 2024 meeting, a motion was made to discuss um a community event in the 2020 August 2024 meeting with more information from John. And then in the August 2024 meeting, council member Carr moved to withdraw the consideration of community event. And that was based on, I think, you telling Tom that you wouldn't have time to put together anything and you were on vacation. So, at that time, we—we tabled it for 2024 to revisit it. And I think that brings us to where we're here now. [01:07:55] But one other thing: in the budget meeting we had in September 3rd, the council agreed on a budget of 8,000 for a potential 2025 community event with the understanding that we are not obligating ourselves to use any or all of it, but we just want to budget it for potential future use. So, that being said, John, I'll turn it over to you and you can—you can share with the—the council what you'd like to discuss and consider. [01:08:25] **Council Member John Rog:** Thank you. So, when we were discussing this last year, we were hoping to—we—we had a tractor parade many years ago. It's been about five years now that we haven't had anything. It wasn't sponsored by the city of Grant. And so when we think about things that you know the city really did a lot with and a big city turnout... and going through the guest house, which they have said that they would supply food and you know for for a reasonable price and parking across the street as we used to for the tractors. And so in doing this, we were hoping to do a tractor parade as we used to. I don't know if anybody remembers these things, but there were sometimes big turnouts and it was a nice thing to do. [01:09:15] So that's what I'm proposing to do a little sooner this year as opposed to last year when we were scrambling. Um, but trying to get people to help out and in—in in trying to think about what we could do differently. Um, we were hoping to get something—maybe something that Amanda would craft that would say, you know, "by registering through a website or something online where you could say, you know, if you want to be in the—register for the tribe to pray, click here." Then you have this waiver perhaps and then you get a—you register online and so we have a count of people that will citizens Grant specifically that would register and then we'd have a very accurate count as opposed to I think when we used to do it you would you know go there at 10:30 register and then you know however many people were there where people were there and then it's a—it's a crapshoot on food. So, we're trying to do a little better job this year. And I don't know how many people would show up. I don't know if it's 50, 100, or 200. I have no idea. So, that's why we'd like to pre-register people and—and do it a little differently this year. Um, so, that's my—that's my proposal, I guess, or idea. [01:10:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** That does sound like a proposal. It does not sound like a plan, right? Yeah. It's—it's—it's not. I mean, I just kind of went trying to figure out what we could do differently. And the pre-registration thing came up. Now, I don't know if Kim—is that something that is reasonable to do to pre-register? [01:11:10] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Yeah. Oh, yeah. Okay. [01:11:11] **Council Member John Rog:** Is that something that's a lot of work to do or is that something that's, you know, you just click a couple things on the website by PageCraft it is now? [01:11:20] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Oh, no. That we discussed prior to the meeting: there would be a notice on the front of the website that a notice to register and here's a—here's a link to email John Rog and here's a to register and here's a waiver. But I guess again that's wasn't kind of the detail that I didn't anticipate this agenda item to be a working session to formulate a plan. [01:11:45] **Council Member John Rog:** Right. No, no, this will be outside of this. I'm just trying to get somebody to think about something different: registering and then you know should we do a parade like this again going forward for 2025? [01:12:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I would like to start with there... like, I—I think the sentiment of a community event um is good but I think we really need to think it out because when I think of a community event, I feel it should be planned, organized and executed by members of the community. To me, that's where you get the real value of people working together to bring your community together. That's for the—for a good cause, right? That's to me a community event. Um, what I don't think is a community event is writing a check and handing [it] to a business and say, "Here, do all this stuff for us." [01:12:35] And so, and personally, any community event that I've ever experienced has been that the—the local elected officials, local volunteers, everyone working together. And if we were to try to jump into something that we did before—the something like the tractor parade—that started back in January when they had a team of 12 to 15 people on there. So there's a—there's a lot of work to even put together a plan I think before we could even find out a list of volunteers who's going to do what when they're going to do it. [01:13:10] So, I would like to see us do a proof of concept and start small, John, and maybe work up to a tractor parade if that's what we want to go. I think there's a lot of things that we could do that um we would be able to do with very little money and see how many people get um to to turn up. Like currently, right now with our city cleanup day, we have a hard time getting um elected officials to show up. In the past eight years, I think I—I've been the only council member other than Bob Tuite and member Schaefer and Mr. Schaefer and then