All right, I have 7 o'clock. We will call the White Bear Township Town Board meeting for June 16, 2025 to order. First item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda. Patrick, we have any changes? Uh, no. No changes from staff. Mr. Sir, I would recommend we move open time up to between 8 and 9 so when we go into close session with our attorney, we can uh clear the room. Good plan. Uh board of any adjustments to the agenda. I do not I don't move to approve the amended agenda. A second. All in favor say I. All opposed. All right. Item three is approval of payment of the bills. Sign off. I signed off. Move to approve payment of the bills. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Item four is approval of prior minute meetings. This is from June 2nd, 2025. Anybody have any changes or corrections? Um I do. Um and the consent agenda uh item, let's see, 5B, the location for the June executive meeting. Um it says basically uh they're going to move the to the old town hall at 1279 Hammond Road and rescheduled to the week before June 20th. And I believe that to mean on June 20th versus the week before June 20th. Correct. So make that a small correction. Outside of that, I saw nothing else. I'll move to approve that with that slight uh change. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. Item five is a consent agenda. There are only three of them. Uh board want to pull any or are we good with them? I'm good. I'm fine. All right. I need a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve um items A, 5, A, B, and C on the consent agenda. Is there a second? I'll second that. All in favor? I I. All right. Moving on. Item six is old business is the public safety commission recommendation for Stillwater Street and Bald Eagle Avenue. Uh Patrick, you gonna do this? Sure. So, the safety commission's I I believe it was the May meeting um requested data for accidents um at this intersection and there have been significant accidents at that intersection. Um and based upon the the data that RCSO provided the commission uh they have decided to request that the township board because it's a county road through there that the township board um request from Ramsey County that that be made a four-way stop at Still Water in Bald Eagle. Beth, did I summarize that? Okay, I think you did. Okay. So we are looking for that motion from you this evening. Steve, any questions or comments? Well, the comment that I'll make is you, you know, I thought about whether there should be the first step, you know, slow signs, but I do not believe that that is going to have any effect because it's right before the school and the observations I've made personally is a four-way stop is the best. Traffic flows through there pretty fast. Yeah. Yep. And it's really a change due to the school. Oh, no. Outside of that, so if there is a recommendation to go to the county board, remember it's in their hands at that point. Right. But we will along with whatever uh decision the board makes this evening, we will send along um the data that they shared with us just to let them know where we're coming from. But they can't share the near misses and there's plenty of them. Yeah. Anecdotally, you're correct. Yep. Yeah. All right, Beth. So, you are at the Public Safety Commission. Anything else to add? Otherwise, Nope. I'm really in favor of this. Is that a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the uh request for a stop sign at Still Water Street and Bald Eagle Avenue. A second. That's a four-way stop, correct? Make it a four-way stop. I'll second that. All right. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. That motion carries. Thank you, board. All right. Item seven, uh, first one is its public hearing for Central Road Park 35E. I need a motion to wave the reading. I'll make a motion to wave the reading that was properly published. I'll second. Motion made a second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Then I need a motion to open up the public hearing. I'll move to open the public hearing. Have a second. Second. All in favor? I. I. All right. Uh, CJ, you going to handle this? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Tonight we have an application for three separate items regarding the park 35E major subdivision phase 2. The first is a preliminary plat. This is a preliminary plat rather than a final because there are lot line adjustments which means they need to start at preliminary plat once again for phase two. A permitted use standards permit. The building is proposed to be warehouse and office similar to building number one. and a conditional use permit um called limited outside storage. This use is always um applied for with a permitted use. So limited outside storage cannot be its own use. However, it is with the warehouse and office. Um, as we've discussed in meetings past, this site is located in the northwest um, space in the township between Centerville Road and Interstate 35E. three undeveloped lots which after the recent phase 1 subdivision approval um they are now at addressed 5310 Centerville Road, 5200 Centerville Road and 5124 Centerville Road. It is still the light industrial zoning district. approved in phase one was lot one with one building, outlot A with two future buildings shown, outlot C with one future building shown, and then outlaw B, which is a vacant um drainage area and wetland. Also approved in phase one was a trail and a landscaping plan both to be constructed during development of lot one and building one as well as the Centerville Road turn lanes. The proposal before you includes lot one which was previously approved. Um no changes to that lot. However, proposed lot two, which was formerly called outlot A, is changed to be 17 acres with one building at just over 100,000 square feet, including that conservation easement and wetland on the northwest corner. Outlet C will be 8.95 acres and left vacant for the time being. They show a future building at nearly 1,00 150,000 square ft. outlop remains vacant as a drainage area in a wetland. The exterior rendering which we saw at the previous town board meeting um is still accurate with the um green and the different beige colors there. This is onlooking from the northeast corner of the property. They also submitted a new landscaping plan. Proposed lot 2 does meet the requirements for landscaping. They are showing 50 coniferous trees, 44 deciduous trees, 35 ornamentals, and 147 shrubs. The additional trees are shown around the trail um on top of the retaining wall and below the retaining wall. Shrubs are shown lining the proposed building too. Trees are also shown surrounding this parking lot, which is new for this phase of development, as well as trees surrounding the drive lanes here. A landscape rendering was submitted and reviewed by the