Jess, you want all the microphones on, Jess? What is it? How are you doing? I don't know where my name is. right here. motion by a second and a second. All in favor? I I passes. Thank you. Um, we're going to open public comments. So, this is any comment on anything that's not currently on the agenda tonight. Uh, planning commission welcomes public comments. Anyone who would like to submit a comment to the commission may do so by sending an email jlands francisn.gov. Members of the public may speak on any matter. Commission may not be able to answer your questions tonight and in most cases will not act at this meeting regarding the matters discussed. Matters may be considered at a future planning meeting. The planning commission appreciates your input. M rather will now read any comments which have been received into the record. No comments were received. Any comments from the public? Seeing none, close public comment at 702 and move on to November 6, public hearings. First, we have interim use permit for G gravel driveway. Thank you, chair. Uh chair and commission, tonight before you is a request for an interim use permit to allow a gravel drive and parking area that would serve the future solar farm uh that's proposed uh on the north side of the city. Uh so the subject site again is located outside of the city's urban service area uh on the north side, the north boundary of the city between the city and Stanford Township. Uh today the site is surrounded by agricultural land to the east, uh large lot residential to the north, and then industrial land to the west and the south. So the city code requires that all industrial parking spaces and driveways uh be surfaced with concrete, buminous or pavers. Uh it also requires a perimeter concrete curb barrier uh around parking areas uh with an interim use permit. Those that design requirements can be changed. And so that's what's requested this evening. Um the applicant is requesting to extend the existing gravel drive about 75 ft into the site. Uh that would be that would serve as the construction access uh while that use is being developed. Uh and then it would serve as the service drive that would be used infrequently um over the life of that use. Uh there's an existing access point off of Nackri Street that would be used uh as the point uh to access the site. And then the applicant is proposing to include rip wrap with the gravel in order to reduce the amount of gravel that would be tracked onto the county road. U there's also a small parking area proposed that would be surfaced with gravel as well. and then no curbing uh is proposed with that. So tonight, planning commission is requested to hold the public hearing and then provide a recommendation to the city council of either approval, denial, or table the application and request additional information. Uh staff is recommending approval of the interim use permit for the gravel drive. Uh and the suggested motion is on page eight of your packet. I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you, Commissioner. you have any questions? Um, besides that, are we able to get that on our screen? We don't have We just have the camera. I mean, I have it up on mine. I don't know how to make it. That one. I'm not sure. Is it It's on this big screen. I can She's got it. Yeah, I can see it. Yeah. Any mission questions for It doesn't make sense to have that all paved and No, I mean curbed because nobody can be there. Yeah, it doesn't. Okay. [Music] Open public comment 74 on this. Anyone from the public want to speak on this or have a question? And a representative of the the company is here too if you want him to say anything. You got something you'd like say to us? If you guys have questions, I'm just going to answer questions. Yeah, think we have any post public comment 705. Any other discussion commission? I'll move that we recommend the approval of the IPU for the gravel access to the drive for the industrial use the rural service area with binding and facts and conditions as presented by step motion. Do we have a second? Second. Second. All in favor? I opposed. That passes. Thank you. Move on to uh 6B code amendment for accessory structure size. All right. Uh, thank you, chair and commission. I don't have a presentation for this one, so we won't have to worry about that. Um, this is a request to amend the city's code uh in regards to the amount of total accessory structure square footage uh when it comes to uh how much you can have on a single lot. So, currently the city allows 1500 square ft for the total detached accessory structure square footage on lots between 2 and a half and 5 acres in size. Um the applicants, this actually came out of the city's code enforcement. Um the applicants have more detached accessory structure square footage than currently allowed by code. And so they'd like they're requesting to amend the codes so that they can be compliant. Um so the city did look uh we looked at other surrounding communities that are fairly similar just to understand kind of what is typically allowed um throughout the area. And we found that normally uh cities are allowing between 2,000 and 3,000 square feet of accessory structure square footage um on lots that are within that size range. So about 2 and a half to 5 acres. Um so in that regard, St. Francis is allowing less than what surrounding communities are allowing today. Um there's a chart in your packet that shows kind of the the other communities that we looked at to get to that number. So this is a code amendment which is a legislative action by the city. And so the city has a lot of um leeway as far as determining if this is appropriate or not for the city of St. Francis. Um so if the planning commission is interested in increasing the allowable amount of square footage for detached accessory structures um then staff would recommend a round number probably in the middle of that 2,000 to 3,000 range. So somewhere around 2400 or 2500 square feet uh is what staff would feel would be appropriate if this is something you're interested in. Um so with that I am happy to answer any questions. Is this something they've already built? Uh that particular instance it is already constructed. Um the city has had other requests over the years from other interested residents looking to increase this size. So this isn't this isn't