Mayor Giefer. And so I think we need to walk before we can run. And so, um, that's just my—my thoughts here. And so, um, you know, John, you're welcome to um you know put together a plan and present it, but right now, there's really not much for the council to decide on. [01:14:15] **Council Member John Rog:** Oh, no. There isn't a decision tonight I'm looking for. I'm just saying that there is a... um, this is what we had talked about last year, but we didn't have the volunteers to help. And so, obviously, that was our biggest problem. You can't—you can't run something—a community event—with four people, maybe six, and that's all we had. And that was—that's virtually impossible. So, we would have to have, you know, the 15-20 people to—to help. Just impossible to run any of that. [01:14:45] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** And that's—and that's what I think you would need commitments from before you even share that plan with the council. That being said, um you know, starting— [01:15:00] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** I'm going to jump in, Mr. Mayor and Council members, and I do apologize. It was my understanding it was to take action tonight. That's what agenda items are. So, I must have misunderstood you, Council Member Rog. I thought it was to be put on the agenda to make a decision. That's what I thought. [01:15:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Um, were you—were you intending it just to um kind of do a reset with all the new council members just to gauge interest in the council and a community event and what kind of community event the council might be interested? Was that your intent? [01:15:30] **Council Member John Rog:** The intent was to talk about a tractor to parade as we had talked last year. [01:15:35] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** A tractor parade specifically. [01:15:37] **Council Member John Rog:** Specifically. Yes. [01:15:40] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. [01:15:41] **Council Member John Rog:** So, if it's—if it's—unfortunately for the events that we have... the—the cleanup days... those Saturdays I—I am a um trap coach and we shoot Saturdays. So, I am never going to be available for those events until after June. So, that's why I propose in September. [01:16:05] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** So you indicated that we obviously need—I mean I've talked to—you know in the process of running for this position talked about community events. It does seem like our community is very interested in having some event. I think there was this nostalgia of in the past we had this tractor parade. It was great. We'd love to do something again. Um do you have any right now—is there like a list of people who are interested in—in doing this so that we could move ahead or I mean where are we at on the volunteer piece I guess is my question. [01:16:40] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah the—this is kind of why I'm talking about it so that we can get some volunteers from the city who have indicated that they want to do more for the city. And this is something that I think I would like to elicit some—some people from the city to help out. Um, whatever committed event we do, if it is a track parade, great. If it's something else, that's fine, too. [01:17:05] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** But um I'll—I'll be if you—have a plan before me, I'll be glad to review the plan and make a commitment to volunteer, but I can't volunteer to something I don't know anything about. But I do, as Lindsay said, I do like the—the sentiment is out there. Um I—I talked to quite a few people my—my campaign as well, roughly 40% were people like, "Yes, um I'm in favor of this." The rest were like, "No," or they're agnostic. And then um when I pulled the people that were interested of the 40% if they're interested in—in volunteering, not so many people were interested in volunteering. [01:17:50] So I do think there's enough numbers out there that would participate, but it's I think the challenge is getting to people to volunteer and put in the work because talking with the people that sponsored the tractor pray in the past and it sounds like, John, you want to emulate that. That was a significant amount of work. They had 12 to 14 volunteers basically starting on—in January if I remember correctly. So that's why I'm suggesting if—if we can get some other ideas perhaps maybe to to start smaller proof-of-concept things like some things I heard from talking residents where a chili cook-off in the fall, outdoor games on the city lot right here like bags—or you know the cornhole bag or—or things like that. Maybe a dunk tank in the summer. You know, I mean, who wouldn't want to spend a couple bucks to get the council member and mayor's wet, right? Farmers market... you know, there's a lot of different things I think we could do. [01:18:55] And and even within the parade concept, we could start small with that. We could maybe have a one-way parade that begins at City Hall and ends at the Guest House, which I heard recently was a suggestion, or maybe a stationary parade/car show where logistically it would be a lot easier to—to implement with much fewer volunteers and give us something to build on. Just throwing some of the— [01:19:25] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Mr. Mayor, Council members, I will note that that is—I've heard that repeatedly—that residents would be interested in setting up a little farmers market out here. And that wouldn't be city sponsored. It would just be on city property. Pick a day, advertise it, people come up and set up their little tables and sell their honey or whatever it is else they're making. And, you know, start there. And again, that—it wouldn't be city sponsored. It wouldn't cost