been pretty hands off this year. I've been doing other things. >> All right. Welcome to the July 22nd planning and zoning meeting. I will begin with roll call. Chairman Dale Ames >> here. >> Commissioner Jorgensson. >> Commissioner Pero. Co-chair Bees. >> Commissioner Hapa >> here. >> Commissioner Lewis >> here. >> Commissioner Carlson >> here. >> Mayor Shane Hibben >> here. >> Planner Nash >> here. >> I am financial assistant Lexi Stadel. Roll call is complete. And we can stand for the pledge of allegiance. Call the order. Have the pledge allegiance to the flag. Next thing we're going to have is uh approval of the tonight's uh meeting agenda or if we have any amendments. Somebody want this motion. I'll make this motion that uh that we uh approve the agenda night. Second the motion. >> Mains made it. Commissioner Harper second it discussion. We'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Next thing we're going to do is uh approve the June 24th 2025 meeting minutes. I'll make I'll make a motion that we approve them. >> Commissioner Ames made the motion. Uh Ferguson second it. Uh any discussion? And we'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. I. This time what we've only got one thing on agenda is our is our new business. It's a concept plan by water marker companies. We'll let our signer here. Um yes on the agenda here it's got public hearing first and then unfinished business. A different agenda. >> Yeah, I got it. But we don't have any public hearing. It's just the way it's rolled. number five and going right to number six then I I do it usually we have it afterwards >> Mr. Sure. May I? So there there is not any items for those parts of the agenda tonight. So those are just in there as a placeholder. >> Going right to new business, sir. Is that correct? >> Uh oh. The new business is this comp concept plan that the router maker company has. Now it [Music] So, um, if it would be okay with you, I would prefer to have the developer present what they want to do. I'll get the plans up on the screen and then, um, and then I can provide you with the comments that myself and city engineer Nelson had regarding this afterwards and hit upon things that maybe they might not touch upon if that would work for you. >> Rodmarker, would you discuss what you what you want to have? >> Mr. Chair, commission members, >> sir. I don't know if this is a um we've owned the 40 acres at the intersection of 22 and 47 for the past 5 years. It's been under lease with a local farmer uh using it for egg purposes. At one point, we had a plan of developing it for commercial use, everything east of the uh underlying utilities there. Uh ended up that we moved that development to City Boat Grove. Um so we've really just put this site in mothballs. Um I'm I need it off the books. I have no we can't stack any more commercial development down in this area. Um so my plan is to move forward with some type of a residential uh development. We we did have a plan similar to this uh five six years ago with the previous um planner um but it never really went very far, Mr. Chair. And so now we're just kind of restarting over and this is where we're at. We're it's very early in the process, but this is what we're proposing to do. Uh single family homes, um individual obviously septic individual uh uh septic tanks on their systems. Um we own I think there's 36 acres on this side of the road and I believe there's two on the east side. No plan to develop the outlots at this point. the remaining commercial, we'll call it the outlots, but 11 single family homes, the city, um, in talking with Miss Nash and and Hawinson Anderson, the commercial node that's on this corner, um, I'm not sure how firm it is. You can see the red area up in the norththeast corner there. Uh it's something to the effect of 375 ft by 500. Um my estimates that'd be a very difficult to get in or out of. That's such a small piece right on a busy intersection like this. So I chose to elongate that commercial all along 47 north and south. So you'll see that uh in my uh drawing there. We elongated it so we could hopefully get some access at the southern end down there uh in an in an attempt I guess or at least our proposal thought we would get a better access there a little safer little further away from the intersection. So that's something we'll have to deal with. Miss Nash, you had that noted as well. Um I have approached the county on it. They said that it's a little early for them. Once we talk and have some communications with the city and things get documented, then they would put a little more time and effort into it. But, um, the county is really kind of hands off at this point. So, I'm here to answer any questions that we can. Uh, Carlson U McCain is the engineer that we're using. Um, I believe they're out of Los Lakes. Uh, they did the surveying. They've done the platting or at least the drawings up to this point. Questions or try to there's um we've got a whole a whole whole bunch of review of comments that was made by that uh plan and also by the engineer. Do you have that copy of that? >> I do. I do. Yep. So if it's okay I'll go through those comments so that you all can see them along with any public who might be watching. Um the first is that as Mr. Rodmacher had discussed the shape of the area for commercial is different than what's in our