Good evening. Like to call to order the April 16th, 2025 planning commission meeting for the city of St. Francis. Uh if everyone would please rise, we'll say the pledge of allegiance. algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Jessica. Roll call, please. Here. Commissioner McMullen here. Here. Becker, here. Suman here. Jenn here. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Uh, agenda item number three, election of chair and vice chair for the plan commission. Um, looking for a motion to nominate a chair for this year. We have sect a new one or nominate anyone. Not you. It's up to you guys to nominate. So, I'll nominate you. Okay. All in favor? I I All opposed? Seeing none, I will continue to be the chair. Do we have a nomination for vice chair? I'll nominate Deb. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Deb is our vice chair. Thank you. Uh item number four, looking for a motion to adopt tonight's agenda. So moved. Jon motion. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor say I. I. That passes. Uh number five. Looking for a motion to approve the minutes from last meeting. I'll make a motion. Have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Second. All in favor say I. I. Thank you. Uh item number six, uh public comment. This is for anything that is not on tonight's agenda. Um we'll open it here at 702. Planning Commission welcomes public comments. Anyone who would like to submit a comment to the commission may do so by sending an email to J Ryland Francism.gov. Members of the public may speak on any matter. The commission may not be able to answer your questions tonight. in most cases will not act on this meeting at this meeting regarding the matters discussed. Matters may be considered at a future planning meeting. The planning commission appreciates your input. Miss Ryland, do you have any comments that need to be received in the record that came in? Yes, I did receive two comments via email regarding an item that's on tonight's agenda. Um, I just wanted to make note of that. And those will be read into the record when and if this application comes to a public hearing. So, this is just a concept plan. It's not a public hearing. Um, but we will take comments. Any uh public comment other than the agenda? Yep. come up to the thing here and state your name and address. Uh Tina Carol and Mike Powell. We're at 23045 Ambassador. Um this is in regards to the planning of the apartment that proposal. We have a few concerns regarding this. Um you mentioned stuff about uh water bills. That's another thing that's wondering if that's going to lower our water bill. Um, who's going to be responsible for cleaning up our areas should garbage come flying into our backyards because we are buted up right next to where that apartment is proposed to be and all natural barriers are now gone. And how is this new apartment complex going to affect the values of our homes? How is that going? Is that going to drop our values? Um, and one thing that we're very concerned about is we know that there's going to be children that's inevitable that children will live in that apartment. So, what if they're running for running late for school or they just don't want to walk around? Are they going to come running through our yards to try and get to school on time and say somebody gets injured on our property or somebody has a dog out in their yard and they get bit? We are responsible for that. So that is a big concern for us. Um, is there a plan to have any kind of a barrier between the apartment complex and the butdding up homes to like an 8 to 10ft wall to help with the sound barriers as well as to deter people from trying to cut through our yards? Um, worried about snow removal. Is somebody going to be looking into the engineering to make sure that our yards don't flood because there's additional snow in there that they have removed and put in that maybe they're putting it in the grass next to our yards. So, that's another concern we have. Um, you want to touch on the traffic? Yeah, this one's a big one to me. Um, this is a the traffic. It's almost impossible to get on Ambassador now at 5:00 right now. you're putting another 100 apartments down the road and yeah, we always say that we're talking about the assisted living or the memory care, but that's only 25 units out of the 120 being built down there. And if we build another 120 here and then there's two bedrooms or whatever. So there's two to three drivers to those apartments and then we've got our EMS right here. And anybody that's ever been to Monaceel and cross that bridge during rush hour, they've got one of these big old buildings over on their stole and it causes a lot of chaos. Um EMS has a hard time crossing it. Um a lot of accidents happen on that and that's a four-lane road. We've got a two-lane road here and we've got a lot of people that come all the way from Alaca to go to Anoka to go to work and then it makes it difficult. Um and it doesn't matter who it is. I had a Mercedes uh honking at me because I was backing into my driveway. That's just by vehicle. What if I've got my boat behind me? Who's going to get hurt? We've already lost one young man down the road. Is that going to happen in front of my house now? I mean, we've already got the school here. We got the school there. We've got EMS here, city hall, we've got um the urgent care, and we've got the strip mall. When's it enough in congestion for this area? I'm not against apartments. I lived in them a lot in my life. Most people live in them are great people. But how many do we got to put on two streets? I mean, I understand some of the complaints that people are talking about is the water bill may go up 25%. But is that 25% if no buildings go up or just this one? Does that save our water bill with the one down the road? Nobody's got the answers. And there's a lot of misinformation on the internet. And I understand that. That's why I posted on Facebook to come to the meeting because that's the only way we can get information. Okay. Can I hold you up there just for a second? I just want to make sure this this portion is for anything not that that we're not going to talk about in the future. If that's more on the apartment, we'll if there's anything that's not having to do with that, we want to close that public comment now and then and then we'll go through their slideshow and everything. Maybe some of your questions will be answered and we will let people comment after that as well. One last thing on that though. No, I just want to say this one last thing because I did see in the drawing that they have a dog park that they're building. The city just put a dog park in there. In my opinion, we don't need two dog parks. We can deal with that later. We'll we'll respect it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. On that, um it was correct that this is not a public resistance. Great. Yep. Is there any public comment other than that? All