the city any money. [01:20:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** As you guys probably know, I love that idea. That's something I've talked about a lot in my campaign is doing something like that. And the only thing about like the current proposal or about the Gastoff is having it just limited to 200 using you know taxpayer funds. We'd want to find a way that we wouldn't limit who can attend. We'd want to make sure everyone's welcome to attend. And I'd love to have a situation where you know 201 people want to come. So I think whatever we do we want to make sure that it's conducive that all of our residents are welcome to attend because we're using their money and they're—they should be able to enjoy that. [01:20:45] **Council Member John Rog:** That's a good point and I'm really hopeful that more than 200 people have want to come to this just because it has been a while since our city has done anything and I think the interest is out there that people want to connect. [01:21:00] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yeah, agreed. [01:21:01] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Greg, do you have any—any thoughts to share on this? [01:21:04] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Uh, not too much new. I enjoyed the tractor parade every year it went by. I never went down to the Guest House to the end of it. I always just enjoyed it going by both ways. Um, I do miss that event thing, but I—I kind of agree with the mayor that maybe something here, whatever it is, as—as the start. I mean, I can't imagine the logistics to get something like that pulled off for that parade. So, I definitely would be in support of something and maybe we do start here. [01:21:40] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Mr. Mayor, Council members, I'm going to just throw in there as well that um it has been brought up to me maybe perhaps the fairness of throwing a bunch of dollars at—at one business as opposed to having a golf tournament at Indian Hills. Um you do have other businesses here and— [01:22:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yeah and—and potentially um that money that we have budgeted, it was a significant amount of money and um if we were not to use that at all or in portion for a community event this year, we could use it perhaps to um maybe partner with the local community to put in some improvements in the ball field to make it um more suitable for a wider variety of uses, which would be actually a sustainable thing. That would go beyond just one year and provide benefit for future. That's just another thing to think of. Ben, you've been... do you have anything to say? [01:22:45] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** No, it just sounds like um you know, we—depending on what John, we can either table it for, you know, a later date with the plan or... and I know that I came in at the end last where we got tabled a few times and that happened. But as it right stands right now as we're talking about this, the thing that makes most sense to me is just to table it. If you agree, John, and you know, we can— [01:23:15] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah, it's fine. [01:23:17] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, okay. So, we table—tabling. So, what does tabling mean? Let's just try to be clear in that just so John has some—some proper understanding of um what the council's thinking and vice-versa. So, John, what do you—what do you think for next steps? [01:23:35] **Council Member John Rog:** Um, well, if I can, you know, we can get some residents that would like to um volunteer and can get some more information as to what the Guest House is and dates or whatever then you know maybe we can move forward but until I have a lot more information um and volunteers there's really nothing I can do. [01:23:55] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, um, would you—so, are you firm on the tractor pray or like would you be open to other things starting small or you want to wait to see how many volunteers you can get before you— [01:24:10] **Council Member John Rog:** Um, you know, I—I guess if—if we hear from volunteers as to what event they would like to say or see. [01:24:20] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Um, perhaps—perhaps if residents would like to—to—to put something on the website or even you know email me or call me you know that's fine too just—just to see what you're interested in you know what—what you're—what you're thinking you know is it—is it a cornhole tournament is it a tractor parade is it something in between so you know if you want to call me or email me that would be great or Kim obviously... maybe Kim is the best conduit? [01:24:50] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** No. Council members, then I would suggest you table this for now to get—obtain more information and then I would announce to residents that you would like them to email John's city email and ask them what they would like to see for a community event and if they might be willing to volunteer. Depending on what you do though, that... let's say you did a farmers market, you don't need any volunteers. [01:25:20] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Could we also like put something on the website saying that um we're trying to determine interest in a community event and—and just like you said, get input, but also have it on the—on the website so people could see it. That I think would help John get more eyes on it. [01:25:40] **Council Member John Rog:** Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. [01:25:42] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** So, let's have a motion to table for now. [01:25:45] **Council Member John Rog:** Motion to table and then