comp plan. because it's different. Um there would need to be a comprehensive plan amendment and a resoning to kind of true up the boundaries of whatever everybody's comfortable with doing. Um >> is that where out A falls in? Is that what you're talking about? >> That's where this outlet A yes is. And so as he discussed, they elongated it here, but then you can see that the way the city had it in its comp plan, it's more of this type of a shape. Um so different angles that you can take with this um is first off any comp plan amendment we can review concurrently with the preliminary plat. So it's not a it won't be a separate process. So then we can adjust the shape as might need to be tweaked to accommodate the plat if there's any comments that would require them to do a little bit of design changes there. Um, second is that those at the same time, but it also a great time for discussion on what does the city want to see? Do you want to see commercial in that corner? Um, that's something that you want to see as the developer as well. Um, I don't know if Mr. was trying to address it as best as he could or if the vision would be to stay commercial. So, couple different options there. And um kind of moving on then. So, both that outlot along with these two lots would all lots one and two would all require direct access onto the county road. So at some point um before a preliminary plot would be approved, the county would have to give the okay and the not having direct accesses onto the road. The um shape of the wetlands here, as you can see, they're kind of winding through this site. And they did a previous wetland delineation a few years ago when they made a attempt to develop back then. So that delineation is still good for right now, but given the shape of them, it doesn't really um align in a way that would give them the possibility of bringing this interior to the site because they >> um >> Miss Natch, if I can just add, I'm sorry. You absolutely um how Carlson McCain was was real, we've had a dozen probable different plans here. Um, right now there's uh I think there's 12 or 15 very very small wetlands across this site. There's a lot of them. A lot of them are very very small. So, the plan that we chose was to uh prevent as much mitigation as possible. There is enough room around literally every one of those to sneak a driveway along the perimeter to stay out of the wetlands so that we disrupt as little as possible, which is obviously not only financial, but people who want these kind of lots want the trees, they want the wetlands, they want the ducks. So we want to keep this as primitive as possible uh not only for our financial benefit but for our customers benefit. So um there are a lot of thoughts been gone into that driveway of how it sits. It's not a real pretty road but it works for trying to keep us out of those wetlands best as possible. >> Think it would impact this very small wetland here and probably the edge of this one. >> Yeah. There's not a perfect science there but >> No. Yeah, >> we did our best. >> Really hard to miss it all completely. Um, so another thing that the county would have to weigh on with weigh in on with the preliminary plot is this actual location of where street A would intersect with they'll have to work with them on. Um, engineer Nelson commented that a future road con uh connection to the south down to Florine Street, which is um, you know, not visible on this plan, but further to the south, seems unlikely, but he he would recommend that it would still be beneficial to stub the rightway to the property line in whatever location made the most sense to do so. um so that it doesn't prevent those other properties to the south from developing in the future. That's something no set location for that. Just something to consider at this point. Another comment is that all lots need to have a minimum lot depth of 300 ft and that's measured between the front line and the rear lot line of the lot. And lot seven right here may not meet that requirement. Um, and that's just something they would have to try to find some way to adjust and account for and and might be able to come up with some way as they contemplate that idea of bringing a street down where they could maybe have it measured a different direction than north south get at that same kind of idea. Um the front setback lines need to be adjusted to show the required setback from street A because right now it's showing sort of a what we think is a setback showing right here or maybe that's but it needs to be a minimum of 120 ft from the center line of the local road. And then they also all lots need to have a minimum of 200 ft for lot width. Um that's measured at the building setback line. And lot four right here may not meet that requirement. It may be possible for them as part of this to apply for a conditional use permit to treat this as a flag lot. something that you did with the A and B edition um earlier this year when they had kind of a similar situation with a uh natural resources concerns and an odd um a difficult lot situation to deal with. That might be a way to address that. Um those are the the primary comments that I wanted to talk about. The rest are kind of standard normal things like park dedication would be required. But those are the ones that really impact the possible design of this. >> Talk