All righty. Go ahead and call the meeting to order. Start with the roll call. McKe here. Lantern here. Friedrich here. Baronamp here. Nicholls here. Perfect. Like to stand and join the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance 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. on to agenda approval. Uh is there anything staff? It doesn't look like there's any changes. Uh the only change, Mr. Mayor, was we updated the city council schedule to reflect some additions that have occurred in the past week and so that was updated on the DAS. Gotcha. Anything from councel? Okay. Then I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda as amended. So move second. All those in favor say I. I. Okay. We have no presentations. So we have open forum. Uh Jay will walk us through. This is again uh just be a reminder for non-aggenda items. We have uh five minutes. Yep. So, we welcome anybody who'd be interested, who'd like to speak on something that's not currently on the agenda to walk up to the microphone. We have cards over at the table right by the door. Fill out the cards so that we have your name and your address and record. Go up, state your name and your address and uh then you have five minutes to speak on something not on the agenda. Going once, going twice. Sold. Okay. We'll move on to consent agenda consisting of items 6A through 6H. Does anyone want to pull anything? No. Thank you. Okay. All good. And I will enter Oh, I I'm good. Yep. All right. I'll entertain a motion to approve consent agenda items 6A through 6H. So moveles. Second. Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. Moving right along on to planning. Um start with 7A which is a concept plan review for corpors liquor store concept plan. Is that Natalie or Dwight? That's me Dwight. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um yeah, item 7A tonight is the Corkran Crossroads uh liquor store concept plan. Cool. Uh this is a request from Cal and Raj Patel. Uh they're seeking some informal feedback on a liquor store concept plan on their property uh 1990 County Road 10. Uh this is the southwest corner of County Road 10 and 116. It is a a 0.82 acre property guided commercial and zoned neighborhood commercial or C1. Uh and for context, this is the former site of the Napa Auto Parts Store. Um overview of the request. The applicants are um looking to repurpose the existing building on site for offsale uh liquor sales. Um this includes a just a little bit over 4,800 square feet of sales space with 16 off streetet parking stalls. Uh I believe there was a typo within the staff report. It said 24. That should have been 16. So I apologize for that. Um, currently within the zoning zoning ordinance, offsale liquor stores are only permitted in the C2 district, uh, and the subject property is zone C1. So, in order to operate on this site as a liquor store, it would require a zoning ordinance amendment. And during council's uh, discussion with the applicant, they may want to consider providing potential feedback on the zoning ordinance amendment for this uh, change. Going into the C1 district standards itself, uh the property um complies with a lot of the minimum lot standards of the C1 district. However, um a lot of the standards or a number of the standards don't comply, namely with the setbacks. So that's um setbacks from the major roadways, uh the side property line, and then the rear property line. They are all within those minimum uh setback requirements. However, uh these conditions predate the zoning ordinance standards and are illegal non-conforming setbacks. Um so while the applicant isn't um planning to expand the site today, if there are any plans to expand the site, it would require uh a variance approval from those standards. Say that again. If they if they expanded this if they expanded the building, uh it would need a variance to go into that setback. Sorry. But it can be used the way it is with the current setback. Correct. Yeah. I just wanted to point that out. They're not they're not planning on expanding it. Yep. Um a lot of information was provided within their application. However, um with a formal application, we would need some more information on the building height and impervious surface coverage of the site as a whole just to confirm compliance with those standards as well. Um the building architecture was not um information on the building architecture wasn't provided in too much depth within the application. Um, from staff's uh view of the site, it appears to be constructed with uh painted metal siding and roofing. Uh, code allows up to 20% of the exterior wall to be metal. Uh, whereas the building appears to be uh 100% uh that metal material. So, this predates the adoption of the current zoning ordinance and is a legal non-conforming uh material. However, if Again, if the building's expanded, at least 25% of that building material needs to be upgraded to comply with the ordinance standards. Uh the parking lot uh that the applicants are planning to use on the site would uh fit within the existing pavement area on on site. So, they're not proposing an expansion of the pavement area and would contain 16 st 16 stalls. Um the number of stalls required for this type of use is eight stalls uh plus one stall per 200 feet of retail space. So in total this site would require 32 stalls. Um and so council may wish to also provide feedback on the potential variance request uh for a reduction in the number of parking stalls required for this type of use. Uh, additionally, off streetet parking for non-residential uses uh are required to be paved with either asphalt, concrete, or other materials approved by the city engineer. Um, the current parking lot is paved uh with asphalt, but there are sections that contain gravel, which are only allowed in the rural commercial district. So, um, these these gravel areas were not permitted by the city and uh were illegal expansions. So, a formal application would have to um require those gravel sections to be removed. Uh, additionally, off street parking uh lots within the city also require perimeter concrete curbing. Um, the current parking lot does not contain a curb. So, a formal site plan would require a curb to be uh installed around the perimeter of the parking lot. Um, setbacks from county roads uh for parking lots and drive aisles is also 100 ft. same as the structure setback. Um the previously a site plan for this uh parcel approved a 10-ft setback. However, throughout the years there have been uh a number of illegal expansions to this parking lot and that setback has encroached about 12 and a half ft from county road 116 and have actually encroached five feet into the c uh to the county right of way along county road 10. Uh both of these were not permitted by the city and were illegal expansions and would need to be uh vacated with a formal application. Uh setbacks from other property lines are required to be at least 10 ft. Currently there's a zero foot setback along the southern property line as that's shared with the the gas station to the south and that's allowed. Uh whereas there is a 10 10 and a half foot encroachment into the neighboring property to the west which is also an illegal expansion. and not approved by the city. So again, with uh a formal application, that encroachment would need to be vacated. Uh so council may wish to um through their discussion provide feedback on a potential variance uh from this setback standard if if uh 10 feet weren't sufficient for that setback since that was previously approved for the parking lot. If the applicant were to request less than a 10- foot setback, council may wish to provide some feedback on a variance uh in that regard. Um and then all of the parking stalls are 90° stalls, uh which requires a minimum drive aisle width of 26 feet. Uh and I will note that at its narrowest points, the drive aisle is about 13 feet wide. Um so obviously that when comped with that standard. Uh so the applicant