planning commission in addition to um you all tonight. Just shows a little bit better where those trees are. It's on the screen in front of you and included in your packet. The trail is that was approved in phase one is still in the same location. Um this shows where it'll be in relation to the newly proposed building. The grading utility and erosion control plans were also submitted and reviewed by staff. In addition to the preliminary plat um there is also a application for a permitted use standards permit. So zoning ordinance section 9 9 3.4 includes those standards for all permitted uses which you're familiar with. Um as with the approval of any permitted use standards permit um you're also adopting those standards that are in section 9-3.4. The application for office and warehouse um is permitted in the industrial district. There are no concerns with parking on the lot nor setbacks or impervious surface coverage. Those are all met. And the third request tonight is a conditional use permit. Those criteria are listed in section 9-4 of the zoning ordinance. The application is for limited outside storage to store trailers, which would be semi-truck trailers within the parking lot south of proposed building 2. Outdoor storage and limited outside storage are both defined in the ordinance and it's important to look at both of them because they kind of work together to understand why this is necessary. Outdoor storage is defined as the keeping in an unroofed area of any goods, junk, material, merchandise or vehicles in the same place for more than 24 hours. The use limited outside storage is defined as raw materials or finished product stored outside of a light industrial building not to exceed 3% of the site and must be screened with 100% opaque fence constructed of material which complements the building. Material shall not be stacked so it exceeds the height of the fence. Fencing shall be complemented with landscaping. So the applicant is proposing semi-truck trailer storage. Um, and they don't, the applicants have stated that they don't anticipate this would be all the time. This is for those cases when a truck may need to be left overnight uh for a single night or over a weekend um before or after loading. And that's what this parking area would be for. It would be for um overnight trailer storage as well as queuing for the loading docks that are attached to the building. The planning commission did review this request and discussed the um opaque fencing and where it would be located. It was discussed that it would be located where this red line that I added is shown here. I will zoom in so you can actually see it. The ordinance does not require that it be completely enclosed the trailer storage. However, it does need to be be there for screening from adjacent properties. It's proposed in this location due to the proposed building blocking some of the northern properties as well as the burm blocking uh visuals from the interstate. So this fencing location would uh block the sight line from the properties in the north west to the northwest of the subject property. So the fence must be tall enough to completely cover the materials or the vehicles being stored there. So the applicant would be required to make it as tall as whatever trucks are parked there. Um, and it would have to be 100% opaque fence based on the definition. Um, I'm not sure of the proposed material at this time. You could ask the applicant. Um, as a condition, it would have to be complimentary to the to the building itself. Um, per the definition. Um, but that'd be a good question for the applicant. included in the conditional use. Storage is only allowed on 3% of the site where it is permitted. Um that would mean 3% of the entire park 35E site. So including lots one to um and outlot C and B and that does meet this. I believe this is at somewhere around like 2.6 2.62% of the development would be for this storage. the applicant would be required to um keep it to 3%. So even if the proposed third building is developed, they cannot exceed the 3% of storage. So that third tenant or however many tenants are in that third building, they would likely not be able to do additional outdoor storage like this or any other materials. There are three actions for the board to take tonight. The first is on the preliminary plat request for the major subdivision. You can approve the request with justification and with conditions. Deny the request or table it for any further review or study. The second action is for the permitted use standards permit for office and warehousing. can approve the request, deny it with findings, or table the request for further review and study. And action three is regarding the conditional use permit for limited outdoor storage um outside storage, excuse me. You may approve with conditions um or without conditions, deny with findings for denial, or table the request for further study. Now, these materials have been distributed to staff um and staff comments have been received. Uh, the Vadness Lake Area Watershed Management Organization has reviewed the request and has no comments. The city of North Oaks has reviewed the materials but has not provided comments at this time. The fire department, the city of Wiper Lake Fire Department has reviewed and provides the following comments. They state areas planned for snow storage shall have signs posted stating no snow storage here in the location of fire hydrants. That would not be something that would prohibit any action tonight. However, it is a comment for the um applicants to note. As well as all new fire hydrants shall have a 5 in stores permanently mounted for large diameter port. The other two smaller 2.5 in connect shall remain national hose tread. Um and that would all be approved with an inspection and building permits. The building inspector reviewed the materials um with no comments at this time. Engineering and public work staff also reviewed the request and provided um provided comments to the applicant with a memo dated 61125. That was provided to the applicant. They have received that. And lastly, Ramsey County and the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Mandot, have both received the materials and were reminded of the request. Um, they did get back to me, so they've seen it, but I haven't received comments from either party, the county nor the state. And finally for recommendation on the three actions, um the planning commission reviewed the request and recommends approval of the preliminary plat with the conditions um regarding the conditional use permit that an opaque fence shall be shown on the site plan um to screen from adjacent properties to the northwest. No more than 3% of the total park 35e subdivision area is to be used for limited outside storage. The preliminary plat