right, seeing Oh, you got something. Okay. Hi, Commission. Uh, first of all, I want to thank you guys for all you do. Um, it's kind kind of a thankless job. I I know. Um, my name is Mike Roger. I resided at uh two uh 277 232nd Lane. Um, when this project came to futation or was talked about, I dug into Northshore. Are we talking about this project? I dug into Northshore to Hold on. Let's get through the public comment and close that and then we'll get into their section. Perfect. We'll bring people back up then. Okay. Anything other than the apartment building? No. Okay. We'll close public comment at 7:09. Number seven, public hearing. There's nothing. Number eight, regular regular business items. A the disposition of 23340 CE street which is also known as the old city hall building. Um we as a commission are given the opportunity to comment on the sale of city-owned property. So, I will open it up to the commission if anyone has a comment regarding the sale of the property. Feel free to share anyone. We all got the stuff. Do you have any comments or It all looks pretty standard to me. I don't see an issue with that. So, okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And then B, the St. Francis apartment concept review. Jason will one second. So, good evening, chair and commissioners. We are um we're going to talk tonight about the uh the proposal for the St. Francis Apartments. I'm going to pull the slideshow up here if I am able to do it and we'll walk you through. Again, this is not a public hearing tonight. This is not an application in front of you. This is a concept that the applicant has brought forward and um you know, it's for feedback. It's looking for for questions, comments. Um and if I can get the um the slideshow up and running, we'll talk to you about this in one second. Here we go. There we go. Okay. Sorry, we're having technical difficulties, but it's coming. Here we are. Um, so, um, in your packet, you had a staff report. Um Matt Alexander is the representative for the developer and we're going to walk you through their concept. Um again for comment only with the proposals for a new multifamily residential development. You can see it here on the screen where the the star is. This is the the area north of Bridge Street and roughly between Ambassador and um and Butterfield Drive. There are two parcels involved and you can see those outlined in blue. It's approximately 6.5 acres and it includes a good portion of the wetlands that are the north portion of the site. You can see those there. We're not seeing monitors. Not on these monitors. It's on my monitor in front of me. Just you know how to switch that. Yeah. Was it shown on the big ones? You did that change it blank for a second footage. There you go. There we go. Perfect. Okay. So, as you can see that the parcels that we're talking about are outlined in blue. Um, and there is that wetland on the north portion of of the the northern parcel. When we look at these parcels in the city's comprehensive plan, there's a land use plan that designates um what what the future land use is for these. And you can see that the colors here, the the uh the parcels have a variety of land uses assigned to them. The northernmost kind of corner is designated as low density residential. That's two to three units an acre. The kind of medium shade of of yellow orange is medium density residential targeting 3 to seven units an acre. And then that darker orange is is guided for medium to high density residential of 7 to 12 units an acre. So there's a variety of land uses assigned across across the parcel. Um what is being proposed by the developer at 120 units across those 6.5 acres basically works out to be about 18.5 units per acre. It's just higher than what the current land use land use designations show. So in order for this project to go forward, it would have to be a comprehensive plan amendment to change those designations from the low, medium, and medium high and reguide them for the high density residential designation, which is that 12 to 20 units an acre range. And that 18.5 that's proposed would fall within that range. This is something a little bit we can't hear. Yeah. Yeah. At all. Can you speak into the microphone or something? We can try pulling it closer. Okay, it is on. Is this any better? So, the um the a comprehensive plan amendment is something that not only is approved by the city but then goes off to the metropolitan council and they also have to feel comfortable. It has to do with them ensuring that the capacity for for their systems is able to handle the densities that's being proposed. Um, in addition to the land uses that are are guided in the comprehensive plan, there's also the zoning districts. So, again, across these two parcels, there are a few different zoning designations, and you can see them here. That northern portion along Ambassador is currently zoned R1, which is the the low density. Uh, the middle portion is zoned R2, which is slightly higher, and then R3 on the southern end. If this project were to go forward, that would also require reszoning those to those higher density residential um designations so that the apartment building could go in. That's something that is controlled by the city, but it needs to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land use map in that plan. So now we're moving on to the concept. As I mentioned, it's 120 units being proposed and it would be done in two phases. 60 in the first phase on the west half of the site and then 60 in the second phase on the east half of the site. As part of this proposal, there would be new right ofway created and dedicated to the city. And you'll see in the image how it wraps around uh providing a connection between Bridge Street to the south and Ambassador Boulevard to the west. So, here's the site and the concept. This is rotated so that north is to the left side of your screen and Bridge Street is to the right. And you can see the um not only the red lines represent public street. So, not only on Bridge Street and Ambassador, but the new uh drive coming through the site kind of jogging north and to the west to provide access to the the site in question. Just looking at it, you can see in kind of in the brown that this U-shaped, that's the apartment building. So, kind of an open courtyard facing to the south and there'll be parking surrounding it. Again, those wetlands are to the left of your screen to the north and you can see some other amenities which we'll get to in a second. As part of the site work, um, a storm water pond would be constructed on the east portion of the property to collect storm water and manage runoff. There would be outdoor amenities as previously mentioned to the north, including a dog park and some pickle ball courts. And then there is that courtyard open space in the middle of the apartment building facing to the south. Um, there are restrictions around how close the structure could be to the wetlands