could consider revising the parking stall angles to 45 degrees. Uh which that only requires a parking or a drive aisle width of 12 ft. Um otherwise they could consider removing parking stalls 9 through 13 as that appears to be uh where that non-conforming uh drive width is occurring. Uh but that would however conflict more with that minimum parking stall requirement for the site. Um so staff would recommend um exploring the angle parking a bit further before pursuing a formal application on the site. Uh currently the site contains two access points, one on County Road 10 and county road uh and one on County Road 116. Uh the concept plan doesn't deviate from that. However, all access to the site would need to be reviewed and approved by Henipin County. Uh and a formal letter would be u provided by the county with a formal Um, and then just some last miscellaneous analysis. Uh, landscaping for the site would require uh at least some some shrubbery around the parking lot that are that is at least 3 feet in height to uh screen the vehicle headlights from uh adjacent parcels in the right of way. Uh, and then if the building were to be expanded one day, uh, the code currently requires one overstory tree per 100,000 square feet of area and one understory shrub for each 300 square ft of area. Um the concept plan didn't specify any lighting on the site. However, if uh they if the applicant pursues a formal application, then all exterior lighting on the site would need to comply with uh the standards outlined in section 1060.040. Uh and then signage in this district uh this site is allowed one freestanding sign uh which there is an existing freestanding sign uh located near the intersection and then they are also allowed one wall sign on the primary building face so long as it doesn't exceed 10% of that building face. So quick summary of the issues. Uh one issue is that uh they are proposing a liquor store in the C1 district which currently isn't listed as an allowed use within the C1 district and would would require zoning ordinance amendment. Um the number of off street parking stalls required for this use would be uh 32 stalls. However, the concept plan is showing 16 parking stalls and would require a variance from this standard as well. Uh and then the parking setbacks are currently within that previously approved 10-foot setback requirement. Um so if the applicant wished to have an even more reduced setback that would require a variance and um could be discussed a little bit further here today as well. Uh and then the drive width is currently being shown at its narrowest point at 13 ft where 26 feet is required. Um staff believes that this could be addressed uh by revising the by revising the angle of the parking stalls. Um however, that could be uh you know just part of the mitigation and part of it could also be um reducing the number of parking stalls on the site as well. So um that's another item for the council to consider through their discussion. So next steps for the applicant would be uh if they chose to pursue it, they would uh submit a land use application for a zoning ordinance amendment for the liquor store use in the C1 district and then uh a site plan amendments to establish this new use on the site and then any variances uh that may be required from their site plan. Uh so at this point staff recommends that the city council review and discuss the concept plan uh provide the applicants with informal comments. Any comments or opinions made by the council today are considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. Sounds good. Thank you. Any questions? Not yet. Okay. Discussion on it. Um, do we want to maybe tackle the zoning first? Either that or general comments. Either one. Well, Dwight, would you agree that this is a challenging property to develop? I would say that's probably a fair uh statement. Okay. And that's through no fault of the applicant. The applicants have bought the site at its current condition. So not much has changed. Okay. So So they they are not the cause of any difficulties or or any issues with the property right now. Correct. Say that's correct. Okay. All right. And they've applied for other projects before. Correct. I not any land use applications. We've been in discussions and meetings with the applicants, but this is our first um actual land use application with the applicant. Okay. Thank you. I have come forward if I can clarify with with a handful of other concepts that have at the staff just at the just at the staff level with concepts. I'm sorry. I think there was a project there was a remodel too of crossroads right with the tanks new tanks and stuff like that. Okay. something that predated me in Dwight's time. But yeah, as far as the current site in front of us, there has been one time that one or two times they came just to talk with council very general sense. This is the first concept plan that has made it to council on this site. And um is it as it stands, would a dispensary qualify for that building for that property? If it met all the zoning standards, theoretically it's in the correct zoning for it. Yes. Is it too close to the park? Yeah. Um I don't know here. I can I'd have to pull up the map and I' have to Okay, that's okay. I didn't mean to catch you up. Yeah, I think theoretically it could. Uh, but there are buffer requirements. So, as if it was outside of those buffer requirements from the city park, then yes, it could go in. Well, I I guess I'll I'll just say that I I I strongly support this and I would urge uh the applicants to move forward. Uh, you would have my support. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Yeah, I'd agree. It's a uh extremely challenging area and I know they've been trying to do things there and such. There's a number of restrictions and stuff. Um I'm not all that concerned about the number of parking. I'm not sure how you get 32 people there and such, but um it would be nice if one thing could happen and that's stopping the drive-thrus. Um that's a right turn lane for 10 and 116 south. It' be nice if that could be resolved and and stopped. Um it is it is a bad bad thing. Um when Napa used to be there, it was an issue where people and it and it they're still cutting through and they're going both ways. They're heading west on 10 and south on 116 by skipping the light and going through that parking lot. So, it'd be nice if something could be done to to curb that activity, too. Um, as far as the outside and the look of the building, I'd like something a little bit more less Napa blue there if possible. Um, as far as the scale structure and stuff, if there's some things they could do to make it not look like a pole shed, that'd be a good thing, too. But, um, a different color might be okay, but a little bit something more modern looking if at all possible. I I see a couple of nods and stuff. We you and I've had the discussion, Cal, and and you know, and and you uh you've got you got some really cool ideas. So, I'd like to see it the same as uh Councilman Lanterman. I would support this going in. All right, Michelle or J? I'll take the other side. um just because of this being in the core downtown area as that area develops. I'm not real excited to have a liquor store at that prominent a corner and then revising code to make it happen. Um I also think because of the vintage of the building, it's not going to fit with what we want that area to look like. I think if it could be made more attractive, I might be more supportive of it, but it's going to look really out of place, I think, in 10 or 15 years when more things go in in that spot. So, that's my concern. And I guess, and I hear you on that, I guess I would say that 10 or 15 years from now, if it's impacting the business, I'm sure that they'll throw a coat of paint up there, you know, make it a a little more appealing to that area. Thank you. And Michelle, sure. Um, I guess I would ask staff, what are the restrictions for remodeling