for park 35E shall be approved subject to revisions as noted in staff comments memo dated 52125 and 61125. The applicant shall enter into a development agreement with the township as part of the final plat application. all phase one. Um, this is an addition that I would recommend um, based on staff conversation following when we publish the materials. I would recommend adding that all phase one elements included in the 519 town board approval of phase one shall be resolved as well. In addition, they the applicant shall acquire all local, county, state, and federal permits for the request. For the permitted use standards permit, the planning commission recommends approval of the request for office, warehouse, and warehousing. And for the conditional use permit, the planning commission also recommends approval of the request with the similar conditions requiring that opaque fencing be being shown to screen from the adjacent properties to the northwest. No more than 3% of the total subdivision area is to be used for this storage. The owner and applicant shall execute a private restriction on all lots within the site to ensure any future development does not exceed 3% of that storage access across the entire proposed development. The proposed use shall have no negative impacts of noise, glare, or odor effects on adjacent properties. And the proposed use shall abide by all township ordinances, including the nuisance ordinance, as amended from time to time. Resolutions for approval have been drafted and are included in the staff packet tonight. If the board wishes to deny any of these requests, um, a resolution will need to be drafted following the board meeting. If the board would like to table any of these requests, um staff should be directed on what items to review or request. Thank you for letting me give my spiel. Do you have any questions? Steve, you're at the planning commission. I I was uh for the uh conditional use permit parking lot. The lighting that needs to be there is it's going to be similar to the lighting uh as proposed throughout this development. So, no additional lighting, security lighting of any kind. Um, I don't I don't believe so. That's a good question for the applicant. They did ask they did submit lighting plans, though. Okay. Does that include down lighting on the buildings and Yes. in Yes, they have um stated that they've reduced the amount of lighting that they originally showed in order to um reduce the effects on the neighbors. So, I believe it's changed slightly, but again, the applicants can um and maybe you said it, maybe you did not on the opaque fencing areas. Um it's kind of u on the south side along the west side and a little bit of the north side, so it covers the corner of the building so that the houses that kind of down the hill there, they are okay covered. Uh, was there landscaping on that side of the opaque fencing also? I don't Yes. Um, I have zoomed in to a very blurry version, but I couldn't really say. He said yes. The applicant said yes along the opaque fencing. Okay. Then yes, there is there. We'll have just double check for the record when you're up here. I thought so. So, it'll be fencing plus landscaping. Yes. Along there. Okay. Anything else? No. No. The only thing that I had a real I would like to know what the material is for the opaque fencing if I could know that. And then you had some selections on your landscape plan um that I would suggest you might want to rethink. One of the choices was actually cited as um do not plant by a couple of arboritums and I think that needs to be reworked a bit. So I'd ask that you we take a look at your landscape plan and I'd like to know the material if you could show me a sample of it for the screening. CJ. Um, is that all yet so far? Yeah. Okay. CJ, you got uh I don't know. Is there a monument sign location on this plan? There's not one shown. They the applicant would need to get all the proper sign permits and go through another um application process. Okay. Well, we want to make sure that that's on there. So, it's identifying White Bear Township. Also, um are these maybe a question for the applicant again. Are these buildings rooftop mechanical and is that screened or is it on the ground screened? Um, could you ask that question again? Rooftop mechanical? I'm not familiar. Well, usually the mechanical for the building is either on the on the roof or on the ground. Um, I noticed the applicant is raising their hand and would be happy to share during open talk. All right. Sorry. And I think um obvious questions for the applicant. All right. Is there any other questions of staff from the board? at this at I'll just ask again. I read a lot of material to read through here. Yes. Have have they met all the requirements or is there open items that need to be addressed before we get to this point of approval as a condition of approval to cover all the basis stating that all the phase one elements um shall be resolved. Um they recently did record with the county all of the development agreement and the ask that the escort the easements um and everything like that. Um there's still open communication with the applicant around regarding a few things but it can be yeah as an a condition of approval would be okay. Okay. All right. Anything else to CJ? Jim got anything to add? Subtract. No, I don't. All right. Uh hearing none. I need a motion to open up public comment portion of the hearing. I'll move to open up the public comment portion of the hearing. I'll second motion a second. All in favor say I. I. I. All right. Applicant, we got some questions. You want to come up? Identify yourself on address. My name is Evan Matson. My address is 6317 Mildred Avenue. Uh CJ gave a really good overview of the project. So, um I'd like just to touch on a couple high level items and then we can go into questions. Um the first CJ, if you could skip this one, you covered this pretty well. Um go to the site plan. Oh, this is just an image of how it's going to be replatted. The lot lines were slightly adjusted particularly on outlot A. So, that outlot uh lot line is moving up about 100 ft. Yeah, this is a really good slide. Um, so what we were able to do with this application because we were working with the end user is move from a speculative site plan. So the first site plan that we came through here had four buildings all running north south. That's the ideal site plan for a speculative project where you're trying to get tenants. You're trying to design for unknowns. What we were able to do here was reconfigure uh a bunch of site elements specific to the user. Um the first is um the auto parking. For example, we're showing 40 stalls in the northeast corner instead of the entirety of that northern elevation being car parking. And that's driven by requirements uh for the