from the north. It's set back 30 feet. Um and wetlands also must have a 16 and a half foot vegetated buffer around those to prevent um runoff into the wetlands. So here you can see uh in kind of the clouded areas that that pond which is to the east and the top of the screen, the amenities dog park and pickle ball court to the left to the north, that common courtyard which would be in the interior of the of the apartment building and then just that red line showing that the building would have to be set back at least 30 feet from the edge of the wetland as it is uh shown here. As proposed, uh the building would be four stories high. We have some elevations that were just submitted. We'll get to those at the end of the presentation. Um there is one one requirement from the city that has a minimum lot area per unit requirement. So you take all of your units and you have all your your lot area and you divide that. You need to have 2,000 square feet per unit. Once we take away all the rightway that's being proposed, um that that lot shrinks. So, we're probably looking at roughly 185,000 square feet of lot area. And at 120 units, that comes out a little bit low compared to that minimum requirement. We're probably in the range of about 1500 square feet per unit. So, that's a little bit low than what the minimum requirements are. So, there's different ways that the developer could approach that. They could reduce the number of units. They could look for a variance or they could um create a planned unit development and have some negotiation with the city um to see if they'd be acceptable to have it at a lower amount than that 2,000. Um, as you saw on the on the the image, there are surface parking surrounding the the apartment building. Some of that would be installed with phase one and the rest would come with phase two. There's also enclosed parking on that first level on both wings of the apartments. Um, city code uh requires parking to be u provided based on the types of units that are there. We don't have all the unit types split up, but you can see in the chart the required parking 1.5 spaces per efficiency or one-bedroom unit. There are two-bedroom units. Those require two and a quarter spaces per unit. Um, no matter what kind of unit mix you have, at least one space per unit is required to be enclosed. So, with 120 units, you need 120 enclosed parking spaces on that ground level. Again, you can see the parking around the the perimeter kind of north, east, and south of the buildings. And then there' be access points um facing to the south where um cars could drive in and be on that first floor of the apartment either on the west or the east half. Other things to note, pedestrian accommodations. There would be sidewalks encircling the building. Um a building of this size in this don district one monument sign would be allowed. We don't have a land landscaping plan provided at this point, but just to note that there is a 50% impervious limit. So, whatever is done in terms of all the um the parking and the building coverage um there needs to be at least 50% uh pvious left over. Uh we just did receive the building elevations before the meeting. You have them printed out for you, but I did pull some of them so you can see what we're talking about. Again, it's roughly that first floor um at the bottom would be for the parking. And then roughly three floors of units above that. This is kind of from the um east and west elevations. And then looking from the north, you see the the apartments on either side and a kind of common community room joining those two on the north half. So, as I mentioned, uh part of your charge is just to provide feedback um to the staff and the applicant who is here tonight. Um some kind of key discussion items in addition to some of the questions raised by the public um are questions around you know the future land use and should the city um support changing the the the guidance there to that high density designation and then the accompanying zoning map amendments the zoning would have to be changed to be consistent allow that that type of use. Um the question about the lot area per unit requirement which is currently a little low. Um, and then also the question about is there enough enclosed parking and kind of the city's comfort level with how that is being laid out. I'll go back to the image so we have something to talk about. But um, that's a summary of the concept plan that was provided to the city and happy to take any questions. And again, we have the applicant here in the audience if there are questions that he is more suited to answer for you. All right. I just want to reiterate one more time, this is not a public hearing. Um, we are not going to make a motion. We are not going to vote to move forward on anything. It's pretty much purelyformational to get this information. As a commission, we'll discuss it and talk about it, see how we think it fits in the city's plans, give feedback. Normally, we don't have public comment on this. Uh but we will let you guys speak after we're done discussing. Okay. Commission, you guys got questions or comments? Yeah. I mean, there's some basic ones. Um there's three different plots right now. What's the current plan for the isolated lot? Wait, sorry. Um, so currently there are uh three different plots here. Two of them have designated plans. There's a third one that's right along Ambassador. Is there a current future plan for that little lot? Yeah, currently that that parcel is part of the central parcel even though it's separated maybe just touching the corner as part of that. Um, a lot of that is wetland and understanding in our conversations with the developer for now that would just be held there to collect rainwater and provide some of that drainage. I think it's an open discussion about what might happen with it in the future. Would it just be retained as open space? Could it be returned to the city? So, I think that's something that still needs to be determined. Nothing was proposed to be built on it. All right. Okay. Um, another one here. Uh it was brought up quite a bit um previously, but uh as someone who goes on uh commutes down to the cities every day using Bridge Street with the traffic and increase there, not only the increase with here, but the uh other apartment building that's being built across the bridge and then also the memory care center. Is there a overall comprehensive traffic study that's being planned for that whole area? because there is a significant more amount of traffic being funneled into there. I am not aware of any traffic study that has been done. I don't know if staff is aware of anything. But um if it hasn't been, that's something that could be studied as an actual application would come forward if there are concerns that need to be um proven out if the traffic flow would work. Yes. If the concept moves forward to the next phase, then it would be sent to Anoka County for review and