a surprise by any means from including people showing up asking. Yeah. Yeah. I think it brings us in line with everyone else kind of I guess I kind of just looking going 600 1200 2400 kind of seems yeah I was just doing some numbers here punching even on a small site a 2 and a half acre lot 2500 ft would be about 2.3% of the surface area of the lot so it's not that in here between east. This is a public hearing tonight too, chair. So, I don't open that up. So, let me throw another question out there. Is the city looking at increasing it even larger for any other ledger lots like much of the other cities? Yeah. Uh so chair and commission at this point this request was specifically for the lots that are between two and a half and 5 acres. Um if if the commission would like to open that up further. That's something that we could either put on our running list of code updates to look at which we typically do at the end of the year. Um or or we could do that at another time. But right now, this specific request is just for just for the lots that are 2 and a half to 5 acres. Any other questions right now? No. All right. We'll open for public comment at 7:09 if anyone from the public wants to speak on this or has questions. Not seeing any. We'll close it at 709. Any other questions, thoughts from commission? See any? Would anyone like to make a motion? I'll go ahead and uh approve a motion to move to recommend approval of the amendment to section 10-68-04 of the zoning code to increase the level of holes per square foot of detach accessories of lots 2.5 acres in size as requested. With that, could I get could I get the size that you're proposing? Yeah, number I was 2500. I'm fine with that. Yep. Second. Second. We have a second. All in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. And how would we if we wanted to look at the smaller parcels or smaller lot sizes, how would we bring that up to to potentially increase that as well? Uh, sure. So that would just be something that you you would let staff know that that's something that you'd like for us to look into and we would start working on that. We'll move to 6C code amendment storm water management. Chair and commission before you this evening is a storm water management code revision uh born out of a recent MPCA M uh MS4 storm water audit the city went through. The MPC is rem recommending the city to amend section 10-82-04 of the zoning code. Uh the amendment states that off-site treatment projects must involve the creation of new structural storm water best management practices or the retrofit of existing storm water BMPs or the use of properly designated regional structural structural storm water BMP. Routine maintenance of structural storm water BMPs owned or operated by the city cannot be used to meet this requirement. The recommended motion this evening is to approve the proposed amendment to section 10824 of the zoning code as presented by staff. You have any questions? Be happy to answer them. Questions. Not seeing any open public comment on this at 7:12. Anyone from the public want to comment on this agenda item? Seeing none, we'll close it at 7:12. Any final questions, thoughts from the commission? I would move to recommend approval of the proposed amendment to section 10-82-04 of the zoning code as presented by staff. A motion. Do we have a second? Second. Got a second. All in favor say I. I opposed. Seeing none, the motion passes and that finishes up public hearing. Uh, number seven, regular business items. Dalton River Villas concept review. Chair and Commissioner, that one's mine, too, but I would really like to make sure that you can see the presentation. So, hey, there we go. Okay. No. Excellent. Thank you. Excellent. All right. uh chair and commission before you tonight is a concept plan uh for the Dalton River Villas uh development. So this would be on an existing site that's about 15 and a half acres uh along the Rum River. Currently this is a vacant undeveloped site. Uh there's frontage coming up uh from Woodbine Street on the south and then Ambassador along the west side of the site. This site is does have some natural features that uh play into how it can develop. Um so there is a fairly significant bluff that you can see runs uh between the river and Ambassador uh as well as floodplane areas along the Rum River. So the concept plan is on the screen before you. It includes 19 non-riparian lots uh on a total of 15 1.5 acres. uh when you take out the land that's undevelopable, so the bluff land, the flood plane, um you get about eight developable acres on that site. Um there is an outlot proposed that would include the undevelopable land along the river, would also include a storm water pond. Uh and then this the access for the site would be served with an extension of Woodbine Street. Uh one item that staff would like to talk about this evening is the outlot and the ownership of that. Um the development to the south uh has some open space uh similar to what is proposed here and that's actually city-owned. And so a conversation tonight would be helpful just for some direction as far as is that something that as a city you'd be interested in taking ownership of um or is that something that would be better owned by an HOA or something like that. Uh moving forward here, uh the site is guided for lowdensity residential use in the comprehensive plan. That allows for 2 to three units per net acre. Um so again, you're taking out the land that's undevelopable there. And so the calculation we get is a proposed density of 2.375 units per net acre, which is right in the middle of that range. Uh the site is zoned R1. Uh it's also located in the urban rum river management overlay district. Uh and so when we're looking at standards for uh lot area setbacks, building height, those things, um the most restrictive standards are going to apply. So whether that's the R1 um or the Rum River overlay. So there are a few items to talk about when we look at those zoning requirements. Uh there are some undersized uh nature of the lots. Um so lot area the lots are they range from almost 9,000 square ft in size to over 18,000 square ft. Um so the lots in this area are required to be 12,150 square ft. Uh and so there are about 12 of those lots that are below that uh 12,150T mark. Uh minimum lot width is another area where the