that building? Would would there be a possibility they could do some sort of remodeling to make it more appealing if they were to turn it into a liquor store? Go ahead. Sure. Are you are you saying like a like an expansion or just remodeling? No expansion. Just remoding the exterior. No expansion. just just taking what they have the bare bones and just revamping it. They they certainly could um make some adjustments to the exterior and bring it up to our current code requirements for the for the commercial districts. Um that would be allowed. I think there would be a building permit for that, but um nothing within our code prohibit that. Okay. I would definitely support something I I do agree somewhat with counselor Nichols in that I think that it needs to be something that has more appeal than what it currently is existing as which is why I asked about if there's any any barriers for them to actually do a remodel. Just real quick too if I can go off of that as far as the model and barriers and stuff like that. If it's more than the percentage It can't be done without being brought up to code on setbacks and everything else. Correct. So, right now it appears that 100% of the building material is that metal siding and technically code only allows up to 20%. Right. Um if they wanted to do up to 50%, it's still an improvement over the current conditions. So, I don't think there's anything that would prohibit that necessarily. Um I I think we when they expand. Yeah, it's when it's when the building expands or changes it footprint, then we're looking more towards the variances and um coming back through the council through that avenue. So, again, back to your guys's question, we could work with them to make this work, but to do a tear down and all of that stuff, that's that's an awful lot to expect out of any anybody on this corner. So, Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. No problem. And I would agree with a lot of what has been said by everyone. Um, I would like to see maybe some upgrades to the exterior if possible. Um, just to get a little closer uh to kind of what's going to be developing around that area and what has um whether that's just voluntary or potentially. Is there potentially a way if we were to this a um a conditional use in C1 that we could have some say on on the exterior. We would have to look at that with the city attorney architectural standards that we would require of all um liquor potentially if there's a variance that might be if it's a mitigation strategy to a variance depending on it have to be there have to be a nexation strategy that can be considered as part of a variant. Okay, just an idea. Um, other than that, in terms of the the zoning change, I the only thing I would recommend, I'd be in favor of it, I think. Um, but wanting to have some sort of square foot limit that wouldn't affect this site, but but in terms of allowing it in C1, um, so that we're not getting maybe the crazy big liquor warehouses in the C1 district. How much other C1 do we have currently? There's a parcel off of 101 just north of the Eert Mama G's parcels that is technically C1. I'm not too certain why that was on C1 and everything else is C2 along that corridor. Um but maybe because they're thinking access would be tied to B weather. So maybe that's why that happened. I'm not too certain on the story behind that. And then I pulled up the zoning map if we can switch the screens over to that. Bear with me here. Zooming from afar here, but um yeah, the the orange is the C1 at least in the downtown district. I believe what Natalie is referring to is there's like one parcel up there. Yeah, that but you go back to the downtown area. I think it's easy to overlook because right now they're uh houses, but we do have right across the city park area. Uh there's C1 property zoned as C1 and the houses are non-conforming right now. Um so those could potentially be redeveloped. And then is there in the southwest area. Okay. Would it just as a a devil's advocate position? Could you zoom back in again? Sorry. So, the the hot pink remind me is that downtown mixed use. The the pink on the on the east side here is the downtown mixed use. Okay. Would it maybe make sense to maybe this is more of a comp plan discussion in a couple of years, but if this is going to be the core downtown area and there's not really a neighborhood in this section, should this all really be C2 since it's the union of two major county roads and that's more traffic driven commercial? Talking about the property south, the triangle piece. Well, and and that whole strip uh along 10 that's currently C1. Should that really have it all be C2? I see what you're saying. Want to look at the uses of what's there and make sure it doesn't cause any issues. Timing is good. We're we're about to start comp plan work. Well, so the land use is correct. So, I don't know if it's necessary comp plan. I think that would just be a reasoning because the land use is already commercial. what district we want to apply. So I think right now the community commercial we have it off 101 and I think that was more because it's the the motorist the community commercial is more about appealing to motorist uses I think um because 101 is going to have the road improvements of the region that coming in pretty soon and same with the C2 that's in our southwest area that's along 55 so I think so I think 10 and 116 not while busy roads and roads that we rely on significantly. I don't know if they are the same in terms of regional access. Anything else? I like that idea. The applicant want to Your address please address. Yeah, I live in for almost five years now crossroads. That's us. So today I mean we are here to see the possibilities of the store building and we really appreciate everyone's time and support and suggestions. It's a very difficult lot to deal with. We have some properties in Corono and every other even as well but this one is a tough one to deal with. So I really appreciate your help and guidance to get through this process and uh um again all your time and efforts to make the run great. Thank you. Thank you. Staff, is there anything else you think we need to cover? Questions. I think I think that kind of answers a lot of the overarching points of the staff report. So Hopefully the applicant has a good sense of what council's position is. Um, do you want to start it? Sure. Okay. Sure. Um, just to just to review the parking aspect a little bit. Um, you said that it was it's required for 24 spots of parking or that's what they had? It's 32. 32. Yeah. 24 was a typo in the staff before. Okay. And that's based on the size of the building. It's based on the uh sales floor space within the building plus 80 stalls. Okay. Because I feel like having that many parking stalls is too many. Even 24 seems kind of a lot in that area. Um and I agree with with councelor Baron camp and that it does get used a lot as a through fair between those two roads. So, I feel like I don't know what you could do to to mitigate that. If you change the storefront and have the storefront on one side, I'm not even sure what you could do, but I feel like we could work through that parking issue. Um, and maybe even decrease the number of parking spots there just to have it be a little bit safer or can we not do that? We could ask I think the I think to avoid a varian there's a those data can be used to support. So, I think we'd want to look at it because while I do think normally you're not necessarily going to have 16 customers all at once that stay for a long time. There are times where you might have like a wine tasting or something like that where all it does attract more people all at once. So, I don't think we want to start out with too little parking either, but maybe there's a happy meeting we could find with some data stores. You may want to look at like the um there's a Holiday or or something Madina off of 101 Target has a gas station and liquor store be kind