they would determine what would be needed for access. Okay. Would the city be responsible for covering any analysis on the Bridge Street side of it? Bridge is a county road. Oh, okay. Any other questions from the commission? Yeah, I got more. I was just giving other folks time. Go for it, Dustin. Um, timing of phase one and phase two. So, right now the only thing that's planned is phase one. Um, is there a idea or a rough estimate of any sort of timing for phase two? I'm going to need to defer to the applicant on that. I don't know that that was provided to staff. So, yeah. Yep. Come on up. Hello. Good evening, uh, commissioners. My name is Matt Alexander of Northshore Development Partners. I'm one of the owners of the the the apartment company. Um, real quick, you had a question about the North Lot. You're correct, there's no plans to build on that North area, and the intent has always been because of its uh wetland nature is to someday have get that back to the to the city for its natural uh uh rainwater collection. basically not going to be a buildable lot regardless. So, um, regarding phase one, phase two, our intention is to build all in one phase, all all 120 units because it's just more cost effective. It's expensive when you start breaking it up in phases. The only reasoning perhaps um there's a lot of unknowns in the world of finance these days. So from a U interest rate perspective, uh tariff perspective, costs, you know, if we get to the point of progressing, assuming we're able to get this to the to the finish line, we our goal would be to build wall one because we'll be able to do it on a per unit cost less than if you'd broke it up into two. So that's our goal. We the flexibility to break it up into two phases where we build the the central community center and one wing and one and one level of underground parking is just um this architect has done this in other communities. There's a very similar building to this uh in Cambridge. It's called the Emeralds apartment. Uh it's a kind of a wingshaped building. Their parking's on the inside where we put a courtyard on the inside and put the parking around the outside. So, as we get to the next phases, we'll bring in some more digital imagery of what that what we're what we're going after kind of for a three-dimensional, but at this point, it's just trying to get some feedback. Should I stay up here or go back? Depends if he's got more questions. Oh, yeah. Um, I I'll bring it up here. And if you don't know, I mean, a lot of design is still a little bit in flux here. Um any sort of plan for any screening for the property line for the adjacent houses nearby or anything planned? Screening will be subject to city code and ordinance. So I mean anything we that we propose and this is uh this is what we do. We we work with a lot of communities and municipalities in in across Minneapolis and many or metro area uh up in so every city has a a requirement. We will meet or exceed that requirement usually. We like trees too. and fencing if needed for protection of residents and other adjacent residents. Okay. Um with a reasonable assuming uh you know it's open reasonable timeline. What's your idea of finish cross timeline here? What time would the apartment be fully built up and people ready to move in? The build time on a project like this is 12 to 14 months. Okay. Uh we would we would our goal is to start this summer. um if if at all possible. We we've been working with the city uh for just over two years. Uh began the conversations with staff Colleen Bombgarter at the time um and identified and tried to try to help. We we've as Northshore Development Partners, if you look at our website, if you if you haven't, uh we work every project that's on there. Generally, we have a partnership with the city that we worked with, whether it be an acquisition of a piece of land or uh supplying parking for excess overflow for some adjacent use that they need. Um, we have, you know, I was a a large a very large uh family-owned uh commercial general contractor Krauss Anderson for 15 years before I was starting this group. Working with communities is critical to success. So, it's a partnership um from from the beginning. So, I think from the way this was designed, I know that it's not an it's not a perfect fit. Uh but this is thought there has been a lot of thought put behind it and a lot of conversation. So timeline would be start as soon as possible because I do believe that uh you know with the work that you that has been done to the site obviously it is a it is ready now to go and and the opportunity is you know unique for St. Francis to add some residential homes to this to the to the town. Oh, a longwinded answer. Okay. Else, nothing else. All right. Thank you. Can we ask questions or we sit here? Well, we have to get through our portion first. So, now that we are through it, we'll let people come up and comment. Um, be respectful of everyone and respectful of the time. There's quite a few people here, so we'll try and limit it to about 3 minutes each of you coming up to talk. Okay? So, if you come up one at a time and just give us your comments and then we'll go from there. Please also list your name and address before you name and address. Also, I'd like to ask a question, but I have a hard time getting up. Are they want to put a fence around that holding fund. It's just this is just for comments right now. We can't answer any questions. This just to give feedback. Well, in my opinion, it stinks. Thank you. Yeah. I'm Scott Ponet. I'm at 2311 Butterfield Drive Northwest. And I guess some of the things I was concerned about is well, why was the property logged off um before we even had this meeting? That's um the comment I wanted to make. Um I'm concerned about traffic. The roundabouts have um improved the flow of traffic well and which has aggravated some of the traffic problems trying to get on and off of Bridge Street. um even for EMS. So, um, you know, with the 120 units coming across from the fire hall here and then, um, you know, that's going to be another possibly 300 people entering Bridge Street. Then you got all ISD15 with, uh, eight servicing eight schools with the bus garage and all the kids going to school. um than to talk about putting 80 units down across from Casey's and um you know I could be 500 people entering Bridge Street and um I think it's a serious um um um emergency issue with getting law enforcement and um fire trucks, ambulance, you know, down. I mean, I think it's going to be log jammed terribly. And um so I think I think public safety is a big issue on this one. And that's the whole reason why they moved the parade from where it was routed and going across the bridge. You know, the reason why they rerouted it was because um concerns about plugging up the street when we have emergencies from the way I understand it. So, um, you know, and then there's the concerns of turning this area into another Brooklyn Park. You just