end user. So, it's preserving green space as well as shielding the residents from truck activities to the south. And that's one item that we really tried to focus in on was how can we provide green space, how can we provide additional screening. um the ring road that wraps around the building. Um following up on that final approval for building one, we shifted that down so we could get full plantings on top. Um as well as there's now a row of trees on the west that was car parking. So we're trying to really reduce, eliminate, increase plantings as much as we can. Um and if you want to zoom out a little bit, CJ. And then as far as uh the trailer truck parking area, if if you could zoom in on that. So we're showing an opaque fencing and what we would propose is a a slatted fencing. It would be consistent with the color scheme of the building. It' be an earth tone color. Um it's um on the outside it' be two rows of trees, one immediately and then one also on the the plateau there. So you'd have two rows of trees, opaque fencing, um screening that uh area. Do you have any additional questions in regard? What about the height of it? I mean, what is the standard trailer height? Standard trailer height is 13'6 if I remember correct. So you're talking about a 14 foot high wall. Yeah. And we we would have to do some studies just to determine exactly how high it would be to screen and that would be done in further analysis. But yes, to answer your question, yes. And I asked about uh mechanical is it rooftop? Yeah. Um so unit heaters are on the interior of the building. Um the mechanicals for the s for the building will be on top but they'll be screened by the parapits. They'll be set back in a way that you can't see them. Um so the the parapit that will line there, they'll be about 50 ft south of that. And given the topography of the residents to the north as well as adjacent parcels, the way they're set back, you can't see them. Okay. And then uh do you have a spot picked out for a monument sign yet or not? Um so we would be submitting for a separate monument sign permit where we are going to install a sign maybe if there's a better overall site plan would be on the north entrance. The south entrance is surrounded by wetland so it's going to be pretty difficult. Okay. But north entrance is to answer your question and we'd be following the ordinance of and you talked about usage. Do you have a a something in mind now? Uh for this building. Yeah. Yeah. So the the way that we were able to reconfigure this building and this site plan really was to um was working with an end user. So there is an end user in mind. We mentioned at the planning commission we're currently under NDA so we can't publicly disclose it yet. Well actually I'm going for hours of operation. hours of operation would be consistent with the zoning. Okay, Steve. Well, going back to the uh uh parking lot with truck parking, the opaque fencing type of material you you said it's going to be slatted or whatever you were saying, but is it pure? I think that's where I'd like to know if you could show us a sample of it. Would you submit one? I don't have a sample right now. I could Could you get us a sample so we could take a look at it? Uh sure. We could provide images, I'm sure. Pretty That'll be good. Yeah. The other the other question that I asked before you stood up had to do with lighting in that uh area there. Is it anything different than what's throughout the development? No. Um so to and I believe you talked about this at the planning commission, but for those who weren't there, we eliminated the wall pack so lighting won't be sent outward from the site and we added light poles to direct light inward. Um and that was to eliminate the light transfer to the residents to the north. Um we tried to minimize the windows along the north elevation to accomplish a similar goal. Um and so what we're showing are light poles that are satisfying the minimum safety requirements for the development. And we're trying to send it inward instead of outward taking into account the feedback. I I guess because it's an open parking lot, does that alter that inward and outward? Um, so we would have wall packs along the southern elevation of the building, meaning lights shining straight down. Um, and then there would be a couple of light poles uh sending light into the site in that uh secured parking. They're not in the middle of the lot lot. Looks there's dots that look like there's light standards in the middle. Um, I believe those dots right there are actually um remnant utility. Oh, okay. Yeah, they're not light. No, no. say trucks will take care of them themselves. Okay, that answered my question. What else you got, Beth? Just landscape plan. There were some selections that and they may have changed. Um I didn't get I thought I looked at the most recent one, but there were some selections that were not recommended by some of the arburitums because I started checking them. you had um they're tearing out public works departments are tearing out um weeping willows because they gravitate to the sewer and water pipes. Yeah. So, you might not want those. Okay. That just you know just a few things and I mean it's like I'm happy to run through with your guy because I took a look at it but there were some things you might want to tweak. Sure. Um some of them died rather quickly so you might want to rethink that. Yeah. And I I guess what we were trying to accomplish with the weeping willows was they're a fairly large tree next to a wetland. So we figured that would provide significant amounts of screening, but we're happy to switch that to Well, no, the roots can go as far as four miles. That's I mean that's why you really want it. They can they're invasive as heck. Sure. Okay. We can we can work with that. Yeah. Anything else? So I I guess to satisfy that though, who who you going to be work who would he be working with? Well, you had a guy. I mean, I'll just I'll call I'll tag the ones that I think you might want to reook look at. We can incorporate because you have a landscape architect working on this, right? Yeah, it's align engineering and we can we can work with them on that. Beth, I No, I would I would suggest you provide that information to the staff and let the staff work with them. I'm sorry. I'm a new guy. I'm sorry. Well, I know, but I think you're better off to let the staff you give your suggestions to the staff and let them Okay, we can work with staff on that. Okay, no problem. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Can I ask one more question? Um, that's the fencing that you're talking about. When you provide a sample for me, could you tell me what the material is? Sure. So, I've got a good, you know, so I've got a really good idea of what it looks like and how it'll be constructed. Yeah. And I guess just following on a similar note, we'll present it to staff and we'll let them Is it like just maintenance-free type of stuff? Um, so it's a it's a plastic that runs in shields. So you can get in a bunch of different pigment colors. Sure. U make it easy suggestion because we are having a executive meeting on Friday of this week. If you have an opportunity to get something before Friday of that material, it might clear this question up. Yeah, we can do that. Get it to the staff. All right. Thank you. All right. Anyone else wish to speak to this proposal? need a name and an address for the record. I don't want to. Um Steve Bakus, 11:04 Pine Lane. Um I just thank uh the uh developer there for uh really kind of listening to our concerns and addressing them. Um it's not perfect, but I'm I'm getting uh used to it. Uh there's one thing that I just thought of was when not this building east to west one but that other one uh when when they opened that up we're not how do they get to those parking spots is is there if they took like the northern route would they just swing around there or they're not going to come all the way around? Do do you know what I mean? Looks like there's parking on on the 35 D or 35 east side. I'm just wondering future traffic patterns if they're going to be going around the north side. You explain it. Yeah. Yep. So, okay. Um the traffic pattern Yeah. for the parking in the north, you would enter on one of the entrances. You got to speak up for the mic. And then you would uh head north and then you would travel east. Okay. But then for this other building? Yep. Would you do that same route, do you think? Or uh the other building would probably jog more in a as S shape. So you would you would head to the center of the site, head north, and then east. And I'd say you're most likely for building three, we'll call it that one in the southeast corner, you'd probably enter on the the south entrance. Yeah. All right. Very good. Um, and then we talked about opaque fencing for the truck trailer uh parking. Was there some other opaque uh opaque fencing for uh like um where that um retaining wall is or is it just where that parking is for the trailers? It It's just for the parking the outside storage. Are we not screening then? Is that Is that a road going around? You talking about the trail? Yep. Oh, that's that's a trail on about No, no, right. I thought Yeah, I have to admit I think I thought that they took it all the way right on the corner there. That's just strictly trail cuz I can see two black lines. Uh, one of them is a retainable I believe. Okay, that's all I have. I thought that it got removed. So I thanks. All right. Anyone else? Going once. Going twice. All right. I need a motion to close the public comment portion of the hearing. I'll move to close the public comment portion of the hearing. I'll second. Motion made second. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. All right. Does the board have any other questions of staff? Otherwise, you want uh three different motions here, CJ? Yes. three motions um should be made. The first is resolution if the board chooses to approve is resolution 25-46 with the addition Oh, excuse me. It would be 2545 with the addition that all phase one elements from the prior town board approval on 519 shall be resolved. It says 48 in our packet. Am I missing something? I've got 2548 is the first one for the uh major subdivision preliminary plan. Yep. And then 25. If it's that way in your pocket, um that would have been done by our deputy clerk and I trust her implicitly. So, let's go with those numbers. Especially if you know it's good for you. Yep. So, I would go with whatever number you have in your pocket. Um, thank you. With the addition of those phase one elements, just a question before I make a a motion on that to to um the the uh it's not really a condition, I guess, that Beth mentioned about the uh changing the landscaping trees as per se. So, how do we get that into our our resolution that they we want the material and landscaping trees? Well, that would be done on final plat approval, wouldn't it? Final plat. That's final plat issue. Perfect. So, I'll make a resolution approving a major subdivision request for a major subdivision preliminary plat for 5310 Centerville Road. Um, in our packet as 25-48. I'll second. Motion made second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. Then what what do you got here next, CJ? The next action would be for the permitted use standards permit to allow for office and warehouseing. I'll make a a motion to pass a resolution approving a permitted use standard permit for 5310 Centerville Road uh noted in packet as 25-49. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. That motion carries. Then the last one is the C conditional use permit. Correct. conditional use permit to allow limited outdoor storage permitted on the site. Um, with the conditions as recommended, I'll move to pass a resolution approving a conditional use permit for 5310 Centerville Road in the packet noted as 2550 with the conditions noted. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. All right, that motion carries also. All right, gentlemen. probably see in about a month. All right, moving on. Uh, we have another public hearing. This is for 2477 County Road F East. Again, I need a motion to wave the reading. I'll move to wave the reading that it was properly published. I'll second. All favor say I. I. I. All opposed. All right. CJ, you going to take this one, too? Yes, I am. Thank you, chair. Uh, tonight is a variance request to construct a guest cottage within an existing garage taller than the permitted height for guest cottages. I'll note that this is a variance application. They have not submitted an application for a conditional use permit yet. That will be the next item that they will have to do before actually implementing this use. The applicants are Benjamin and Katherine Lockan at 2477 County Road F East. That is located in the southeast area of the town. Back up. Did I get a motion to open up the public comment? I mean the public hearing. I'll move to open up the public hearing. Second. All in favor say I. I. I'll sorry. My apologies as well. You do. Thank you. Okay. Now we can go. Would you like me to start from the beginning? No. No. We're fine. Okay. Uh, the applicant is proposing to construct a guest cottage within their existing garage. The garage already has an upper level. It is currently standing at 23 ft in height. They would not be expanding upon the height or the width of the structure. Thanks, J. However, ordinance number 35, section 7-9.7D requires guest cottages to be no taller than 15 feet in height. The applicants state that they would construct this guest cottage with no exterior changes. Um, and