of similar and often times I feel like you see people there that'll run and get gas and as they're getting gas run in to get from the liquor store or run into the the convenience store and run liquor store after. So there may be kind of some cross sharing of parking um especially with the same owner and kind of that yes I think allow for some of that as an ide which is another concept plan. This is the Larkin Road Plan Unit development concept plan. Thank you. So this is the Larkin Road subdivision is a PUD concept plan unit development concept plan. The applicant is Maplewood Development Incorporated and they are looking at a property that has frontage on a little bit of County Road 50 um with the main frontage on Larkin Road 20130 Lurin Road. It's approximately 70 acres. Currently, the property is guided and zoned for light industrial. The applicant is proposing a PUD for 189 housing units. This would include 165 single family homes and 24 twin homes. The estimated pre-development density is 2.99 units an acre. Here is the the proposed concept plan. The twin homes are located concentrated in that southwest corner. Uh and then the there's 50 foot wide lots uh more located on the southeast corner moving into 65 foot wide lots as you move north. And I also wanted to point out the re there is the regional trail um that runs along primarily the east boundary of the site. Can you show Yep. Sorry, I forgot that you can't see my mouse. So, um, regional trail, I believe, will come up through here and move to the, uh, east and then has a meandering path here. It follows a a creek that, uh, is pretty much right on the border line as you move northeast and then it would move through here to connect to city park to the north. Gotcha. Thank you. Uh so the proposed PUD would require a comprehensive plan amendment to reguide from light industrial to low density residential and then the low density of residential land use does allow for single family homes in twin homes at a density of not less than a density of three to five units an acre. Uh once wetland buffers and the trail corridor is deducted from the gross acreage, it is anticipated the proposal would meet or exceed the three units an acre. right now they're right on the cusp by 2.99 but it's not um the final net acreage that we'd be working with. Uh so again they are proposing 24 twin homes and 68 50 foot lots for single family homes and then 97 65 foot wide lots for single family homes. The comprehensive plan is a living document that can be changed at the discretion of the city council if they find evidence to support an amendment. The uh staff report does provide some factors that would be something the council will want to consider as they um as this would move forward, but ultimately we are able to make an amendment if we feel there is a reason justifying that. So just again the proposed off-road trail is shown along the eastern boundary of the site and is consistent with what we have in our 2040 comprehensive plan as well. The corridor will be a part of the Three Rivers Park District Diamond Lake Regional Trail and will connect city park from the north eventually to the segment that's already underway in Terra to the south. Uh they also are showing additional local trail connections in their development um that would provide more access for the residents, but those smaller segments or local segments would not be eligible for park dedication since that is not part of what we're showing for our comprehensive plan. Um for landscaping they would be required to plant at least 189 overstory trees as their underlying requirement and they also would have a bufferard requirement along the west boundary. So that there are properties guided RS I'm sorry zoned RSF2 in urban reserve and above class A is required where they abut RSF2 and BR class B is where they required where they but the urban reserve properties. So it's not the entire western stretch. There's a couple smaller properties that are guided for higher density. So they would not be required to have a buffer against those properties. But most of that western boundary there would be a buffer. As far as the actual PUB, uh there's really two review components. We have the basic PUB design standards and then we get into the flexibilities versus the proposed public benefits. For the basic PUD design standards, they are required to have an appropriate integration to surrounding uses. Uh this could be through the use of similar development elements from the surrounding uses or by providing a transition through architecture or landscape buffers. So it is important to keep in mind that the industrial u use there is an industrial existing industrial district to the east uh that butts on the east property line for this project as we move to existing um homes and farming uses to the west. Eventually, some of that will be redeveloped at a higher density, but that's what's currently there. And so, part of the council should consider whether that makes the the transition for some higher density, but still considered low density residential, provides a transition from the industrial to the existing houses in farms to the west. I'm I'm sorry, the property to the west is you mentioned higher density. What could you repeat that. I didn't hear you. Yeah. So, the um so to the west currently the properties are single family homes and some are being used for more farm and also Sun Ram is to the west. So, it's it's a quas agricultural use. It's really more of um what we called it was like a sorry soil. It's like a more of a soil use. They're using it. We reviewed it just a couple years ago. Do you remember that? I'm sorry. I'm just kind of forgetting the word. That's what's existing soil processing. Soil processing. Thank you very much. So that's what's currently located to the west. But the land use and guiding um for as that area fure redevelops. There will be some lowdensity residential areas to the west which would be 3 to five units an acre. And there's also a couple properties that are along the northwest boundary of this parcel that are medium residential. So the this propert right now is guided for industrial to match up with the existing industrial to the east. Um and then I think the the idea was that there would be a transition to low density residential and medium residential to the east. And then where is that transition? Right to the west as it's currently drawn. Yeah. Right. Right. As it's currently drawn. All that's to that's along the west of this boundary. Um I'm sorry, west of this site. Do we have Sorry. Matt might be a little more helpful at this point. I'm wondering what is this currently? I think there's a house in there. There's straight straight west houses. farming and couple of horse branches. But then this is industrial. Yeah. So this is but but here they're saying that this is going to become higher density. It's currently guided. Could we pull up our our uh guiding map? That's what we're trying not working. Gotcha. I have it here. So to the So this is the parcel in question. There's high density residential on high density. Okay. Here we go. Thank you. So no. Okay. So we have the So can you see my mouse or is it not going to show it? You can kind of show it. All right. So this is the parcel as it exists today. So this is our future land use map. not reflective of necessarily what is there today, but we have the industrial park to the um really to the north as well and to the east. Um and then we have some medium residential, these orange pieces to the west like that northwest corner and then it moves into low density residential. But as it stands today, that area, same area, we we do have um some areas that are already in stage one that have low density residential and the medium residential. Um but the rest of it is urban reserve. So there's still some that some of those areas to the west likely wouldn't be redeveloped for quite a while yet um and have some farming and single