have to watch the news to see what that's all about every day. So, I I don't think we need any more high density housing. I don't think it's in proportion to to um what we need here. So, that's my comment. Thank you. Hello, my name is Maria Stroyer. I live at 23169 Ambassador Boulevard and I'm basically the the pond, the swamp. Um, my concern is the runoff. Will the runoff totally go away from Ambassador? We get flooded out as it is with the fact that Yucka Street has a culvert that comes through onto Ambassador and then it runs along and goes out and comes out onto the deal. There is a beehive to the very back of the property that should take a major part of the water out but doesn't. So any more will really flood us. And I know that I have neighbors to the would be the south of me who run sump pumps all the time because we have a lot of excess water. And would there also be something to prevent children from that pond is deep that pond is mucky. We used to do mud runs in that pond. So I know how deep it is and I know how mucky it is and it would be very very dangerous for kids to play in. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Sandra Shear. I live at 22957 Northwest from River Boulevard. I was wondering who who owns this land. Anybody can tell me this property? Northshore. There was an an accepted purchase agreement. The EDA owned the parcel and Northshore Development Partners um purchased it and this has been going on for two years this the planning process. Yes. Okay. Has this been brought up before about this or is this the first time? This is the first first step in the process. And I want to know who's going to eat all the extra infrastructure, schools, water, sewer, roads, who who's going to pay for that? So that's my question, too. And no, those of us that have lived here all our life, uh-uh, we we like our small town. We don't want all this. Stop, please. It's been ruined already. Thank you. Hello. I'm so sorry. Um, my name is Megan Williams. I live at 23040 Butterfield and I definitely have some concerns as everyone has stated. Um, one of my big concerns is the way it's going to fit in the community and in the location. I mean, I've heard the sound of garages, uh, courtyard, pickle ball, I mean, uh, dog field. It's It all sounds great, but I don't know how that's going to fit there. my house directly was impacted by the loss of of that and I cannot picture a fourstory building fitting into the community in that location. I I understand that growth and change is inevitable, but I do think it should matter and impact how the community members who have purchased homes, who live here, who are dedicated to the betterment of St. Francis, which I feel I feel that here. That's something that I used to live in Blaine, came here for that community and I feel that here with the residential location. I do have concerns of shortterm continued turnover. Does somebody who purchase a home have a different feeling about the betterment of St. Francis to somebody who has a short-term lease staying in an apartment comp complex that's taking up a great amount of space. I definitely think that there needs to be some adjustment to this plan because it just as it stands, I just cannot see this doing anything positive for St. Francis the way it is. And I definitely I just want to say I do agree that there needs to be some sort of border for especially all those homes that have lost the natural borders that that help keep the homes safe and keep people's, you know, children, pets, property on their own land to to protect in that sense. So those are my thoughts. Thank you. No, I want to hear yours, too. All right. My name is Mike Roger. I've resided in the city since uh 2000. Um when this project started to come futation, uh I did some research into the developer. We should be proud to have these people in our town that want to be a partner with us. Um there's issues in this town right now that uh this development will help with. They'll give us an opportunity to address some of the other issues in this town. One are the water rates. Um with them coming onto the water system, it will help alleviate a lot of these rates that are due to increase. Nothing due to anything of the staff but of regulations through the state. Um, I have neighbors that are fixed income and if those water rates do go up, they will be forced to leave their houses. This is an opportunity for the city to make an improvement, create revenue, and that's my deal is I've always been that guy that always wants to create the revenue. This is one way we can create revenue in this town to make our living here economical. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Guys, I'm back again. Sorry, Tina. Carol. Um, one question I had is instead of an apartment complex, have we looked at building town homes or single family homes versus town homes? We can still utilize that and grow the the community, but it doesn't need to be a monstrosity of that many people when we're already planning on building some across from Casey's as well as the senior living building down the street. Thank you. just my name is Amy Benning. I live at 22983 Ka Street Northwest in St. Francis. Um, this does not immediately affect my backyard. Um, but it does affect my community. Um, I have recently gotten more involved and attended city council meetings, a few of them at least. Um, I would like to see some growth in the city as well, but not this kind of growth. Um, I have children that attend elementary school in St. Francis, middle school in St. Francis. Um, and I feel that this is a safety and security issue. If we are going to bring in um more residential area, I don't think this is fitting for our community. We are a small town that I hear most people want to keep it that way. Um, and the traffic is going to be just unbelievably insane. Um, it's already terrible. I have a two-minute commute to work, at the bar, at Chusters. Um, I do real estate. I am I'm all over the city. So, I I really don't want to see something like this go into our community. And I love the idea of um this developer coming in but with something that fits our community like um maybe town houses like the gal before me, Carol had said um little villas. I know people that are looking um for like one level living as they're getting older, but they don't want to move away from their friends and their family and they still want that natural environment. We have the river. It would be an ideal area for something like that, but not a fourstory apartment complex that will have a lot of turnover that could potentially bring in more crime. Um, definitely more more traffic and um just a lot of concerns and and your community is here voicing their opinions and it's it's kind of terrifying. So, thank you for your time. Thank you. Hi, my name is Danielle Acriman. I am on 23048 Butterfield Drive Northwest, St. Francis. So, my house, the trees completely like ruined what was the very reason