about lot size about 11 lots and 33. >> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, they are actually zoned uh rural residential transition, which you don't have a lot of in the in the city. Um, but it's that area in the southoutheast corner of the community that you do have as a different zoning district than the vast majority of the rest of the community. >> Yep. So, you can do um the corresponding zoning would permit this to have down to a minimum lot size of two acres. Now, as part of that, they still have to meet that one acre of buildable and um they also still have to show that there's two septic sites and everything else. They just it's not the same lot size. The other dimensions end up being a lot constantly learning. I I got to tell you >> question going back to number four. Uh road connection >> could you show the other map? this one right here because it shows on that. >> Yep, I can. >> Right. So, you can see it's coming up here and terminating in a culde-sac today. So, the idea was that there could be the potential for a future connection all the way through to this property. Um, the county restricts the number of accesses that you can have onto the county road. So, trying to make these connections as properties develop is important because otherwise it could be difficult for other people to redevelop their properties potentially in the future. We're going to have to require an access down to this um >> No, they would not build it all the way down there. They would just stub a their their end of their street would stub at the property lines >> give an easement. >> Nope. We can't require anybody here to do anything with their property. >> So, we would just be I'll go back to here. So rather than this ending in a culde-sac in some location, and we'd all have to we'd have to look at that to determine what makes sense given wetlands and anything else that might appear to be down to the south. Then the road would actually stub down and terminate at the property line. >> South meaning the culde-sac could end right there. Is that >> right? Like a temporary culde-sac instead like this is a permanent culde-sac because it's not going to go anywhere else. But a temporary culde-sac has um built a little bit differently. >> No, meaning more related to the rightway and how that is um like this the rightway is actually ending in sort of that circular pattern. A lot of times with a temporary um culde-sac, it would stay the 66 feet wide to here and then there might be temporary easements for where the the wider part is for the turnaround. Sometimes depending on how it's done, there's not even a need to actually install that or or do that, but we'd have to wait and see. Why do they have to have be concerned about the extra lot to the south? All the driveways from this plot go into a culde-sac that come off I'm sorry, 22, not 47. additional residential driveways on 47 just the outlap >> from this property commercial >> from this property. Yes. >> So why do why do they have to be concerned with the lot itself? >> Well because when you get to the south they're not going to be able to stub in another road >> at all. >> No, not not from >> How do they access it? Yeah, >> they will have a driveway and they can live with one driveway. >> Okay. >> So, in order to make it so that somebody can potentially develop those other properties in the future, then they have to develop off of a road and have enough frontage on a road. So, they need to be able to put a road in. So, they have to connect to existing roadways. So it could be coming up from the south from uh Laurine or it could be coming to the south from >> and we we do like to have more than one way in and out too once you start getting a certain number of >> that was that was Commissioner uh Lewis that was questioning questions that we have here and do this. I think some feedback on and maybe discussion related to the comp plan amendment that will help guide them on what to do here. >> That's going to be changed because of those What is that? >> Well, because it's a different >> Yeah, it's different >> different shape. >> So, part of this property is guided the southern part of this property is guided residential. So, they can't use it for commercial. >> So, they would need to amend the comp plan and and now then doesn't do this very often, but um it's a formal process that we have to do with the metropolitan council. Um but again we can run through the process kind of in tandem with a preliminary plat access on lot a from marker brought up that change of comp plan which could be a recommendation when we do the plot like you said county going to want to give access to >> so I can't speak for the county. I can just say what um has been my experience in other locations. And typically the county is going to want to have that access to the site be as far as possible away from the intersection of these two. So in that regard, it makes some sense to um potentially make this larger and longer to get them an access possible access point as far south as possible. Um, it is something that the county would have to look at when they're reviewing the preliminary plan. >> What you're seeing makes sense from from your experience. >> It does. Yeah. >> Yes. Hippo. >> Well, this whole lot here is marked at what is it? Six acres and what size? It seems like