family homes and that use. So that's answer your question. It does. Thank you. Just real quick, too, and I'm sorry if I'm bringing something up that somebody may not want to talk about. This was the industrial park that we'd already Yes. so-called blessed and such. And the question that came out of that for me is the neighbors all around did not know or realize that that had been reszoned to industrial. It was supposed to be what is asked being asked for in this concept plan. Mark, I think you were there too when we were all surprised that all of the neighbors didn't realize it was turned into industrial supposed to be. What's that? What do you mean by was supposed to be? They all understood that uh it was supposed to be medium medium density and then that industrial concept and everything came in and then we been industrial at least the 2040 plan in the 2030. I believe it was changed in the 2040 because the the council at the time had wanted to look at expanding the tax base and so they thought that expanding the western boundary of the existing the industrial area. I'm I'm I'm just asking because it it's hard to believe that that many people didn't realize that it changed. So, it just that's previous administration's previous stuff. I just was was wondering if anybody or anything ever came of that and I'm guessing no. So, all we'd be doing to simplify it is switching it back to what it was planned previously. This request is a lower density than what it was previously. This is lower than okay. Yeah. Okay. And what are the densities for medium current? 8 to 10 years. 8 to 10. The other complicating factor is also uh it's at 2.99 likely to go slightly above three maybe were to go forward. But then there's the 3.5 that will be kicking in at some point in the next couple years or two. The other question I had If we're on the questions, I'm sorry if I'm jumping in. Oh, what? If you could pull up the just the layout of this, Natalie, real quick. I'm just curious, where is the gas line relief? Is that the green area? And shouldn't that be an easement all the way across that property? Uh there is an easement area. I believe they um have designed around that that was something that was called out to them a while ago. Um so that for the most part remain green space and any other uses in there they'd have to get approved with as part of their ement agreement. But I thought that was a bigger swath than this. I thought it was too a way bigger strip than the whole way. The strip on the right side looks about the same as I remember, but I don't see it on the left side. They they're showing it. So I think there's no houses in it. So I I believe they're showing it. It just might not be all green, but they are. depending on having it be for the most part green space. Some of it looks like it might be in the yards of some of their lots, but that that doesn't cause an issue. They just And that's okay. That's what I meant. I don't believe so. Yeah, it would ultimately have to be something that they'd have to work through with their easement, but they can't. I believe it's structures and roadways that are more of the issue. Somebody plants a big oak tree, is that a problem? Potentially. Yeah. Wouldn't want to plant anything on that piece. So that'll be a problem at some point because somebody will do that problem in so far as it'll get ripped up if they need to get at it. Thank you. So the as far as the basic PJ design standards appropriate integration is really that first standard. So the council um can certainly talk about whether they feel that this is a um that standard is satisfied as a transition between the existing uses to the west and the industrials to the east. Variety and enhanced design is the second basic standard and at the requirement is that at least five different styles of detached homes be provided and two different styles of attached homes are required. Example elevations were submitted and so that has been satisfied and the open space requirement with the lot width that they are requesting 15% open space is required which is 9.47 acres. It's based off of the net development area and they are proposing 13.08 acres with the current concept plan. So they do exceed that requirement. Uh, additionally, a perimeter buffer is required along major roadways. Our code would consider County Road 50 a major roadway. So, a landsc landscaping buffer would be required in that little uh portion that abuts road 50 uh which is not currently shown, but would be something incorporated in the plans if this were to move forward. Uh, public accessibility refers to access to natural features such as creeks and lakes. uh that there is a creek along the west boundary and a northwest boundary here that's that's dark blue line. Public access is provided with the regional trail corridor running along of that as well. Also, the city council has authority to impose discretionary standards for the proposed PUD um as reasonable and necessary to protect and promote the general health, safety and welfare. So, if there is additional standards that have not been um addressed with concerns you may have, something that we could discuss as a basic standard as well. The application currently does not propose any prohibited features or modifications. So they satisfy that standard as well. For the PD flexibility requested, there are three features that at this point are very clear that we would need flexibility for uh from the RSF3 zoning district standard, which is what we typically use as the base district for a low density residential planned unit development. Uh they currently have an undefined minimum lot size, but it would be less than 7500 square feet. um that would need to be defined as if the application move forward. Right now um that data wasn't provided as part of the application, but that would still fit within what they were saying in terms of uh 97 65 foot wide lots and 6850. Correct. So they said they're 50 on the concept plan they have it marked the 50 foot wide lots would be less than 7500 square feet. They just didn't identify what the square footage would be. So it would be something that we would define. Um and then a minimum lot width of 50 ft for single family lots would also be a PUB flexibility. And then also the port there is a portion of the property that's in the shoreland overlay. The the line of where that district ends was not shown on the concept plan. So, it's unclear to me exactly where um that might impact some lots, but uh I'm betting there might be a few lots that would need flexibility for a minimum lot with the 50 ft within that shorland overlay. Shorland overlay. There's Are you talking next to the pond or the creek? The creek. Okay. I was going to say I don't see a shoreline, but it's creek. It's shoreline. Got Yeah. And I think that it might even if it's a 65 foot wide lot that's within the shoreland overlay district that would also be flexibility from the current. So um it basically I I believe it's like over 100 ft when it's in the shoreland as the minimum lot width. So that would be um it's something that we have typically granted properties within the shoreland. Uh examples would be fairway shores and click lake highland. So just the other question too this has been called ditch forever, right? And now it's a creek or it's a shoreline. I believe it's a governor ditch or something along those lines. Yeah, but it just seems like we're making it. Um, so I believe it's a creek that was identified with the the DNR because that's was something that was also a part of the Cork Farms application that the shorland. Thank you. So we as the city, we don't identify what considers shoreland. That's direction from the DNR. Um okay so the potential other PD flexibilities again the shorland overlay district there may be a need to uh have reduced setback requirements uh the impervious surface limit within the p within the shoreline overlay is 25% so they might need flexibility from that standard