Let's just get this Yes. pleasant surprised this. >> Thanks. I'm Deb Hume. I'd like to call our meeting to order. The planning commission at 7 o'clock. Um like to start with the pledge of allegiance. So could you please rise join us 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. >> I think it's time for roll call. >> Okay. Vice Chair Hume >> present. Commissioners McMullen >> here, >> Hingos >> here, >> Jennon >> here, >> and Becker >> here. Okay. Looking for a motion to adopt the September 17th agenda for tonight. >> I'll make a motion. >> And Madame Vice Chair, uh, we do have some additional information that needs to be adopted into the >> Oh, okay. So, we start with that then. >> So, it would just be a a motion to adopt the agenda with that amendment. Okay. So, that's just public comment from one of our cases that we've received. >> Okay. >> I'll make the motion to adopt with the amendment. >> Okay. A second. >> One second. >> Okay. Thanks. All right. Now, we're looking for a motion to approve the minutes from July 16th. >> You need to take a take a vote on that motion. >> Oh, I do. Okay. Sorry. This is my first time. It was an unpleasant surprise that Feel free to use your house too. Monday night we had a full house and they still in the back. >> Oh, really? Okay. >> Okay. I'm not close enough to the microphone. All right. >> Okay. Could we have a vote, please? All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Okay. Thank you. Motion passes. All right. And now we'd be looking for a motion to approve the minutes from the July 16th meeting. Jan, I'll approve the minutes from the July 16th meeting. >> Thank you. >> As written. >> I'll second it. Back. >> Okay. And then our vote. All uh in favor? >> I opposed. >> Thank you. >> Okay. This is the part where we ask for public comment and we welcome public comments. anyone who'd like to submit a comment to the commission on a topic that is not already identified in the public hearing section of this meeting. And though although we may not be able to answer your questions tonight and in most cases will not act at this meeting regarding the matters discussed, the planning commission appreciates your input. So if anyone has anything they'd like to bring up that's not on the agenda for tonight, um this is an opportunity to to do so. Okay, >> is there anybody with Jody? >> Is there anybody written? Did anybody sign up? >> Did we receive any? >> Do I say that there are three comments that we received? >> Yeah. >> Yep. Yep. >> If anybody's Yep. If anybody's going to talk on anything that's not on the agenda tonight. So then you would just call them up and have them speak. >> Okay. Okay. Anybody is going to want to come up and um share public comment >> in reference to us being tonight? >> No. >> No. >> No. Just >> anything not on the agenda? >> Anything not on the agenda? >> Right. >> Nobody. >> Okay. >> And you didn't receive anything? >> Um I received it for the >> written. Yeah. So the written public comment that we received is what you included in the you amended the agenda to include. >> Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. >> Yep. >> So close that portion. >> Okay. And it's public hearing. >> Okay. >> All right. So we're closing the public comment at 7:04. Okay. Okay, now we're moving on to the public hearings and um we'll go to Beth. Thank you, >> please. >> Yes. Vice Chair and commissioners, can everybody see the screen? >> Yes. No, >> not yet. Okay. >> Sometimes it takes a little bit. I've learned to not go. >> Oh, there it is. Okay. Okay. Um so before you tonight Oh, still no. >> All we're getting is us. >> Yeah. Oh, all right. Yeah. Can you guys see it? >> No, we're just seeing the basically the >> Yeah. people. >> Yep. >> Um, >> now we're seeing a desktop. >> Okay. All right. That's good. Then you should be able to see it now. There we go. All right. Thank you, guys. So, uh, commissioners, before you tonight are requests for a reasonzoning and a comprehensive plan amendment, uh, for the property at 23671 St. Francis Boulevard Northwest. Um, so this is a 1.3 acre property located on the southeast corner of Highway 47 and Ambassador Boulevard. Uh, today there is an existing two-story building on the property. Uh, currently there's a chiropractic business in that building. Uh so just a little bit of history on this site. Um some of you may remember an application that came through uh last year. So I just kind of wanted to give the the full history of what where this site has been in the last few years. So uh prior to 2021, this site was zoned B3 business park. Uh and then so in 2020, the comprehensive plan was adopted. Uh and then after that comprehensive plan was adopted, the city worked on a zoning code update and that included an update to the zoning map uh to ensure that the zoning map and the comprehensive plan were in alignment with each other. Um so in 2021, as a result of those those updates to the zoning map, the city reszoned the site to the I1 general industrial district. Um the B3 district actually no longer exists in the city. Um so that resoning was to bring that site into conformance with the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um as a result of that resoning, the clinic use that's existing on the site today um became a legal non-conforming use uh because clinics were not allowed in the I1 district. Uh in 2024 uh the property owners uh came forward and requested a zoning code amendment uh to allow clinics and offices including medical, dental, and therapeutic um to be a permitted use in the I1 district. Uh that amendment was approved. And so at that point, the clinic use becomes a conforming use on the property. Uh and so that brings us to today where the applicants have applied for a comprehensive plan amendment and a reszoning uh to change the uh the zoning to the B2 general business district uh and the comprehensive plan future land use uh to the commercial land use category for this site. So again just a little bit about kind of the compliance issue. Uh so the city is required to have a zoning map that is in conformance with the comprehensive plans land use guidance. Uh and so that's where that's where you get the double request this evening. Uh because the requested reszoning to that B2 district uh the B2 district is not compatible with the existing land use category of business park light industrial. So that's kind of where you get the the twoin-one request for tonight. So I'll explain both the reasonzoning and the comprehensive plan amendment in a little bit more detail here. Uh so the site again is zoned I1 general industrial. uh that includes allowed uses such as the clinics after that amendment in 2024. Um but other things like auto service, uh manufacturing, warehousing, wholesaling, uh those types of uses and the full list was included in your packet um because there are a lot more uses than I just listed there. Uh the applicants are requesting a resoning to the B2 general business district um to better fit with the interest that they've received for potential future tenants uh within that building. Uh so there are uh existing autooriented and manufacturing uses to the south and east. You can kind of see that