it if it's not It's not necessarily that difficult. It's more just that it has to be done um so that the land use underlying would match up with anything that might potentially >> say is 5.91 is that >> both both A and B I A and B whether it was this plan or not it's it's the east and west side is what they say >> the new size would be now outlaw A and B on your preliminary plan here. >> So, if we just look at outlot A, um, >> it looks like they put the same number on both of them. Um, >> combined >> appears to still be combined. So, I'm not sure what this dimension is. The um original one though was about 4.3 acres just on the west side of Highway 47. I don't think it's a tremendous difference though in size. >> If it's combined at 6.08 and it was previously 5.91, it's There any work been done on the um >> some of these look like they might be difficult to get in. >> Based on Mr. Treadswell, Treadwell's knowledge, we have faith. Question about the comp plan is going to be changed. it it would need to be because otherwise it it would just be have a mismatch compared to what's there and then if if somebody came in with a development for the outlaw a we'd have to do it at that time. So we might as well do it while we're here and we have the boundaries right and can process it together. In addition, some back portion of these lots might be commercial instead of resident. >> Have your name. >> I'm sorry. Rick Elson. I working with perhaps um >> we don't know if we don't know if they could or not. The county minimizes the number and of road intersections with the county road and the distance between them. So we have one you can see right here already. It's just off this map a little bit. Bottom edge of it is already coming in. >> Maybe pull up GIS or something because those are driveways coming up. I understand that you can kind of I guess and we went through that in the that would exit out property. I guess I I I just don't see the benefit of bringing that culde-sac down. >> Yep. So the idea though would be that this street could connect back up more than one way in and out of this area without the need to for each of these individual property owners to have to construct a street which the county is not going to permit them to do. At best there could maybe be one additional curb cut in but they would say the same thing that If if somebody if if we punted on that now and had somebody else do it off of their property later, they would say the same thing. Why do I have to extend it then also to the north or south or both in their case for anybody in the middle? So as we um work towards the preliminary plat. And if there was a bunch of wetlands in the way that would prevent it from going or something like that, you know, that's something we'd have to look at. Of course, >> it's a very general comment at this point. >> We have about 3,000 ft between 192nd circle and the intersection. Um, so at max, typically the county would or most counties would only want one more at max. >> So 3,000 ft down from where? >> 100 the intersection with 192nd circle. >> That's a new development. Yeah, >> but similar that we can zoom. They had to do something similar. So you can see the set came in here, but then they had to work great for that. And who is it going to affect? >> Well, yeah, but it's already there. >> It's going to prevent probably two lots from from you from putting them in there if you have to stub it down. >> What's that? >> If you got to stub it, you're going to end up with less lots. So, at the end of the day, it's going to affect you. The question is, yeah. Is it required? And that's what we need to go through. >> No, I understand that. I'm just saying we don't want to something double if it doesn't need to be if it's already there and you can take it up and take it around. It's already there. >> But would it intersect into into the >> No, it doesn't need to. The city one more. The county would allow one more. They already got that stub coming up >> potentially. Did you make an assumption on it >> essentially? >> Well, yeah. I mean, but you have to go off of, you know, >> you have to go off assumptions right now. >> And generally, they'll want to have as few as they can get. What >> I don't know is is it a requirement? So right now what I'm hearing from Cindy is it's more of aation that this is what she thinks the most. >> Not saying it's a requirement at this point. >> Absolutely. >> Correct me if I'm wrong, Miss Nash, but that's what I heard. >> Correct. Um again, if if for some reason we thought there was a bunch of wetlands here, we wouldn't make that happen because you can't get through them, for example. >> What's normally the process? So you got a recommendation developer is looking to say this is I would prefer not to go that route is he supposed to propose more plans with it without it. What is the next step? Because that's my my concern. >> Great question. So um next step after this we'll we'll also take this to city council for any comments the city council might have. Um but ultimately their next step would be to prepare a preliminary plot to submit for um formal review. Um hopefully the comments are helpful in guiding you know some some of the bigger picture items that they need to design for before they spend money on engineering. Then um they can sort through with myself and the city engineer what the potential for some of these road connections look like. the city engineer can do a little more work on figuring out what that might look like in this area for consideration at preliminary plat just kind of like a sketch >> because we're working offline is really what I'm >> Mr. Oh, heavens no. This is step one. >> Well, no. Can't you just say absolutely go with it? >> But but big but >> yeah, they need the big picture things. So, if there's anything in here that you guys see that is just a non-starter for you, um if you're opposed to say the idea of changing the comp plan to adjust these boundaries as an example, that's something that's really important to know at this point. Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. Commission. Um, just sir, uh, uh, Miss Nash, the that road access just s for some clarification, would the county give guidance as to whether or not they could look at these lots and go, "Yes, we would require, you know, we don't want to give any extra access or it doesn't appear to do that or I'm just I guess I'm just curious if they're going to develop a plan and we got to submit everything to the county anyways, would they look at the bigger picture and say, "No, this is fine to do or they'd want it to continue or are they just going to leave it up to us? >> They do not leave it up to us. Okay. But um >> well, let me correct that. Yeah, they do kind of leave it up to us. Like if you approve the preliminary plat with it here and not continuing on, they can still come back later and say that these people can't develop their property. >> They don't have access. >> They do have restrictions on it. We're we're expected to work as partners with them on some of this stuff and you know collective good of all. >> So the county might have some added guidance as this process develops. Um, and as a kind of recent example for you, if you recall when Peterson Acres was coming in with their plat, there was a lot of comments about from neighbors who wanted that development to exit onto the county road instead of the road to the north to >> um, and the county just they had that quarter mile spacing in the >> Thanks. Yes, Commissioner Hippo. So, it looks like we might require two and maybe three roads in this short distance on county 22 in order to >> one more drive for the whole lot A which was commercial access could be a fair amount of traffic on it. thoughts one and two a shared drive or or a >> Yes. And the the way they drew the concept plan, they're proposing that it be a shared drive, which is typically what the county would the county wouldn't want separated. Uh over at the Oak Grove development that we did just two years ago with Rick County granted a shared access to two of our lots very very similar to this almost identical. Um they granted a shared driveway uh with no hitch in their giddy up. They had problem with it. I'm not saying it's going to happen again here as well, but we've had great success with an NOA County. Real common sense people over there. And uh so long as it's well thought out, so long as it's a good endgame, they've been very cooperative with us. >> Pull that up on the GIS then. >> What's the location of that? >> Uh go to the intersection of 22 approach. Okay. Just to the south >> uh of the trees. It's right 28. This is 28 acres lot right here. There's a shared driveway here and there's another long term if they're going to make them actually given them shared trucking company. I think easy to real both to be honest and bought the other parcel. So that is a shared driveway right here. one was 28 acres. >> Yeah, you're right. The big one was 39. Yeah, 39. Regardless, county gave a shared access. >> Yeah, they've just improved that one. So now that one is done, I that was beyond the scope of us. They they must >> there was a shared access there originally. >> Haven't built that yet on the shared >> sorry >> shared one hasn't been built there. >> They bought that 38 acres uh just last fall. That was the last lot to sell. So they haven't done anything on it yet. kind of see it there. >> Walls built. >> House is now gone, but driveways are still there. Any other questions or comments to make? >> It looks like it all depends on the county on a lot of this. >> County is important since we're in the intersection of two county roads. challenging site as well with the wetlands and trying to work around all of that. And >> else to add to this >> a little bit So, it would be designed to um >> get >> it would be designed big enough to get a truck turned around in there. Um that would be your standard culde-sac size anyways. Yeah, on the preliminary plot they would have the dimensions. So, we would have all of that then. Not we're ready motion to send it to the consoles the council to have their input into it that motion. >> I'll make that motion. So yeah, >> Carlson made the motion. Do we have a second to this motion? >> Discussion. Seeing none, we'll vote on. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> There's only one thing left in our There's no unfinished business. There's no new business. So the next thing is to uh adjourn our meeting. So we like that make that motion. >> Make the motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Make a motion to the meeting. Do we have a second? Commissioner seconded commission all I >> I rent