this is all just speculation from staff's analysis at this point and then maximum height limit of 25 ft um may also be a request where we may or may not be willing to look at flexibility. And then also they did not request this as part of their application, but just looking at the floor plans provided, it appears that uh they will have garages that exceed the maximum 55% of viewable ground floor street facing linear building frontage. That is a standard of all of our urban suburban residential districts for single family homes that they uh and twin homes that they have that um maximum 55%. Uh we have for twin homes so far we have granted flexibility from that standard. We don't always grant that standard for single family homes. Um they do have a threecar product and I will say threecar product on a 50 foot or 65 foot wide lot you're going to exceed that standard. So Natalie is Mr. Mayor. Natalie, is that compatible to the property that was in front of us or is in front of us still going on, so to speak, over off of Maple Hill, Beth Houston's property? Aren't there some there that were the same as that? They uh so the last application in front of us, they did not request any flexibilities from our standards. So they likely will not have any free car garage products. Where did we have Where did we grant that? We've granted it for most applications. So Fairway Shores, we granted a certain percentage of the homes could have it could exceed so that it could have some threecar garages to provide. Um and then the fairway shores and I believe Chivera and Ravenia also had some flexibility to exceed those standards. It's a little different for each application. So we've done Yep. And then um Woodland Hills recently granted a variance so that they could also do that as well. And then in return they provided a bit more architectural detail with the second level. I'm glad your memory is what it is. Thank you very much. Okay. So then for the PD public benefits proposed um placement of uses so as to integrate with adjacent uses could potentially be satisfied with this application. Um again the applicant's narative trying to provide that transition between the industrial to the east and some lower residential uses to the existing uses to the west. Um so um that I believe is a benefit that they are be trying to achieve and we can certainly talk about how that is done and then attached units are embedded. So the how we define that is we didn't want them to be viewable from major roadways. The attached units are on uh consolidated in the southwest corner which along Lur Road which is not considered a major roadway per our zoning code. Um so they are away from the county road 50 corridor. Internal trail connections. Again there is a couple areas where uh they are proposing um a local connection to the regional trail beyond this initial um connection to the east but also another one up here. And bear with me I'll try to also a uh doubled as public emergency access, but also um a trail connection here too to pro just provide a little bit more ability for residents in the development to connect to the trail system without having to go all the way down to Larkin um or all the way up to come road 50. Uh open space is consolidated and usable. They have really focused it on the perimeter but also area where there is that easement and then open space is connected with green natural corridors. Natural resources and features are retained. They really do have minimal impacts on their wetlands. Um there aren't a lot of existing trees on the property for them to save. So that but as far as the wetland impacts, they've tried to minimize that. Um there's resources and an area of parkland, woodland or other open space above what is minimum. And acres proposed is above the 9.47 areas acres required. There are several benefits that are not currently proposed. Um I'm going to you can come back to this list, but if there are um strong feelings on trying to incorporate some of these into the proposal, we can certainly discuss that tonight with the applicant. Uh and I do think there are a few unlikely PUB benefits uh with their current proposal. I think it'd be difficult for them to really switch it up to have distribution of attached units. Uh existing rural structures are retained and reused. I don't believe that that's really going to be something they're able to achieve while achieving the density requirements. Lot size variety is very limited. Natural restoration work I there's not a lot of natural areas to restore. Um extra extraordinary environments protection and innovation and util new technologies are not part of the current proposal. And then appropriate integration with neighborhood scale uses uh creation of open space using multi-story buildings and percentage of units within a th00and feet walk from a park simply wouldn't be applicable for this but the rest I think could be certainly something that we discuss. Next steps for the applicant would be updating the visibility study that was completed with the courtroom farms application because that was specific to industrial we have to update it for the low density residential use. A neighborhood meeting would be required for a PED application before we can consider a land use application complete. And then the first application would be a comprehensive plan amendment, reszoning, preliminary PD plan and preliminary plot. U additionally they would have to go through uh wetland conservation act permitting for any wetland impacts. Then a second land use application for the final PUB plan and final plot and finally watershed approval for city approved final grading and storm water plants. So for the recommendation for council tonight, please provide feedback to the applicant on the concept plan. The feedback is non-binding um but and while it's non binding in nature, it is used uh by the applicant and staff to help guide the application as it moves forward. Uh just so uh to help with the areas of discussion, the state does have a high level of discretion for a comprehensive plan amendment. Um so that really if it that'd be really helpful to understand what support there is for that before we really get too much further into the PUD details. And then for PUDS, it is not expected that a PUB satisfy all potential public benefits. The size and constraints of the sites should be considered in determining whether the proposed public benefits justify the extents of the flexibilities requested. Thank you. Any questions for Natalie? Yeah, just a couple. Natalie, just real quick, the culdeac to the west that ends into it looks like a wetland. Is that right? Um I think the wetland's a bit further west. It's a little west. So would that ever be a road that would be put through? Yes. Once things happen west. Yes. Yep. That's eventually where the this will be connected to County Road 50. That would be the connection that 50. Then that answers my next question. The and it always bothers me that we've got the long culde-sac and then that we've got a 20 foot fire access road and such. That would not be an access point. for a road that we could predict. Not that we can permit or require. Um we would certainly work with Henipin County. I public safety also would like Henipin County just to take a second look at this. Uh but they were very adamant with the Cork and Farms proposal that they would not grant an access. Still did not want it there. I I I love the fact that it's a could just be a continued part of the trail over to the park and such, but then is there a way we can get a public crossing there, a pedestrian crossing there if we can't get a access? That's that's just some of my questions. I I appreciate and like this layout a lot and uh I I I still mixed feelings about the industrial that was planned and was going to go there and such, but uh this is something in my mind that uh would fit. Um if you go to the map is up and such. I don't know if I want to say this, but I'll say