entire purple area on this screen uh bounded by highway 47 and Ambassador. Um there are commercial uses uh that exist just across the street uh west of Ambassador. Uh there is also a commercial uh parcel that is planned uh just to the north. Oh, sorry across 47. Um and then the one that's planned is across Ambassador to the north. uh the comprehensive plan amendment request. Uh so again you can see that this site is currently guided for business park light industrial. Uh you can see that that entire area that is today zoned I1 is guided for this business park light industrial use. That purple color on the screen. Uh that's a land use category that emphasizes uh employment centers and industrial areas. Uh you can also see that there are commercial areas again uh just to the west across 47 uh and then to the north across Ambassador as well. Uh so tonight the planning commission is requested to hold the public hearing for the comprehensive plan amendment and the resoning uh and then to take action on those requests. Uh as a reminder, uh these requests as a zoning ordinance amendment, uh and a comprehensive plan amendment, these are what we call legislative requests. Um so these are things that establish policy for the future. You're not just reacting to what's written in the code against an application. You are helping to decide policy for the future. Um because because of the nature of this as a legislative request, planning commission and city council have broad discretion uh when they're determining if these legislative changes are appropriate or not for the city. Uh and so you may have noticed there's not a recommendation uh of approval or denial in your packets. uh because of that the the reasoning or the findings um for whatever recommendation you you choose to provide tonight uh will need to be identified by all of you as you make those motions. Um so we did include on the screen and I can always flip back to this some some kind of uh topic areas if you will uh for for findings that people may uh may choose to to use to either support the approval or support the denial. Um, so those are things like does the city have capacity um to serve the site if it were to change uh with its utilities and infrastructure? Um, is the site compatible with the surrounding land uses? Um, you know, is there adequate access? Um, safety, all of that. Um, so I did want to note uh before we open it up tonight that again, these requests go hand in hand. So if if the planning commission is not supportive of the comprehensive plan amendment uh then you should also not support the resoning. Likewise if you are supportive of the comprehensive plan amendment then you should be supportive of the resoning as well. So again they go hand in hand. Um so with that I think I'll pause and see if there's any questions uh for me. Otherwise you would open the public hearing. Any questions, commission? >> For your information, I'm going to abstain on all votes on this because I'm a client there. >> Thank you. Okay. Well, I'd like to open for a public comment then. Uh 7:12. >> Oh, yes. Okay. It's um I'm opening it up for a public comment. So, if you come up, could you please come up to the microphone and share your name and address? >> Hello. Can you hear me? Push the button. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> So, my is Cynthia and this is my husband Brian and we currently live uh at 3121 228 Northwest in Bethle, Minnesota which is right here still in town even though Beck uh but we own the commercial building at the southeast corner of Highway 47 in Ambassador Boulevard in St. Francis. We've operated our chiropractic business here in St. Francis for over two decades and purchased this building at in 2013 to expand our clinic and responsibly lease the remaining space to compatible businesses. What we are asking for is a request to reszone to a B2 general business so the building can function as a small multi-tenant neighborhood commercial site consistent with its original zoning and the corridor immediately around us. Why this is critical? When we bought the property, it was B zoned B3 business park which allowed the uses we built our plan around medical fitness, wellness, and general office. We financed, designed, and later moved our clinic into the lower level on that fifth faith premise. During refinancing and buildout, we learned the site had been reszoned to I1 Industrial around 2020. Our only path to stay on schedule was a narrowly tailored medical use only ordinance. amendment that stop gap now prevents us from leasing to normal office retail service tenants without a fresh ordinance action for each prospective tenant which is about a 2 and 1/2 month process with no guarantee. We've already lost qualified tenants who've loved the location but couldn't wait through that uncertainty. The result of these imposed restrictions is real economic hardship. Our clinic is carrying building costs and we're constrained in expanding our services and offer offering competitive wages and bonuses to our 11 employees, most of whom live in St. Francis. This request simply restores the reasonable leasing flexibility we relied on when we invested here so the building can support our clinic, our team, and our family long term. How it aligns with the city's objectives. Parcels to our north and west are zoned B2. Converting our site to B2 realign this corner with its immediate context and the city long-term land use direction for this node. There's no added strain on infrastructure. The intensity and character stay neighborhood serving. What changes is that a healthy mix of small professional and service tenants can occupy long vacant space, strengthening the tax base, stabilizing this corner, and keeping jobs and services in town. In short, this is a corrective realignment that protects a long-standing community business, unlocks reasonable leasing options, and advances the city's goals for a cohesive commercial corridor. For these reasons and more, as we have outlined in our application, we respectfully ask for your approval and we thank you for your consideration. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Was there anyone else? Hi, my name is Michelle Anderson. Um, my address is 22861 Unity Street Northwest in Bethl. Um, I am the St. Francis Chamber Area of Commerce President and I'm also a real estate agent in town here and I have known the ops since I met Brian at Coney Market sitting at a little plastic white table in 2003 when he was just starting. they were just starting out. Um they are an absolute staple in the community when it comes to community support and community pride. Um and I just wanted to kind of throw my two cents in and saying that I hope that you will take into consideration that they've been a long-standing business within the community and they didn't do any thing to change this. they had a plan and they were working with their plan and they kind of got blindsided when all of this came up. And um we just just kind of want to share our concern and support because we would hate to see a business like Op Chiropractic leave the community um because this was changed without really any knowledge or anything. So um just wanted to share that support. So thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else want to share thing? Okay, there's no further comment. I'm going to close the public hearing at 7:18. Is it time to move on to a motion? >> Yep. So, it's discussion time between the the commissioners. >> I guess I'll start out. Um, so, uh, I think it makes sense. Um right now uh with the cross street and that kind of the general theme kind of being built up there with the planning um it's a corner lot generally it's more demanding for not demand in demand for businesses rather than industrial industrial is more about you know you're not trying to pull clients in usually um especially with some of the other industrials back there minus the auto shops Um, on top of the fact that no additional real city demand there, um, there's already long-term infrastructure planned with the, uh, future of the roundabouts planned on that intersection. Um, so I don't see a problem with it. >> I agree. I feel that it's would be really to the benefit of the city >> to reszone. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's on to reszone it and approve this. >> I would agree. >> Okay. All right. >> Am I allowed to comment? >> Yeah, I think you're fine to comment. >> I I've been going to Brian for a number of years, but they're so involved in the community. They sponsor just about every event that happens in town. I think it'd be a disaster to lose a business like that because a change in the rules that they weren't aware of. If I could vote, you know, or I would. >> Okay. All right. Thank you, >> chair. I have a question for Beth. >> Yeah. >> Beth, was there back in the day following timeline and whatnot, the city wasn't really a villain or a culprit? How did how did the confusion I mean it's a really nice building. They've done a really good job and they've been here a long time. What was the confusion back in the day or who >> yeah, >> you know, not to point any fingers, but who didn't know what, when, and why? >> Yeah. So, uh, vice chair and commission. So, as part of the 2020 comprehensive plan, that's when this entire pocket of of purple here, I'll go there. That's when that entire area was reuided um for business park, light industrial use. Uh, and so in my opinion, kind of the the confusion where it came in is this was all reguided and then we also did the zoning code update that eliminated that B3 district. And so those parcels that were B3 had to have somewhere to go. Um, and so a good portion of this area uh directly to the south is more manufacturing auto uses. Um, which seemed like the I1 district fit there. Um, and so trying not to spot zone, you know, it I that's my understanding of kind of how that entire area got reszoned as as one sort of chunk rather than individually pieced out. >> That might have been a housekeeping thing that was posted and probably just not attended to by the parties that are concerned because the city is definitely pro business. >> I never want to chase anybody away or make, you know, make it difficult. >> Yep. So, there was public notice sent out as part of the comprehensive plan update and then again as part of those resonings. Um, so >> life gets busy. >> Life gets busy, mail happens. >> Sure. >> I I can't. Yeah, that's >> I just want to restate again, the city's very pro business and we want to see, you know, more diversity and more activity as much as we can. So, I don't have a vote in the state, but I want to make sure. Thank you. Yeah, I I get um the the not wanting to spot zone, but I think having that corner lot and a major intersection be zoned for as a business rather than industrial. Perfect. Makes sense. >> It does. >> Can you speak up a little bit? >> Oh, I'm sorry. Uh I was just like restating that I feel that um because I understand the not the need or desire not to know spot zone um know pick lots here and here to reszone it but a corner lot on a busy intersection between two major roads makes sense to be a business district. So >> okay thank you. >> All right. Are we ready to move to a decision? So, we're looking for approval, denial, or tableabling this >> question. Would that be uh two um recommendations for both the amendment update and the reasonzoning? >> Correct. Yes. So, it would be two separate motions. >> I'll go ahead and make the first one. I would uh move to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to reguide 23671 St. Francis Boulevard Northwest from business park light industrial use to commercial use with findings in fact as identified by commissioners. >> And so those findings of fact would be >> I know you've stated them but if you could just restate some. >> Um so finding effects would be that they would have minimal to no capacity of city utilities and infrastructure increase. Um uh compatibility of surrounding uses to both the north and the west lots and access uh com uh aligns with uh general business at both the two major intersections and future routing expansions planned there with the roundup. >> Okay. Isn't there a second motion? >> Okay. Do individual or all one side? >> Do them one at a time. Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. So, we have a second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. So far. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um I'll also motion number two. Move to recommend approval of the reszoning request to reszone 23671 St. Francis Boulevard Northwest from I1 general industrial to B2 general business with the following facts of or findings of facts. Uh the first being the proposed resoning is consistent with the amendment of the to the 2040 comprehensive plan which regides the site for commercial use and other findings as identified by commissioners. Um >> that's the only finding you need but if there are others you feel like sharing you. >> Okay. Do we have a second? >> I will second it. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, we're a vote. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. >> Okay. Thank you. My motion passes. >> Um, so that will be before council at the next council meeting, which is the first Monday in October. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So, now we're looking at Dalton River Villas. Is that correct? >> That is. Yep. >> All right. Uh, vice chair and commission. Uh, before you tonight are several requests relating to the Dalton River Villas project. Uh, this is a 16 acre uh, parcel that's along the Rum River. Uh, it's currently undeveloped today. Uh, there is frontage on the site uh, on Woodbine coming up from the south and then Ambassador Boulevard on the west. Uh, as you look at that site, you'll see that it's a fairly irregular lot shape. uh becomes quite long and narrow as you move from east to west. Uh the site is also encumbered by several natural features. Um so there's a bluff as well as the flood plane that covers about half of this site. So a concept plan for this site uh was before the planning commission as well as the city council uh earlier this summer. At that point, uh, council members and commissioners, uh, kind of looked at the concept and said that in general, the layout and the size of the lot seemed to be reasonable. Uh, we talked a little