we bought our house, which I know we don't own the property, you know, not not exactly our problem, you know. So, but that that took away what we loved about this city, the the woods, the wildlife. Um, that was a big thing, like the deer coming through all the time. So, it just changed the environment right away. Well, one of my things I was wondering about is was there something sent out about all those trees being, you know, removed or is that something that we didn't even have a say on anyway? And is there going to be something like others have said to compensate it like new trees or you know something to border so that if and hopefully not an apartment which would bring so much the traffic is a huge concern. I have kids and I bring them to school. I have to drive them every day. We don't you know attend here but already I have to leave like 10 minutes early to just get 7 minutes away. So, if you guys go in and build an apartment with that many people coming in, that's going to affect our road very badly. Like, people will probably cut go around thinking they're going to get there faster, but they won't. Um, and outside of that, I think it's just destroying what makes St. Francis very beautiful. That's it. Thank you. Anyone else? Question. Go ahead, Ken. Jessica, can you give us some background on It's my understanding that the trees were removed because of the time of year. Oaks and whatnot have to be removed without soil does not spread. That's why the trees were removed. There's also a species of bat apparently that would come back to nest if there were some bats in there. The city's own the property and speaking from I've been I'm one of your council members. I've been here for six years in council, but it's my understanding that Rodamachers used to own the property. It had an old rundown house. Ramachers, excuse me, I'm sorry. Um, at any rate, the city bought the property a long time ago, but can you explain the process of tonight's meeting is a concept situation, which we've already discussed that portion, but again, the EDA is within your city council. It's made up of city administrator, city planner, etc., and some individuals. It's not going EDA EDA bought the land. Um, how do I describe it? Uh, this is not a done deal. You guys are here to put your input and it's greatly appreciated. I strongly encourage you to come to the city council meeting as well when it's our turn to take a look at it and make some comments on it. But again, there's some financial caveats that have to take place before this goes through. Whether it does or doesn't, we don't know right now. Is is it worthwhile? Is it not? That's why you're here to talk about it because you're neighbors. We care about it. So, but can you uh am I off base here at all as far again just because the EDA owned it which is economic development authority which is created within the city. I just don't want people to go home all mad and upset like we didn't get the answer we wanted. It was hard for me to understand too in the beginning. But when you're in it and you're working it, you know more about it. But that, you know, that's uh just one of the things. But am I am I missing anything here other than I just want people to leave knowing that there's some caveats and some hurdles that had to be dealt with before this happened. If it doesn't happen and it ends up being town homes or something, town homes or something else, so be it. But I just uh sometimes the information is so vague we don't put enough emphasis in there. people believe, man. And that's not what we're hearing. Yeah. So, the trees were cleared um preparing for part of the 2025 street projects. So, the city also owns the two corner lots off of Bird Street that currently don't have access. So, creating the Woodbine North extension will give access to those two lots and the city will be able to better market them and sell those for development. This property was guided as well it is an infill lot and it can be a mix of a number of uses. There have there was a proposal for town homes that came forward before but it didn't it didn't make economical sense for town homes. And that's why you're seeing a higher density use here because that's what makes the most sense to build. I don't know if you want to wanted me to touch on anything else, but yes, this is the very first time that it's been on an agenda. Um it is the very first step in getting guidance from the planning commission and then on May 5th it will go before the city council and the council members will be able to provide their feedback and after that the developers are encouraged to listen to the feedback, adjust plans if necessary and then come back with the next phase which is the site plan. or a PUD or a variance, whatever needs to happen to continue moving forward. And then if we get to that point, that is when a public hearing would be scheduled. So yes, this is it has been a long a lot of work leading up to this. Um but yeah, we are extending a city road to connect through to give access not only to this lot but to the two corner lots lots right off bridge where the bridge where the Methodist church used to be up there. Okay. Yeah. So quick question for you though. What I'm sorry for our minutes. So step up and if you can if you could please start with your name. Thank you. Tina Carol 23045 Ambassador. What made the apartment complexes be more economical than town homes? I wasn't on staff when that proposal came through. Um, but for Northshore, this is this size of project makes the most financial sense. And Matt may have more to say. Um, one other little question I have was everyone here is talking about they like the small town feel. We have two very old historical buildings that are for sale. Okay. I don't know about you guys, but I'm afraid of those being sold, torn down, or just made into some other type of a business. And it's that scares me because I like this small town and what's going to happen with those two buildings. Right. Thank you. Is he gonna speak to the difference in the financial Yeah, thank you. Um, from a couple different reasons, but to to zoom zoom out a little bit from the use uh multif family sometimes gets uh it can feel uh very negative it because it's a change. I think something that we uh really take into account is who lives at our homes, right? These are your teachers in your school. These are your nurses working at Vista Prairie or at the hospital. Uh your firefighters, the nurses, these are folks that perhaps work in St. Francis and there's no options for them to live. There's a waiting list for the current existing apartment stocks that are in St. Francis u ranging anywhere from 6 months to six years. Um there's just not any options. I think from a from a high level perspective that's why when we we hired a a company to do a market study which we contributed to this for the city for their review in our initial conversations. Uh, it showed that and it showed there