it. It might look a little goofy, but in my mind that my first thought was, is there a way to line parking with the twin homes and then all single family homes on the other side of those two culde-sacs. Just the thought instead of pushing them off to the west or is there a way to put those twin homes to the eastern portion and the western portion be more single family? Just a question. Everybody follow me or am I You're saying you want it flipped so that the twin homes are over here if possible. Otherwise, I don't see anything wrong with this. to just if we're talking if we're talking industrial and then higher density and then lower density, why are we skipping and putting lower density in the west and not on the east? So, just again the layout I could have never imagined this much being done and such and a lot of open space. The trail is there, everything that I I'd like to see in in a development like this and such. I just uh I don't know if there's any neighbors here understanding that there's a possible change in in sight, but uh this would be lesser density than what was previously planned before this flip to industrial. So, okay, just all the conversations I've had with the number of people, I don't hear or feel there would be a lot of resistance from the neighbors, but we all know that can change. Thank you. Anyone else? I I'll just say I think it's an awkward transition from the east to the west. Um, with that said, I like this more than a 400,000 square foot uh distribution center. So, I'm I'm I I think it's a an odd transition, but um I think we could do worse. So, I I would support this. I like parts of it. I think Dean and Mark's comments, I would concur with both of you guys. Um, I struggle a little bit with going from industrial to lowdensity residential without understanding the economic implications. So, it was changed to industrial because the council at the time presumably had some information and data that they needed more tax capacity than what they would have gotten with medium density. And so they increased the zoning. Uh I' I'd want to have a better understanding before I would agree to a reszoning to what our current projections would look like. And low density residential doesn't generate a ton of tax revenue for the city. It creates demand for services that increases expenses. I'd like to better understand the unit economic impact of this before I would be comfortable accepting a change. uh and and maybe as part of that analysis, what would the difference between low and a medium density resoning be? Uh I I like the idea of open space around the trail. That to me is the most attractive part. Um to the degree that that can be maximized in terms of its quality, I would see that as an inducement. Maybe that would counteract some of that financial concern. I'm I'm on the fence on this one. I'm kind of landing where Jeremy's landing a little bit on this one. I think it's a better option for than what we what we have previously been presented with the industrial park. So, I like I like that. Um but but that would be that would be one of my thoughts was that I if it if it had been switched to light industrial, what what was what was the train of thinking with that? Was it because I mean we're at a perfect opportunity to discuss this because we're going to be looking at the comp plan. So maybe we shift industrial somewhere else like industrial that makes more sense maybe along the 610 corridor that direction on 101 um to compensate for the loss of this if if this plan were to come through. Um, so I I I think I'm on the side of supporting it, but with with that piece of knowing and understanding where we could place other light industrial and and does the property owner I mean I'm sure the property owner is aware of this possible switch as well. The the property owner for the site Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They had to sign off on the application. Okay. He's in the room. He's not smiling though. And my feedback would remain the same as uh last time you guys came in that I would not be comfortable with doing the change on the fly. I'd be open to having a discussion during the comp plan process for the 2050 plan um and seeing what uh kind of digging into some of the concerns that you guys have raised um a little more and what potentially the impacts would be of a change like that or maybe a different type of change um maybe a mixeduse um site that has some residential component some commercial component uh I'd be initially more open to in that in that discussion, but again, I would prefer, but it doesn't sound like it necessarily needs my um approval. Sounds like there's general support, I think, for the change. I I would say 50/50 for me wanting to know more. Okay. Um my Yeah, I I wouldn't be supportive until maybe a discussion during the count plan process. I' I' I'd rather have a discussion sooner than that. I I I just with as quick as things are in the past neighborhoods that have gone in and such, I I I don't want I really do not wait want to wait on this discussion until 2030. I' I'd rather see something go in there. And uh the the option of uh higher density is it sounds like that's a couple of folks's thoughts. Higher density on the east side and lower density on the west side. I kind of said that with a flipping of the town homes and stuff. Is is that something that people would be interested in? I just I if it did move forward, I would I would like that change. That's what I'm asking. I I' I'd rather see something come out of this and then this is a time for us to give to the applicant information on what could make this move forward. Um that's my thoughts on this. I I I don't want to turn this into another four or five year discussion that it's been three or four years and we with some duress we did approve the industrial park and there was three or four possible buildings which would total multi thousands tens of thousand square feet of building and such and that fell through. I I while I love farmland, while I love everything that we got in this city as far as open space and those kind of things, I I feel this is is something that is possible and in a higher density might be one of those things that could help the applicant. The other thing that I forgot and I'm sorry I'm jumping all over the place here. Um it has been a very long day for me. Um Natalie, is there any conversation or could we add conversation to would we even want to entertain a connection into that industrial park with is that 70 75th 75th just as a flow type deal um or not not something that would be in your uh like so so I think part of the issue is they are platted lots um in some in some of the areas that are that theoretically could um plan for a roadway that the wetland and the creek can make it difficult. Yep. I was imagining it would end up turning into a bridge project and everything else just across the creek and and there'd be all kinds of implications there. So just just a question, but would have for sure. Yep. We mayor, we did look at that with a previous development was entitled that industrial park and it wasn't desired with that project primarily due to just different uses and even access out to 116. So kind of routing down and over to a better access point at 116. In that particular case was trucking. Uh but there's probably some similar things we'd have to look at it on a feasibility level again. But previous application that really wasn't desired to make those connections. And and I'm I'm only asking it for um more pedestrian traffic to downtown instead of all the way down to Lark and all the way to 116 and then there'll be a corridor there, all of those things. Just is that an option? As I sit and think about it, there's no sidewalks or anything down 70 pits. So, I'll retract that comment. Never mind. look at pedestrian things kind of separately, but to Natalie's point, it it's platted and you know, we would have to look at interest in what's going