bit about the outlot on that eastern side as part of the area that's part of the flood plane. Um, that would be uh remain an outlot, but would not be part of the city's public park system. So the requests that are before you this evening include a preliminary plat um multiple variances and we'll we'll go through each each different variance uh and then a conditional use permit for public roads. So the preliminary plat itself, you can see the full plat there on the screen. Uh it includes 19 single unit residential lots uh that are clustered in kind of that southwest uh portion of the site. Uh 16 of those lots are proposed to be served by a northerly extension of Woodbine Street. Uh three of the lots would have direct access onto Ambassador. There are also two outlots proposed. Outlot A covers a good majority of the natural features. So the flood plane in the bluff uh and runs right along the river. And then outlot B uh is adjacent to outlot A but would include a storm water basin. So uh this site is guided by the comprehensive plan for low density residential use which is two to three units per net acre. So when we do our net acre calculations we take out uh the natural features like the bluff and the flood plane. Um so for this site it's a 16 acre site but once you take out the areas that are undevelopable you get about 8.3 acres on that site. Um and so with 19 units on about 8.3 acres that proposed density is 2.3 units per net acre. So, it's right in the middle of that range. Uh, the site itself is zoned R1, which is the urban lowdensity detached residential district. Uh, it's also located uh in the urban rum river management district. Uh, or that's an overlay district, uh, because it's adjacent to the Rum River. So, as we're looking at dimensional standards, uh, the most restrictive standards would apply. So whether that's the R1 standards or the urban rum river management standards, whichever one is more restrictive is the one that applies to this property. So talking about dimensional standards, this is where the the variance requests come in. Uh you'll see that the the areas that are highlighted in red on the screen are areas where uh there are requests for variances. Um, so those include minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum front yard setback from a local street, uh, minimum rear setback from a county highway, and then maximum impervious surface. So again, I'll touch on each of these in more detail, uh, but wanted to kind of lay out the picture for all of you. Uh, I also did want to mention uh, we've we've had some additional information from the applicant yesterday, uh, where they actually updated, uh, a few of the lots. they change the lot area for lots 14 and lots 18. Uh so those lots no longer require a variance for minimum lot area or for impervious surface. Um so in the packet when I said you know there are eight lots that require variance that number has been changed to six based on the changes that they've made. Do you know if those changes were I saw um due to a road cover they was that rerouted and that's what changed it or >> uh no uh I I contacted them and just and based on the based on looking at the lot sizes asked if they would be able to just adjust the lot areas in order to to not have as many variance requests. Okay. So they were able to adjust that. Um so speaking of lot area uh again per the comprehensive plan this site is required to have a density of two to three units per net acre. Uh which if you multiply that out you're looking at a requirement of 16 to 24 units on that site in order to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um so they've proposed 19 lots which again is is kind of right in that that range. uh because of the kind of the shape of the lot uh as well as the existence of the bluff and the flood plane and the access coming from Woodbine, those lots are clustered in that upland southwest portion of the site. Um so they're not using the entire site as developable land because it's not developable land. Uh so you'll see that the the three lots that are uh below the required minimum lot area are listed there. So you can kind of see the range of lot sizes. Um staff is supportive of this variance request. Again, it's an attempt to preserve the site's natural features while also threading the needle in meeting the city's density requirements. Um so this image shows the the lots that are requesting that specific variance. Next up is lot width. Uh 18 of the 19 lots that are proposed are undersized. Uh the one that is not is lot 11 to the north. Uh and again those lot widths are reflecting the fact that these are lots that are smaller and clustered together in that southwest portion of the site. Uh and so staff is supportive of this request as well. Next up is maximum impervious surface. Uh the urban rum river management district allows a maximum impervious surface of 30% on any lot. Uh six lots exceed that limit. uh those lots are somewhere between a little bit over 31% uh up to 45% uh impervious surface proposed. Uh again, these are the exact same lots that are requesting the variance for minimum lot size. So it's a direct result uh of those lot sizes themselves. Uh if you look at the site as total, uh the impervious surface total for the entire site is about 13% of those 16 acres. Um, so that includes the lot improvements that are anticipated. So the houses, the driveways, things like that. Um, the extension of Woodbine Street and then the sidewalk that runs along the street. Next up is the minimum front setback from a local road. So there is a 25- ft front setback uh from Woodbine Street that's proposed for all those lots that are shown in red. Uh, this is consistent with the R1 district. R1 requires a 25- ft front yard setback. Um, however, it is undersized for the urban Rum River Management District, which requires a 35- foot front yard setback from a local road. Uh, staff is supportive of this variance. Uh, if you start to to look at it, uh, the setback pushes the homes that are east of Woodbine actually closer to the bluff and the river by forcing them to be further back from the road. Uh, on the west side of Woodbine, it pushes those homes closer to the county road. Um, so staff is supportive of keeping those houses off the road and off the the bluff as much as possible. >> Uh, and then lastly, minimum rear setback from a county road is the last variance that's requested. Uh, the applicant is proposing a 35- ft rear yard setback from Ambassador. Uh, this is consistent and actually exceeds the requirement for the R1 district, which is 30 feet. Um however again it's undersized for the urban rum river management district which has a 50- foot requirement. Um so staff is supportive of this variance uh similar to the other setback variants. Uh this moves the home away from the natural features while still exceeding the requirement for any other uh or the same requirement that you would see for any other R1 uh zoned property. A little bit about access here. Uh so primary access again is proposed to uh come from the Woodbine Street extension. Um so that would extend up from the north and terminate in a culde-sac and that would serve 16 uh of the 19 lots. The other