the concept is showing smaller lot widths than required. Um 15 of the lots are proposed to be 65 feet in width uh and four of them are proposed to be 55 feet. Um the urban rum river requirement is 90 ft. And then the last area where there's a discrepancy here is uh the minimum front setback. Uh the applicant is proposing to meet the R1 setback of 25 ft from a local road. Um the urban Rum River actually requires a 30-foot setback which is something that uh we've run into on a number of different developments along the Rum River is something that um doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense all the time. So um we'd be looking at some sort of either variance or plan unit development when it comes to this site. Um if this is a project that the city is interested in um and if the developer chooses to move forward um in order to give that flexibility there would need to be some additional approvals. uh staff is supportive of the design of the concept as it stands today. Uh you know as you see this the kind of east west nature of that site makes it challenging in order to use the site in an efficient way um both with the city's infrastructure as well as avoiding all of the natural features that exist today. Um so the lots are smaller than required. Um, however, the overall density of the site is not greater than what we would expect to see on the site. And actually, it's it's less than what we would see if that site was unencumbered. Um, and then we did look at the the neighborhood to the south, and the proposed lots in this concept plan are fairly similar in size to the the neighborhood to the south. Uh access again primary access to the site would uh be coming up from Woodbine Street and it would extend and then terminate in Culdeac. Uh three of the lots are proposed to have uh individual driveways onto Ambassador. Um that is something that the county has provided as comment back and said that they would prefer to see those drives not be on Ambassador. Um which is something that is a a fairly typical comment that we receive from the county. Um they also mentioned that they would like to see 10 ft of additional right ofway um on that uh right up against ambassador so that they have a full 120 foot right of way which is what their typical amount is. Uh so tonight uh we're not looking for any formal action from the planning commission uh simply just review feedback um particularly along the lines of the the flexibility that would be requested for lot area lot width and setbacks. Um, and then if there's, uh, thoughts about the outlaw itself and the ownership of that, um, or anything else that trips your trigger tonight. So, uh, the applicant is here as well. Otherwise, I'm happy to answer questions. Does the city have to pay for that outlook? No, that would be part of just a dedication with the plat. Um, I see here that says if the city takes ownership, would it be match part of the city park system? Um, if it would be part of the city park system, I would expect that the public would have access to that area. Would there be a public access pathway for that? I think that's something to to talk about. Um, you know, we're not there yet at a concept plan, but that's something to at least note. Okay. I mean, there's a livery on that area, and I'm not against this, but to get to there, I know there's not very many ways. The only way you'd have there's a little walking boat area you'd have to walk down walk through about half mile down the 100 mile 100 year flood pl. Okay. Noted. Did I read that we allowed this type of development in another spot of town? Um, so the development to the south, I believe, is a planned unit development. Correct me if I'm wrong, Jess, but uh, yeah, sure. I'm looking at Under Cliff and 234th in the northeast corner. Yeah, a lot of those villas are home resemblance as well. Very tight. Okay. Um, for better term, you can see one house next to the other from a bathroom window, but they fit in there nice and snug and they're along the river as well, but it's under clip and 234. Yeah. our house. So that's just Yep. That's just to the south. You can see that on the screen right now. Okay. And we've had no issues with that. And depending on the size of lots, I was curious about the comparison when I saw the layout here. Yeah. Um this is I don't know how old that development is. Beth, do you know how old it predates me? So are we talking about that the 232 in vintage area though? Um, Woodbine, Woodbine is on the west and underclipip is on the east. Then 234th is on the north. That's early 2000s. 2002, 2006, sorry. Before the housing go, they're going to build out then. That's when I got slow down. I mean, having been in that area, I have never had any issues with that. I think the proposal with the the culde-sac um would be just fine. You know, two main access roads are already this area onto Ambassador and over Bridge are not too busy to get on. Um getting on to Bridge Street there in the morning can be a difficult, but getting to Ambassador's not a problem. I'm just looking at this overview map here. Um the area to the south of the state has also a um waste or not wastewater but flood water area wershed. Um what area is that that would be owned by the city? Uh, let me see if I can get my cursor. So, I believe this this area down by the river is city own. So, where the proposed pond is, is that what you're talking? The proposed pond would be right here where the other one was. So, the the open space that would that's proposed in this concept would connect to what the city owns today. Okay. So, it would it would come up and then over. Okay. Yep. So, but this is not part of the public park system. And this is just this is what we say. I believe looks good to me. So um we will if the applicant you know once they go through council if they choose to move forward then we would be looking at working with them to determine if it's more appropriate to bring a variance or a planned unit development. Um but some sort of approval would be needed for the flexibility. Sure that. Yep. All right. Thank you. All right. Agenda item eight, discussion by planning commissioners. Anything anyone wants to talk about? See nothing. Agenda nine, adjournment. Do I have a motion? Motion. Do I have a second? Second. A second. All in favor? I. I. And we are done. Thank you.