it would be to provide living space for their aging parents. The design would be architecturally compatible with the existing resident and surrounding neighborhood. Um, architectural plans and site plans are included in this packet. A variance is required for any modification to the rules in the zoning ordinance. Um, variances require review by the planning commission and a recommendation and the town board may approve or deny the variance at this public hearing based on the standards set in the zoning ordinance. The planning commission reviewed the request at the May 22nd meeting. They recommended approval of the variance with conditions listed at the end of your staff report. A guest cottage is defined as a detached dwelling unit. Um attached dwelling units are referred to as accessory apartments. That would not be um this use. Guest cottages are um not permitted for rental purposes as well. Guest cottages are conditional uses in the R1 district. Um and they need to be applied for and obtained prior to construction of the guest cottage quarters. The this applicant's property does meet all of the requirements. It must be at least 24,000 square ft in size in a sewer area, which it is, and all criteria listed in 7-9.7 are met. The guest cottage does not cover more than 700 square ft. The only issue is the height. So the height currently again is 23 feet whereas the ordinance permits only 15 feet. Looking through the variance criteria, all of the criterion are met. The guest cottage is a reasonable use in the R1 district. The garage built to the height of 23 ft in 2005 is not a plight of the land owner. The applicant purchased their property earlier this year in 2025. Um, and the upstairs is already existing on the building. There are no anticipated exterior modifications and the plans submitted are consistent with the character of the neighborhood. And the applicant states that their motivation for using this structure is to minimize the lot coverage and maximize the green space. So they wouldn't want to build a shed for the their appearance. So economic considerations do not appear to constitute their practical difficulty. Section 96.4 four continues to go into the variance request facts. They are shown in your staff report um with quotes from the applicant's narrative which I can go through if you'd like me to. Also in your staff report is a 3D rendering of the guest cottage that they're proposing which would include onebedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen and living space area. These plans were submitted to staff and other agencies. Ramsey County has no comments or concerns regarding the request. White Bear Lake, which it the property does a but um did not get back to us with any comments. No comments have been received. The building inspector stated that no exterior modifications and no insight improvements are planned. Any necessary building and electrical permits must be obtained to prior prior to any of the work on the structure. And the Rice Creek Wershed District had no comments, but they did provide just general comments. on if the project were to disturb soils, what the procedure would be. The town board has the following options. You may approve the variance with or without conditions, deny it with findings, or table for further review and study. The commission recommended the town board approve the variance with the conditions including that the applicant shall make no exterior changes to the structures as indicated in materials received on May 1st, 2025. The applicant shall apply for a conditional use permit from the township prior to construction of the cottage and the guest cottage cannot be rented out per township ordinance number 35. The applicant al shall also um apply for any applicable federal, state, local permits, adhere to local ordinances, regulations, and pay all fees and escros associated with the project they have thus far. Does the board have any questions regarding this request? Uh sewer and water, is it separate? Is it connected to the existing house? uh guest cottages would need a new connection. They would have to go through um with the Met Council and Okay. the township to new connection. They're aware of that. Yes. Yes. Right. Steve, you were at I was and and that question was raised by the planning commission and the answer is provided there. The other the other question had to do with rental. you know, the ordinance does not allow for that. And uh they were there and acknowledged that it was for a family member only and would never be rented. No. Any questions, comments? I'm just cur um are there windows on this side? There is a row of windows across the It's just Yeah, I know. But how about on this? I mean here. It's just the windows are up so high. There was the applicant stated there was going to be no change to the structure other than other than other than changing out the windows uh that are exist to a different style of window um double hung or something. I think they were going to sliders maybe but they were going to change them from what they currently are to a something different. It's a it's a silly thought but it's like okay if you got an older couple they're they're going to be up over their heads. That's not Yeah. How you going to open them? Yeah, that was why I was asking if they They might not. Maybe they don't operate. Maybe that's why they're changing them. Yeah, that would be tough not to have an open window though. Okay, that was my question. Anything else, Dave? No. All right. Hearing none from the board. I need a motion to open up for public comment. I'll move to open the hearing for public comment. I'll second. Motion's made second. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. Anyone wish to speak to this item? Hearing none. Applicant must not be here. That's correct. The applicant was president of the planning commission. Okay. All right. Hearing none. Uh I need a motion to close the public comment portion. I'll move to close the public comment portion of the hearing. I'll second. Motion made second. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. I drove by this site today and I tell you what, unless you're sitting right at the end of the driveway, you can't even see this building. So, I don't think it's a I didn't think it was either an impact on anybody. There's just it's it's really a lot of tree cover around I was just concerned about the windows, but if they're fine with it, I guess I'll be fine with it. Yeah, he he did explain how they were going to use these windows. I just quite honestly can't repeat it. All right. What's pleasure of the board? I'd like to make a motion to approve the resolution for the variance for 2477 County Road F East. Noted in the packet is 25-51. I'll second motion made second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. That motion carries. All right. We have one more public hearing. This is for 2241 Buffalo Street. Again, I need a motion to wave the reading. I'll move to wave the reading that was properly published. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. I. And then I need a motion to open up the public portion. I'll move to open up the public portion of the hearing. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. I. All right, CJ. You got your hands full of me. No kidding. And finally, we have a variance request at 2241 Buffalo Street. And this is a variance to request to construct a detached garage within the minimum sideyard setbacks. The applicant is Trevor Hoitt in the suburban residential and shorland management overlay zone. The applicant is proposing to construct a garage with six with a 6 in encroachment into the west sideyard setback. Buffalo 2241 Buffalo Street is accessed through a rear alley um to access the existing garage. There's also access onto Buffalo Street, a typical sidewalk walking up to the front entrance of the home. The structure is proposed to be located 9.5 ft from the west side yard um lot line, 10 ft from the east side yard lot line, which is met, and then 28.1 ft from the rear yard, which also meets the minimum 20 ft requirement. A variance is needed just from that wet west sideyard setback to encroach 0.5 feet or six inches. The commission reviewed the request at the meeting and recommended approval with conditions that are listed in your staff report. Currently, the existing garage is only 5.5 ft from that east sideyard setback. So, this structure would be located in a similar location. However, it would reduce the overall sideyard encroachments. The reason for this request um as stated by the applicant is that the the alleyway that goes around their building is quite unique. They have an alley in the rear and then alleyway to the east. However, that eastern public alley is currently completely treed and treated as a neighbor's yard rather than an accessible alleyway. So that's a utility easement and it's utility easement. Uh but it's currently not being used as an alley. Um nobody's able to drive through there right now. Well, the neighbor made sure that we couldn't drive through. Um the proposed garage is now 10 ft from the sideyard that abutz said um public alley that's all tried and 9.5 ft from the eastern western sideyard setback. Um, some research went into the request. Um, many communities have specific ordinances regarding alleyways. Um, this has been a topic that was briefly brought up at a former executive meeting um to look into in the future. However, currently there's no specific setbacks from alleys. Therefore, the rear yard would just be the rear yard of 20 feet and that sideyard would be the sideyard setback of 10 feet. There's no additional footage because of it because it's an alley. Um, and this is confirmed by the corner lots provision in the ordinance section 71.1. Lots that abut more than one street shall meet the minimum front yard depth along each street which is 35 ft. However, this provision is not applicable to alleyways. So, the lots abuting the alley alleyways are not considered corner and it does not fall under that requirement. The accessory structure standards are nearly all met uh rather um except for that west sideyard setback. If the variance is granted, the architectural style and facing of the materials must be compatible with the principal building and the structure must be no taller than the principal structure on the lot, the home on the property. The proposed garage results in 22 22% impervious surface coverage that's below the required 30%. Looking through the variance criteria once again the criterion are do appear to be met. A detached garage is reasonable use in this area of the township and in this R1 zoning district. The width of the property owner is cited as the reason for the or excuse me, the width of the property is cited by the property owner as the reason for needing a variance due creating difficulty meeting both of those sideyard setbacks. The planning commission did discuss this in particular um questioning whether the garage had to be proposed in that location or at that size and the applicant did state that the structure would be in the similar location but it would actually reduce the sideyard encroachment um as a reason why it should be approved. A garage in that location would not alter the character of the locality. Many properties nearby do have per um garages closer to the alleyway than the proposed. Um and since it is within the alley, it is out of um the general public way. And then practical difficulties do not appear to be met by economic considerations. The applicant did note some uh items in their narrative which are also included in your packet and staff comments were collected. Ramsey County stated that they have no comments or concerns. The watershed district again stated that they have no concerns. However, if there was significant soil um grading or um demolition, there is certain procedure that they need to go through. The building inspector stated that the variance is only for the location of the structure. So when they apply for a building permit, that's when they would need to show the proposed and existing grade elevations, the height of the building as well as the facade. Did Mike have any comments on uh drainage because of the of the building? Cuz when I when I went and looked at it, it looks like it's still shedding east and west, but I don't know if it was if he was going to require gutters or was that brought up or not. Um, not yet, but it I'll make a note of it and that would be part of the building permit application review. I can give you a tip about the dirt there. It's blue clay. Well, which means it's not going to soak in. That's correct. Well, I mean, and public works has had an issue with uh snow storage at the end of that alley anyway. So, if I don't want to see a drainage brown where there's it's going to run out and ice up on the road, too. I don't Mike Mike knows more about that than we do. It all pawns up, you know, at the very end on McCormick's property. Okay. Sorry. That's okay. Um, and then the Minnesota DNR uh had no comments. It was sent to them just due to the proximity to the lake as well. You may approve the variance with or without conditions, deny it with findings for denial, or table it for any further review or study. The commission recommends that the board approve the variant with a condition stating that it shall be constructed according to the plans reviewed with the request that the material shall be complimentary to the facade of the principal structure and that all other applicable federal, state, local permits, fees, ordinances, regulations, escros shall