three lots are proposed to have access drives onto Ambassador. Uh this entire uh project was sent to Inoka County for review and they came back um supportive of those driveway access points onto Ambassador. Um they did request some adjustments to the driveway locations to make sure that those are um within 30 ft of the property line um which is what the applicant is showing on this this updated drawing. Uh I did want to mention that uh the creation of a public road in the urban rum river management district requires a conditional use permit. Uh that's something that we did not notice for for this meeting. Um and so the public hearing for that specific request will actually be held at the city council. Um not tonight, but the public hearing for the other requests will be held tonight. So in effect, it's two public hearings. Uh landscaping. Uh this site today is heavily wooded. Uh there is clear cutting prohibited within 150 ft of the ordinary high water mark of the Rum River and 30 feet of the bluff line. Um so we have asked for the applicant to provide an exhibit that shows that area where the clear cutting is prohibited. Um so grading in those areas would need to be custom grading. Um and then they should preserve as many significant trees in that area as possible. Uh the city does not have a tree preservation ordinance and so there's nothing specific to go off of as far as you know replacing trees that are um removed. Um there are two trees proposed to be planted for each lot. Uh one tree in the front yard of every lot and that is consistent with what the code requires. Uh so the applicant is proposing a mix of birch, coffee tree, locust, lynen, and maple. >> Just question because I don't have it memorized. Do those trees align with the city requirements? >> They do. Yes. >> Y uh finally uh the the lots are proposed to be served by city utilities. Uh the city engineer has looked at the utility plans as well as the storm water plans um and provided a letter uh as well for different comments. There are two storm water basins proposed on the site. One is that infiltration basin proposed in outlot B which is on the east side of the site. Uh the other is a rain garden that would be private which is primarily on lot 11. Uh so tonight planning commission is requested to hold the public hearing. Again, that hearing is for the preliminary plat and the variances, not the CUP. Uh that will be at the city council. Uh and then once the once the public hearing is closed, then commissioners should discuss and provide a recommendation to council. And staff supports the preliminary plat variance and cup requests. And the suggested motions are on the screen. They're also on page 25. So I'm happy to answer technical questions if you have them before the hearing. Anyone have any questions? No. Hearing? None. I'd like to open the public hearing at 7:38. If you have a comment or question, please come up. >> Do my name and address. Yes, please. >> Julie Marillo and I live at 23539 Ambassador Boulevard. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, so I was here during the developments across the river. Some are familiar faces here, some new and um excuse me. I was here in reference to the riverbank and concerned of the building and I was told of the 150 bluff wouldn't be touched. And across from my house now I have a neighbor who has weed feeded the entire riverbank. I have one that has completely clearcut it. And it's ironic cuz your map cuts off those properties. Yet, if you look at Google and you look at the address that was just sold, it shows you right there the clear cutting. It shows you, okay, even if they take the buck thorn out, right? It's supposed to at least have coverage, right? Their advertisement of that home being sold is the front of the house giving a straight view to the other side of the river cuz it's gone. I have called the city as Jod knows. I have called the police. I have called the waste management shed. I've talked to Jared. I've talked to Matt. I've talked to all of them. I used to live off Butterfield Drive with my parents. grew up here, been here 50 years, and everybody directs me back to the city, but nobody's protecting that embankment. So, when you say it's only 5 ft that you're giving to the builder, right? You're not cuz the builder's asking, right, for in previous space, right? He wants more home. He wants you to give more into the lot. So that way to say you're saving the bank, but you're still giving them space on the bank. So although you say it's 150 ft of building, who's protecting that? Because I'm told it falls on all of you because you guys are closed on the weekends. You can ask plenty. They hear the chainsaws going. You know, I've done everything in my power as a resident to try and protect the bank and I've gotten zero response. I literally had the mayor at my house this week to show him there's nothing there. Right. You're talking two trees now where you all want to build 19 homes. When I was little and went to Miss Butterfield's house, right, where Butterfield Street is, that was where we all played was in the woods. So to talk about replacing two trees with all of the trees that are there. I'm wondering who's going to be accountable for the riverbank, you know? Uh Kevin, >> yeah, >> you're from Oak Grow, right? You guys had a 1.5 right million dollar investment for erosion right back from 2017. >> I don't recall but it was very busy. >> It was a large investment that they did through Oak Grove and Andover. I went kayaking down the river this past weekend. You go from my Sy's bridge right up to where all our buildings are, all our vacant areas where we've torn down trees and there's not even homes yet and it's tree covered. It's a nice pleasant area. Everybody respects it. You get into these small little one, you know, point4 acre lots and it's literally just a grass and like you guys said, two trees. Everything on here doesn't fit or there's a reason why there's variances. It doesn't fit the front. It doesn't fit the back. You know, there's I live on Ambassador. I wasn't here when the homes, the apartment building was being built because our seniors need a place to live, right? That I can see. We have so many vacant lots right now, so many just dead areas that are just sitting plain and yet we're here talking about demoing more trees and not even like caring for what's already sitting there. So I'm just wondering if this is built because this is my view going down the river. This is what I look at. Who's going to be responsible for the embankment and enforce that you say 150 setback but really it's 30 to the embankment cuz that's the center of the river. And I know it well because I've been here standing at this podium last time when you did developments. So I'm just wondering who takes accountability for what I look at now. And when those homes come up and all these people on Butterfield and the wraparound, all those homes demo the trees are gone. Who's accountable for it? It's not just a simple 5- foot setback that you're giving them or from the street. So, I'm just wondering who who is accountable then when that be comes into an effect because I'm talking about only eight homes that were built