was a demand, not just a a desire to for a a developer or a city to put the to put the homes, but there's actually a need for rental units that rent for, you know, $1,200 a month, $1,400 a month for a twob. you know, there's there's demand for that as a transition for career folks that are you maybe they're uh you know, maybe they don't have kids, maybe they're single school teachers, but it's not a forever. This is people don't live in apartments typically forever. It is a a one to five year pro process. Um, regarding apartments versus town homes, economically it is more expensive to on on an area of land to build less units. So to get on a per cost per unit down to a point where it's rentable at those numbers that I I just quoted when the density is necessary. If you do bigger town homes, those rents are going to be three times that amount because the cost and the amount of units and what it costs to build um 220 or 2,000T town home is higher than it would have cost to build a 600 foot studio or a 750T single one-bedroom apartment. So from a just a economies of scale and what you can deliver for the what the rent is and according to our research and and looking through the economy and our experience there's a demand and you have a a group of folks that work in your community that that can't afford to live here. So they go to other communities and they're they're driving into into St. Francis. So, a lot of the the traffic perhaps that your this apartment will generate perhaps will be and we believe be people that work in this community that are currently commuting in here to go to work. So, that's my two cents. All right. Thank you. Y name and address again, please. Thank you. Danielle Acriman, 23048 Butterfield Drive, Northwest, St. Francis. Um, I just wanted to say all of that makes sense with, you know, a business wanting to grow and put money into a place, but where they want to put it is the wrong location. There's other areas in St. Francis, but right smack in the middle where we have the highest traffic makes zero sense and it makes our city crowded and it doesn't really do anything good for our community. That's all. Thank you. Yes. All right. Oh, one more. Amy Benning, 22983 Ka Street Northwest. Um, my question is actually directly at the um planning developer. Um, you guys have already purchased this land. So, no, you have not. Purchase agreement. Okay. So, if the purchase agreement isn't finalized, I I guess I'm wondering what the pecking order is here. Um, they have plans to build an apartment building. They want their apartment complex in. They've already determined that that's going to be the best value, most bang for their buck. Um, what's the time frame on the purchase agreement being final? Like, where where are they at on closing? What's coming first, the chicken or the egg? is what I really need to know because obviously they wouldn't want to buy that property if they can't put an apartment complex on there is what it sounds like to me. Yes, there are a lot of moving parts and we're trying to coordinate all of them. So, if for whatever reason this doesn't move to the next phase, then they would have to choose [Music] to cancel the purchase agreement. There are ways. Yeah. Yeah. And as a real estate agent, I definitely understand that. Um, I'm I feel like I am maybe not the only one that's feeling a little nervous at this point in time that something's going to get stuck or like snuck under our nose. Um, you know, where the apartment complex is going to find their way. you guys are going to somehow change the zoning on or like the the density level as you were talking about earlier. Um I think we're all just really nervous and we have clearly stated we don't want this here. Thank you. Just suggest you guys keep coming to this stuff that this is where the decisions are going to be made here in the city council. So if you come to those meetings, voice your opinions, then that's where the change will be made, right? But that's if you want to talk, yeah, come up here. We all are busy with with work and kids and family and and everything that we have going on. And I like I said, I just started attending. I've been in St. Francis for 8 years. I love this community. Um I want to be a part of the solution. I don't want to be part of the problem. Um and I feel like most of my community is like that. I've been talking a lot with people um throughout the community and we we want our our place to stay the same grow but within um within boundaries not bring in multi complexes. Thank you. Thank you. I will also mention you can also send in comments too that can get read at these as well if you can't make it. So yes, and the the meetings are streamed on YouTube, so you can if you can't attend in person, you can watch at home online. I believe for anyone interested, we still have a vacancy on this commission. There is a vacancy on the planning commission and if you're interested in an application, I can help you with that. Anything else from the commission on this? Oh, one more. Hey guys and gals. I'm Scott Rup 23231 under Cliff Street. Um, I'm just uh I'm here to learn like everybody else and I think the a lot of the online back and forth which you know I I understand and I and I full wholeheartedly uh appreciate everybody's kind of input on all that and everything. And um I think the key that I'm looking for is to learn the true financial decisions that are driving the the need for it based on the whole water costs and the storm water stuff and everything that's going on. Is there anything that you can share that isn't online that is like in discussion right now that it's you guys are talking about as to other means to capture it? to the other girls's point about um maybe taking on um a different location for for for the developer giving getting rid of maybe some reasonzoning some of that commercial stuff on the corner on 47 uh you know across from the the police station and you know those kind of things. I'm just curious about all those decisions that are going out. How do I find out about them? How does the how does the public find out about them? Right. That's for anybody. Yeah. Um, there have been there was a council work session. So, council member Robinson, if you want to add any comments about what was discussed with the sewer rates, but this this during our work session, it was it was brought to our attention that if we de uh we allowed not allowed if we considered some developments to come in that our water rates would be stabilized. It's been I think four years ago under Mayor Steve Feldman the water rates were reduced 20% with anticipation of a housing development coming in. It didn't come in but we kept the 20% discount on that. That's a fact. Nothing's been done since then. But now there's this thing called chlorides that's coming into our purview and it's a statewide or nationwide situation where water softeners are causing a lot of trouble as far as the waste water