second. [01:25:46] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Aye. Mayor Giefer. Aye. [01:26:00] Getting towards the end here. Um, regarding the—and Kim, you might have already had this in your notes, too, but regarding the future agenda items of recording public comment and discussion of potential um reconstitution of the planning commission... um, Kim, I believe you would like some input from the council if we'd prefer to have these discussions in work session or part of a regular meeting agenda. And if I'm understanding correctly, the main difference is um if we anticipate—what? Sorry, what? You were shaking your head. [01:26:40] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** No, the reason I—I was going to ask the council about having a work session prior to the next meeting, which is what we're—gosh we're going to be May for goodness sakes—for an hour prior to the meeting is just because I think that's going to take more discussion and quite honestly the—the discussion we just had that should have been in a work session as well. It shouldn't have been on the agenda because it's just decide—or just discussing things now. It's not talking—Now that being said, if you guys want to set up a work session, it's more informal. We can talk about public comment, the planning commission, and/or we can do it on the next agenda during a meeting if you would like. We don't have much for next agenda. So I—at this point that could change. [01:27:30] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** If we do it during a work session, can we kind of—can we then put it on the agenda or no? [01:27:35] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** You would have to like whatever we decide at the work session, we wouldn't get to—we would do a month to act on it. Correct. So we would act on it... we have months to act on it. Yeah. Timing. Correct. If we made a decision, we're like, "Okay, this is where we're at on the planning commission." We can't make a decision in May. We'd make—the earliest we'd have a decision is in June when we vote on it when it's on the agenda. Correct. If there is a decision. Yes. Okay, cool. Just want to make sure on timing because at this point there's nothing on the table. Correct. Yes. But yes, it would—it could be on the next agenda. Correct. [01:28:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** I think it makes sense to do a work session. And those things are like meatier topics and so then that way we have enough time to discuss it and you know we can get public comment if necessary later go from there and it also I think frees up staff time right because Kim um we won't need Jennifer and— [01:28:40] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Correct—Brad and Nick and— [01:28:42] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. So, your next meeting is Tuesday, May 6, and we could schedule um if you want an hour. Forgot we need at 6. Well, you think we'll need an hour for—we'll probably need an hour for each topic or what? What do you think? Or do it both in one? [01:29:00] **Council Member John Rog:** I—I'm thinking a half hour for each. [01:29:05] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Okay. So, that would be a 5:30 start. That makes sense to me. [01:29:10] **Council Member Ben Cornett:** To me. [01:29:11] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** Okay. So, I will get that posted. Thank you. [01:29:15] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Okay. Um, I don't have any more updates. Okay. I don't have anything more under new business. Unfinished business: nothing. Um, discussion items: nothing from staff. Um, city council reports: nothing. Um, looks like we're to the community calendar. would—would like to read it. [01:29:45] **City Administrator Kristina Handt:** I will just note before you do the community calendar because we only do it for the month: Cleanup Day is May 3rd, 9 till noon out here and that is already posted on the website. [01:30:00] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Yep. Um, I'll be here of course. Will anybody else be able to join me? [01:30:05] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** I got on my calendar. [01:30:06] **Council Member John Rog:** On my calendar. [01:30:07] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** I will not. [01:30:08] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** All the contractors typically come out and help unload garbage from residents... cars and pickups. It's really a good opportunity to—aside from campaign season—it's a good opportunity to talk to as many residents as possible. Um, a lot of them are just concerned about dumping their trash with us. Some of them will take the opportunity to share their feedback with you. So, um, Ben, are you good? Nothing. Nothing new. Okay. Yes, ma'am. All right. So, calendar. Community calendar. I think we should pick on the new guy. [01:30:45] **Council Member Lindsay Cremona:** Yeah, I think so, too. [01:30:47] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Are you ready for this challenge? [01:30:48] **Council Member Greg Anderson:** Uh, the community calendar. Read the community calendar. I can do that. Go for it. All right. Mahtomedi Public School Board Meeting, Thursday, April 10th. Then April 24th at the Mahtomedi District Education Center at 7 p.m. Stillwater Public Schools Board Meeting Thursday, April 10th, Stillwater City Hall, 7 p.m. And the Washington County Board of Commissioners meeting Tuesdays at the Government Center at 9:00 a.m. [01:31:25] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Move to adjourn. [01:31:26] **Council Member John Rog:** No second. [01:31:27] **Mayor Jeff Giefer:** Council member Cornett. Aye. Council member Rog. Aye. Council member Cremona. Aye. Council member Anderson. Aye. Mayor Giefer. Aye. Thank you. Thank you everyone.