across me. This is 19 and you have three on the street that are right next to me in the A-frame. So, I'm just wondering who's accountable for it. Who do you call when that stuff is happening? Because when I had the mayor at my house, he said, "I don't know, Julie. I'm going to have to look into that." And when I told him that I call the police and the police tell me to call the city, the city tells me to call the police, right? So, I'm just looking for answers as to who is accountable for it if this variance is approved. That's a good question. >> And there's Amber Ashborn right now. That guy who demoed his lot. I'd love to show you all. I have a picture if you'd like to see it. >> And my question is he clearcuted his thing. I totally get getting rid of the amber bore, right? I get it. >> But it's supposed to be during certain seasons, right? So if you're going to be a live on the river and be responsible, be responsible. Know when to cut the tree down. Nope. Dead summer. So now I this year had 12 dead trees in my lot. You know, I'm just wondering who takes responsibility here or direct me who would take responsibility for what I'm dealing with on a day-to-day basis because you're just asking for that to come. You guys gave less of a setback on that building and This is what I'm looking at. >> Thank you. So, I'm just wondering when they're advertising >> Mhm. >> right that it's clearcut, who do you go to? Who do you ask? Who has the who here has it? because watershed DNR and mayor and police all tell me it's you. >> Yeah. Unfortunately, I don't think that's a question that we can answer. We don't have the authority to enforce. >> Yeah. During the our discussion portion of this, I will be asking a couple questions to folks around here. >> Okay. Cuz I too have wondered about the consequences of disturbing the the riverbank and things like that because it happens. The DNR will say that it's up to the city to enforce it. >> So, last time when it started with these houses, you all sent notices out to them. >> Mhm. >> But like me and the mayor talked about, people move, right? I was told that it went with the sale of the home, right? That it went with their contract and said, "You live off a Rum River District property." That that's what it was supposed to be in the sale of the home. this is what you're allowed to do and what you're not allowed to do. So, when people moved in, they knew right from the get-go what they were approved to do. I talked to a realtor, the realator looked at me like I lost my money. >> So, I appreciate you sharing your concerns. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Hi, Tina Carol 23045 Ambassador Boulevard. Um, I do agree. You know, why cut down all these trees? We just had this issue behind subway where the city came in and downed 6 acres of trees before anything was even done. And now we're going to do the same thing here. But like she said, replace it with only two trees. That's not really preserving. I mean, people keep talking about the ecosystem and what do we need to live? Oxygen. Where do we get that? Trees. Well, I'm sorry, but if you keep cutting those down, it's not going to help. Nothing is going to you can't replace those trees that you're cutting down. You've got 100 foot trees. Uh those won't we won't see that in our lifetime if you're cutting these down. And who is responsible for paying for that those trees to be cut down? Because I'm sorry, but we already took the the bill and took the brunt of having to pay that $80,000 behind subway. and who's going to pay for these trees to be cut down and when is it actually going to happen? Is it going to happen once everything is approved by the city or is it going to someone going to jump in and do it again right away? That's my fear is that this is going to continue to happen if somebody is not being held responsible and we need to protect this city. And with only what just under eight acres actually being built on, why do we need 19 homes there? Why can't we have those lots be a little bit bigger to preserve that embankment and preserve the forest? Thank you. Thank you. Did anyone else have any comments or anything they wanted to share? Thank you. Is there any discussion questions from the commission? You close public comment. We >> have to do that, don't we? I'm closing the public comment at 7:51. Thank you. All right. Um part of our discussion here since it's run center um what is the the if we can answer that here the proper way to uh go about for raising concerns around clear cutting trees down to that river bank because it is a legitimate concern. I know permits have been denied. Um, when I used to go to the Rum River and I was still in, they want to have a nice They had their patio out there. They want to be able to see the river denied because you can't clear cut down to there. Um, so I know the city's doing its job in denying permits to remove those trees, but how do we enforce that? The DNR has the restrictions in there um during the initial review, but they kind of entrust us to review to maintain that. So, what is the proper way? Is there a proper way currently set up? >> Yep. Uh so commissioners that is something that I would like to look into a little further too uh before I give a a straight black or white answer on that. Um right now the requirements that are in the city code match the requirements that are in the state rules as far as uh clear cutting, excuse me, clear cutting goes. Um and so that's something that both the city is in charge of, but then those rules are my understanding is those rules are enforced by the DNR. And so we just got a new DNR area hydraologist this week. Um and so I think that's a a good discussion to have with him uh to understand really who's who's p you know who is responsible for this. Um I will also point out that these lots are not proposed to be riparian and so people will not be owning down to the riverbank. Um so I that you know property lines aren't always visible and I understand that. Um but the the people who uh assuming that uh the city moves forward with this project that these are not riparian lots. >> Um do we know how far down to that towards that river bank is it are they I mean do we have the uh lot map that you could throw? >> Yep. Just no that doesn't help here. Sorry. There we go. Um, so you can see there's that outlot A stretches along that river bank. Um, so it's obviously thicker in some areas and and narrower in others. >> Yeah. >> My experience with if somebody lives above the river >> above the river, they don't care where the property line is. If they want to cut a tree down, they're going to cut it down. >> Especially when the proposed houses are close to 450K. >> Yeah. and that's understood. However, this is all assuming the behavior of someone that lives there that doesn't live there today. And so, you do need to, you know, focus the discussion on what's, you know, the plans that are in front of you today. >> But we are using the history from previous lots and similar situations that are being brought up >> and it's a valid concern. And so there are, you know, there are conditions that the city can can put on and we can >> uh we can think of some understanding that concern. I don't have them in front of me right now, but >> um question from I believe the last time we reviewed this. Um was there discussion I know there was discussions around whe would be >> up sorry up for um accepting the uh stewardship of outlaw. Um is that something that is the case here that that land would be city land? It just wasn't clearly laid out just that wouldn't be part of the city park. >> Yeah. Um, so as part of that concept plan discussion, uh, council determined that this would not be an area that would be accepted as parkland. And when I informed the applicant of that, he said that, uh, he would be retaining ownership of outlot A. So the city would not own out A. And so Outlot A, is that correct that it kind of covers the bank? >> Yes. I have a question. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> When this comes to council, um, can we get some aerial shots of what we're talking about as far as foliage and trees and whatnot? >> Sure. >> An actual like a Google map. Uh, >> yeah. Something a little bit clearer than that. >> Thank you. >> I've got a drone I can fly up. What's that? >> I've got a drone I can fly up. You can use that too. I have another question. Shar, does the bluff uh the bluff is pretty much is that governed by the DNR per se? Even though somebody owns a lot and they take liberties and cut a tree, if they're into that bluff area, isn't that a pen? That's a infraction right then and there. The DNR is in would step in and take some action. So, commissioners, I think that's where that's where some of the confusion is coming is a lot of the time the DNR will say they are responsible for below the ordinary high water line. Obviously, the bluff is not below. And so, that's where we need to understand who who is really responsible and that's where I'd like to have a conversation with the hydraologist. >> That's what the young lady brought up that as far as she called their fingers are pointing this way, >> right? And that's what we'd like to hear. >> Okay. >> No, I support that wholeheartedly. >> Thank you, chair. Yeah. >> And I'd also like to get confirmation because it was brought up here. Um I know the the clearing of the trees behind the subway area that was city-owned land. City covered that cost. This is not currently city- owned land. City would not cover the cost of cutting trees. >> Correct. This is privately owned land. So the private owner would be doing the clearing of the trees. The city would not pay for any of that. Um I did see a in the packet a note that the the okay so it's not discussion about the cup but um around the lots for it. So, um that the the current design for the road would uh not be acceptable for the 30 m per hour design. Um would that still require lot plots to change dimensioning? >> Um I would have to go back and check on that. That would be likely a note from the engineer and so I can confirm uh with him. Okay. Chair, I have a question for Jody. >> Jody, have you seen anything like this before where there's been some liberties taken with property lines and or foliage or whatever? And if so, how was it? I suppose depending on where the land was and whatnot, but have you seen infractions like this and then nothing then some confusion like this come up before? >> Um, chair and commissioners. Yeah. Um, I want to say it was probably um maybe 5 years ago, 6 years ago, we've received a call on the suspicions of somebody um clear cutting their lot. Um, city administrator Kate and I did go out and look at it and there they had some disease trees that they did take down that they were um allowed to take down because they were diseased. But other than that, when we went down there, there wasn't we couldn't see clear cutting, so to speak, beyond what the code had mentioned. >> And so, um, >> I know things have changed, too, in the last five years. So, did would somebody have to have a certificate or from an arborist to say that these trees are should be taken down, etc., etc. Would they should they I guess currently should they have some paperwork instead of providing or be notifying the city that they're going to be taking removing some trees and whatnot? >> That'll be a question for um the DNR when we do reach out to them to find out if there's more to that. Um, as far as that goes, we did take pictures while we were out there and we did show it to them and um, it wasn't anything they were concerned about and so they left it back and said gave it back to us and >> Okay. >> And we we talked to the homeowner and we informed them and of of the city code and we didn't receive any complaints after that. >> Right. I know the D gets pretty excited about moving bogs or cutting cattails and whatnot. I mean there's all kinds of >> you know the rats and hell can come at you take some cattails down again because it's a a natural filtration system etc. So >> sure yeah >> I think they'd be pretty excited about some trees in there especially in their area of the bluffs or whatnot. >> Sure. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. >> I can understand your concern. >> The property I showed you is the one that she's talking about that they went out to when it was I was the caller >> and now it's completely gone. And yeah, and um I guess I haven't received any new complaints since then. If it was if it if it was others that were notified about it, but had I received the calls, I would have brought the DNR back in. Yeah. >> All right. Um a question. Um generally when something's brought forward and put on our schedule here, we have uh the opportunity to push for more data to come in till the next meeting. Is that an option on this one? Yes, you you have the opportunity to approve well recommend approval, recommend denial or table. You would need to identify the information that you need and you know ensure that that would act would >> affect the decision that you were >> right and I believe the consequences is if we don't approve it on the next one gets auto approved. >> Uh we would look at the timelines for approval. I'm >> I don't have the dates in front of me. Okay, I I closed the public comment, but I believe there's someone who wanted to say something. >> At this time, the public comment is closed today. >> I'm sorry, sir. I >> Yeah. So, >> so at this time it is closed. >> Um, there would be opportunity either at the city council meeting since there is the CP question for the developer though. >> Yeah, the developer is here if you have questions for them. Oh. Oh, okay. Did you have any questions? >> Any questions? >> Does anyone have any questions? >> I don't from the developer side. >> No. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, would you be able to go back out to the the aerial view version? >> Yes. Yeah, I just want to see where Okay, >> that I understand it's yellow, but does that >> Yeah, I was just looking um just because I know there's a similar setup over on the 232 or 2032nd court north. Um I guess the flood plane there's a lot bigger, so the properties don't go quite down that far. Um, I know that area is covered under an HOA, so I was just thinking that, you know, if that was something, I'm not a huge fan of it, but it would be some way to keep liability there. So, >> okay. >> Um, so yeah, when it comes to that, I wouldn't be opposed to waiting until we had feedback from the hydraologists. Um, if asked, I you know, I'd be willing to go and make some DNR calls to find out about enforcement as well. If I wouldn't be able to find any thing, then I'd be able be willing to vote the next time around. [Music] >> Okay. >> Oh, excuse me. >> Excuse me. We're we're still meeting. >> Yeah. >> I think we're dealing with two different issues here. We're dealing with something that has happened in the past >> and fear that it might happen in the future on these lots. But what we're dealing with tonight is the variance of the setbacks >> and the variance of the lot size. It has nothing to do with the trees. >> And the the variance for the setbacks >> is not on the side of the river. It's on the side of the street. >> I agree about that. So, I think we should we should allow city staff to deal with the issue with the trees on previous lots >> and the implication of what might happen on these. We have no idea. We can't predict the future, but we can certainly deal with the variance that is in front of us tonight. >> Um, could you put up the uh proposed variance or the uh >> Yes. >> Thanks for bringing us back. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, you are completely right. >> Um though that is something I'd still would like follow up from the next time around uh just as part of whether it be normal >> agenda items just to have that feedback. >> We could talk about that in the next y >> you know the discussion by the planning commission. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So at this time we want to talk primarily about the variance. Mhm. >> Yep. >> The requests before you tonight are the preliminary plat, the variances, and then the the cup for the public road. >> Um question for the county highway. Um does the city have authority to give that variance or would the county also need to say okay? >> Uh so commissioners, the city has the authority to give the variance. Okay. Uh I did the county has seen this they've provided a comment letter and I did ask them specifically about that variance. Um and they verbally told me they don't have a problem with it but we can always get that in writing as well. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um the other thing I did see uh I think it was in the engineering comments as well um that with the current and previous surfaces um they wanted a different rainfall amount utilized Noah requirement um just as long as that's done I don't have a problem with that. So right now one of the proposed uh conditions would be that everything needs to be everything that's in the engineering letter needs to be um addressed per the engineering uh to his standards. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Do we have a motion? >> Can we get the motions listed? >> Yeah. One minute here. There you go. >> Um, since we don't have the public comment, uh, would we be doing the motion for number two there? >> Yep. Uh so commissioners, you can still uh provide a recommendation and we'll we will obviously hold the hearing uh at council after notice. >> Okay. Does anyone want to move with the recommendation? >> I'll go ahead and give the motion recommendation. Um I move to recommend approval of the lot area, lot width, front setback, and per surface variance with conditions and findings as presented by staff. First one. >> I would second that motion. >> In favor. >> I >> opposed. >> Me. >> Okay. >> We cannot deal with number two. Can I correct? >> No. She said we can make a recommendation. >> Okay. I would move to recommend approval of the cup for the construction of a public road within the urban rim river management district with conditions and findings of fact as presented by staff. >> Okay, >> I'll second. >> Second in favor >> opposed. >> No. >> Okay, thank you. And I'll go and uh move to recommend approval of the pre preliminary plot for the Dalton River Villows project with condition and findings of fact as presented by staff. >> I would second it. >> Okay. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. >> No. >> No. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner McMullen, do you have reasoning that you'd like to >> There's too many questions that aren't >> being answered. >> Okay. I would have moved to table it open. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I would still like to follow up at the next meeting about that on the agenda, but as it was pointed out, what's being put in front of us here is about the lot areas lot with uh basically the plot. >> I agree. But we're letting residents harmed >> because we're not given answers. We're not the place to give answers, but we >> maybe have the authority to try and start getting some answers. >> And that's what part of our initial statement is is that um we welcome all comments. We can always act on them, but we will take >> I agree. You know, I I I just would rather have tabled it until we had answer. >> Yeah. If something about trees were were in here, I would agree to >> Well, I'm just I'm looking to it's preliminary. It's it's it's not a forgon decision. It's not a >> And often what the planning commission um can speak up, please. >> Sorry. Often what the planning commission um does is uh you can provide that recommendation and still note that you know you'd like staff to follow up on XYZ or you'd like a condition added on X or but I understand your position. You don't have to explain further. I just wanted a little more clarification. >> Maybe the the council sees that somebody at least objected and might question it further what happens. >> Sure. >> Yes, we will. >> Yeah, >> that's my point. >> Yep. Well, that and I think our concerns are noted as well >> and the concerns of the public who shared tonight. >> Okay. Is it time to move on to regular business items? Are there any? Okay. Any discussion? I think the discussion is around the responsibility of enforcement of tree removal, >> right? >> Who is responsible and what are the consequences and >> well I mean we've discussed it and and staff has has agreed to >> investigate that for us which I think that's the important thing. I think this city is doing the correct thing when it comes to laying down the groundworks when we're first initially uh laying out the permits. Um that's been highlighted here. What the what's not cannot be touched. Um I've seen it permits denied for it in the past when I brought up with the Rum River, but I do think um at least I I want to know what what that path is. Um, technically I feel that the DNR should have something in involved with that, but I get the bureaucracy. So, >> yeah, we will look into it and let you know. Uh, well, let council know in October and let all of you know also in October. Uh, okay. But we learn. >> Okay. Thank you. >> There's nothing else. Um, we have a motion to adjurnn. Make >> a motion. >> Thank you. >> I'll second. Okay. Second. >> Second. Uh, meetings adjourned at 8:12 p.m. >> Thank you. question. >> Yeah. No, I got it. I don't have a problem with it >> because you and Sarah, right? >> It's me and Sarah and the mayor. Yeah.