all be paid that are associated with the project and thus far they have been. Are there any further questions, Steve? I have no questions. I'm fine with it. All right. Well, like I said, I drove by it and it I I do like to see that the applicant is making a concerted effort to make it less of a non-conformity when they do to replace these buildings. But all right, I need a motion to open the hearing for public comment. I'll make a motion to open the hearing for public comment. Second. All in favor? I opposed. Anyone here to wish to speak to that? must be the applicant. I need a name and address, sir. Trevor Howitt, 2241 Buffalo Street. Um, if you have any questions, I guess you did mention it's wet back there. I'm hoping with this project we can kind of help address that as well. Um, right now there's just kind of a culvert that was put in at some point and it's just really wet back there cuz your neighbor Tom Voit, I live behind you. I'm Beth from the red house. So I look at your place all the time. Yeah. Brushing my teeth. Tom's a good guy. I like it. But yeah, it's um his property is super wet. So yeah. And I know cuz I jacked up my house and put a basement underneath and I know it's blue clay. So good luck to you. You going to put a driveway in or No. Um there's already a driveway there and I'm not planning to alter it too much. It'll just kind of curve over to get to the other door that will be there. Did you talk to the bill inspector about drainage? Uh, that has not been addressed with me at this point yet. Okay. Well, I just kind of curious because like I said, if when you got water ponding, we like to see where it's going. And we also don't like to see too much water shed leaving your property onto a neighbor's property and affecting them. So, Yep. And I I mean, as of now, it's all kind of rests on mine. So, Oh, no. Tom's got plenty. Well, mine gets more swampy. Um, but yeah, it's it's gets wet back there, but yeah, I don't know. Hopefully, we can figure out a way to help it through this project. I'd be happy to connect the applicant with Mike following the meeting. Okay. And for the benefit of the the board, you told the planning commission that the purpose of the upper part of this structure is for what? Uh, just to add storage. Thank you. What's the total height on it? Um I don't have that exact number but I was aware of the requirement and told that to my plan uh person who drew the plans. I believe the home is 24 and the garage I want to say is around 20. Okay. But I will of course you know provide all those details uh as needed. And you were building this to a size to take ad access to standard trusses versus some custommade trusses I think you told the planning commission. Yeah. So, from my point of view, it's not just the six inches. It's then it would be 28 feet, which is a decent size difference with the garage because the pre-fabricated roof trusses are much more economical than having like something custom made. Well, plus too, you can also have them built in with the storage space in them. I can't remember what they're called, but yeah, like it's it's a pre-fabricated and they just come, you know, two foot size increments. So, uh that would change the overall size quite a bit. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? Thanks, Robert. Thank you. All right. Anyone else? Hearing none, I need a motion to close the public comment portion. I'll make a motion to close the public comment portion of this hearing. I'll second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. All right. If there is no other discussion or questions. What's the pleasure of the board? I'll make a motion to pass a resolution approving the variance for 2241 Buffalo Street as noted is uh 25-52 in our packet. A second. Motion's made in second. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. All right. Good luck, sir. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Item eight. We have no new business. And because we're going to have a close session with our attorney, we're going to move open time up. I see our rep from White Bear Press is here. Logan, you got any comments, questions? Uh, okay. Good. Thanks, Logan Deion. Uh, 12599 Avenue North, Hugo. Uh, I'm sorry I wasn't here in person last time. My editor went on vacation and got sick on a cruise. Um, and I had to cover her, uh, post at Hugo, which was a different kind of meeting. So, um, I have a new appreciation for the township. I'll just leave that. Uh, I have, uh, new email cards to pass out to everybody is. I don't know if that needed to be up here or if it done it afterward, but you guys are going to close session. Can you comment on what the close session is about or is that okay? No. Had to ask. Figured. All right. I think that's everything. Actually, it'll you know, Logan, yeah, the minutes will reflect why we're going to close session, but that's as far as we're going to go. I understand. Thank you very much. All right. Uh, I'm going to pass these out real quick and then I'll let you guys do it. CJ, you get one, too. I guess you're Well, CJ, you're somebody. if we did if we had a question about that after tonight. Thank you very much. Uh these are because I also do the Seavore magazine. So that's the email address that can spare for me which I'm I don't know. I feel really proud of it. So thank you guys. Have a good night. All right. Thanks Logan. And thanks again CJ. Yes. Thank you. Nice job. See you. See you Friday. I'll see you Friday. You ever been in the old town with Paul? I haven't. I hope it's not 900° in there. Is that air conditioned? Uh, no. It's going to be 900° in there. Going to be like 90° fans. I don't I'm fresh. I don't No, I'm I'm sponsored. North Michigan building. I don't think there is either. Can you announce it's in the close session? I'll uh make a motion to go into close session for the purpose of discussing the purpose of discussing litigation with the city city of White Bear Lake. City of White Bear Lake regarding the fire contract regarding the fire contract. I didn't know how far I had to go. I'll second. All right. Motion made a second. All in favor? I close. Wait. I need a motion to co come out of close session. I'll make a motion to come out of close session where we where we we're discussing um the fire contract potential litigation and I'll second to summarize. Motion made. All in favor? I. All right. You want to summarize chair? Sorry. Uh sorry, Mr. Chair. To summarize, the board is has directed the town attorney to accept service of the U summons and complaint from the city of White Bear Lake. All right, that concludes our agenda. Uh, I need a motion to receive agenda material and supplements. So moved. Second. All in favor say I. I. Need a motion to adjourn at 8:37. So moved. Second. All in favor say I. I. Thank you folks.