that goes into our system gets purified and cleaned up by our water plant and then we dump dump into the celely brook is again this is my understanding that's something we have to deal with down the road. Um but again the cost of doing business is going up as we all know we go to the grocery store we buy gasoline etc etc. So the the water thing is is a new thing for me as far new for all of us. It was introduced like uh I'm not tickled to the fact that they're using it. To me it should be two different discussions. The water rates are one thing. We were we built a $26 million water plant years ago that we shouldn't have built so big but we have a big, you know, it's at 52% capacity right now and it's it's it's holding its own. We kept our rates accordingly. And if you also look online, you can see how it compared to other cities. I mean, a lot of people say our rates are high, and they are, but they're not. You know, when you look at population and um there's different grading scales that other cities are using for water, but it I know it's up there, believe me. But um that I think the water discussion and the apartment discussion are two different entities. They shouldn't I don't believe they should be mingled here. It's like you either do this or we're going to do this. It's like, wait a minute. That's that's my one of my concerns at this point. Yeah, it was was pretty pretty called out online that like that was this is the only option to raise that and I I don't agree with that. I don't think we discussed it. We had a three-hour work session of which the this took about an hour of the conversation, not the development portion, but the water portion. Okay. Again, we we want to do our level best to keep the prices reasonable and still make ends meet and stuff, but again, everything's going up, the wages, the insurance, etc., etc. Yeah. So, we're working at that, but and I can't speak for everybody else, but I don't mind paying another 10 bucks a month extra if it means not building an apartment complex there. I would just like to note that this development and any future development that increases the users on the system will have a positive impact on your rates. Um, and when you're facing increases on a rate system that is already high, um, it's just part of making an informed decision. You want to see all of the things that will be affected by approving or not approving a development like this. So, it's important to know that it has a positive effect on everyone's rates. I'll follow up again. So, thank you for that comment, Scott Rupigan, 23231 under cliff. So, I think um that's helpful. It's informative, right? But again, I think the the pieces that like the community isn't hearing or doesn't feel like is being considered is all of the the stuff that comes with it. if they'll pay. And I think most people, like I said, like me, and it sounded like most people agree that, you know, hey, maybe we pay a little more on the rates because we don't have the capacity there, but we build in a different location or or we we consider the safety and the crime, possible crime, and other things around that as higher priorities than a a water rate increase, right? And I I already know it's the the the water rate increase probably wouldn't go over as well as even this would, right? I mean, everybody hates how high we pay for rates. We get that. But I think the the more priority is around the safety and the concern around traffic and congestion and crime and everything else. I I came up here four years ago to move away from all of that in Rapids and I thought I have this nice little nook back in the area by the river and now I've got you know within a quarter of a mile this huge apartment building going up and I don't know I mean we had foot traffic problems and some car vandalism and stuff on our on our street last year last summer and you're only inviting more of that into my neighborhood. So that's my concern. Thank you. Yeah. And that's why we have this process and it is a balancing act and it's why you have appointed and elected officials. So giving your point of view helps them make their informed decision. Appreciate that time. Thank you. More comments from the commission. All right. Thank you. We move on to number nine. Any other discussion by planning commissioners? Uh I guess we might as well bring up if there's anything that maybe we wanted to know about. Um I know with recent issue with someone being hit out on your mic's on. Oh, sorry. Uh sorry. Uh with the recent issue of someone being hit and killed out on uh the high the county road out there um has there been any additional discussion with Anoka County on getting the traffic set that's been planned and being bounced back and forth for years now because I know there's been plans for roundabouts to be constructed on those spots. Yes, the city is still having discussions with MDOT on the design of it. Um, so we're in the design phase of Highway 47 and also applying for grants and trying to get the funding in place as well. Okay. Can I elaborate just yet? Yeah. When we uh a year or so ago, uh we applied for a $7 million grant and we received that that we we've been awarded that grant. The money is not in the bank yet, but we've been awarded that. Um, we also uh went to the state capital uh six weeks ago and testified and asked for an additional $3 million in uh money from the state when they do their bonding bill. That's all part of the big equation. Co really put a stop on everything as it always does. Um but we had you know if you those have been hit long enough we had town meetings and whatnot as far as concepts and aerial pictures and whatnot about what 47 should or could be etc etc. So there's still uh at last I heard or last we were prized two stop lights, two roundabouts. Again, not everybody's a fan about roundabouts, but the the mindot seem to love them. But the the traffic lights we are responsible for as a city. So that's about a million dollars a pop. Um it's a convenience for us. It's been asked for by the citizens, but again, it's our responsibility. So it's coming out of our allowance. So, but again, we've received 7 million or awarded 7 million hopefully with the current administration and federal funding and all that stuff is still, you know, earmarked for St. Francis, Minnesota. The 3 million, we went and testified with other cities that had dire very dire problems compared to some of the stuff we had, but uh we we went to the well and we asked for for uh some money. So, that's where it stands this time. We haven't been laying down on the job. I know it seems that way and I I read it was again over six and a half years ago this happened and um I think about it every pretty much every day. So um but we're working on it. Um it this government moves very slow at this juncture but we're trying. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, we have a motion for adjournment. Got a second. Second. All in favor? I.