on downtown and where we land downtown in terms of what the uses are and where we're sending people. So, it becomes a a larger conversation. Those type of ped movements can actually be added later, too. That's I don't currently I don't the more I think about it the more I think that it'd be kind of a bad idea just because of all the activity down in that area and such. So don't think it's something we want to dump pedestrians down. Mr. Mayor, just to clarify something too is it's come up a couple times. The 2050 count plan will begin in 2026. So we're actually seven months out before we start it and it will be submitted in 2028. Uh, and so just I I've heard a couple dates up. So for people's understanding of what that means, uh, the the study will occur from 2026 until we have to submit until 2028. Mr. Mayor, can I ask one more question, please? Um, so I'm just I'm looking at like the Larkin Road and the County Route 50, and I know Henipin County has said no more access on County Road 50. When was that study done where they said there would be no access on County Road 50? industrial site. Yeah, it was part of the corporate discussion and it's not that they said no more access on 50, they said not in that location because there was too many other factors on the other side that didn't make sense. Because then my concern is Larkin Road is kind of a dangerous road because people are already trying to speed across there to get across 116 to get over to the other side to get to 10. They don't want to go down to the stoplight. And so the increase in traffic on that location could be pretty significant with this many um houses going in there. So I'm just I don't know if there was a way that Henipin County could relook at that and say, "Well, there's a stoplight at least at that other intersection that would at least maybe alleviate some of the I think it could be resubmitted, but correct me if I'm wrong. My reading of their assessment of it last time was absolutely not." Okay. Again, that was looked at the EA feasibility. We do it again. Their access their access spacing is pretty strict. So, we don't anticipate them changing their position in this location, but we would but that goes through the same process if it were to go through go through and get their comment. Um, but again, again, the feasibility would also look at any other impacts related turn lanes, whatnot. So, again, we had that for the previous project, but we'd have to refine it for any new concept. And that would look at any of those other impacts related to transportation. So there was an improvement project at 116 in Larkin with the previous project and now this is a different concept on a different use. So we have to evaluate what what other improvements would be required. That's a next step after this concept and I think I don't know how far they would go but I think we could encourage them to look at the impact of traffic and 10 would have also not just intersection that traffic exactly a lot to already challenging intersection for us anything else just real quick I'm sorry how many residents how many units in this area 189 I think the industrial park the number of traffic trips on the industrial park was over 20 2400 trips this would be 10 per what's the number you said how many 89 189 so you'd be at 1 trips so in theory all of the studies we've heard and everything else this would be less than what the industrial park had but a whole another conversation I think that's a factor and then the other factor for me is the implications tax base services understand all that so yeah anything else from council otherwise did the applicant or representative like to speak at all not worries Thank you, members of the council. I guess um I think it's more of a direction question. So if you need to have this conversation regarding tax base and so forth, is it possible for us to maybe come back with another review? I don't know. I don't know how we could move forward. for application comments. So I would have as far as an economic analysis, I don't know that we've had an applicant complete an economic analysis. Sometimes they've completed a market study, but I think what um what was brought up by councelor Nichols like an economic unit analysis I believe had to be something the city would have to undertake and I it would be beyond my expertise. So we would have to look at a process for that. If that's what if that's what we need to answer before if we're saying we don't need that to really move forward then I think that's a different discussion or if it's potentially during the comp plan process if they we wanted to meet with you guys during the comp plan process which like Jay said it's not I think the benefit of the comp plan process is we can theoretically like okay if we're going to give this up we can make it up over here whereas we really can't have that as part of this proposal. If if you recall uh when I first started, council had asked for some similar analysis. Uh we we called it, you know, stove pipes versus rooftops conversation. And at that time, we didn't want to spend the money to have someone to do all the analysis for us. So, we borrowed uh some analysis that was done for a city that wasn't truly a comparable city, but came with some conclusions uh in in terms of industrial versus uh home development and uh we've kind of moved in that direction. Uh but I had the understanding that that would be something that we're wanting to undertake as part of the next comp plan because there's some critical decisions that need to happen uh as we continue to develop. Uh we have not had uh the success that we'd hope for in commercial and industrial development. And so um we have to rethink our strategy if there is a desire to diversify our tax base and if there's a value in diversifying it. That's I think another open question because I think what that data had showed was a lot of the excess tax revenue actually got sucked out. Fiscal disparities is a challenge. Yep. Absolutely. But there there's it's complicated. Lower cost of services to different types of So to the developer question, it's a legitimate question like uh we don't have the internal resources and the time frame for us to go out and provide that analysis right now uh is is going to be pretty timeconuming. So council would have to direct that this is a priority of effort for us uh to focus on this right now. Um and it probably wouldn't be appropriate for us to just focus on this one development because this has implications for the city at at large. Um, and so if that's something you'd like us to do, we can. So by the time we've got to be able to do something that we're into, we're starting to get into the comp plan process. Be nice to have that data as we start the comp plan process versus generate it during the comp plan process though too. That's sort of setting the table for those discussions. Maybe could staff bring back an idea of what I I know where we can get where I got the data from before uh is u and they are the people who do our long-term financial plan. Uh so I can get some analysis on what it would cost for us to do uh through the Musa area some analysis on that as well as a time frame proposed time frame on what it would how long it would take for us to complete that and then maybe keep the applicant in the loop on the timing of when we're doing that analysis or whatever else. I miss I'd like to see it expedited. Okay. However, we can expedite it. I'd like to see it expedited. We have one more that would like to see it expedited. Okay. We got four that would like to see it exped. So, I will uh do some research. I'll come back with uh both cost, scope, and timeline. Great. Thank you. next meeting. No, it's also a short short week and a half at this time. All righty. Anything else on this one? Mr. I just want to make sure. So the so I'm hearing comp amendment. We would like some economic analysis to really understand the impacts and then for the reasonzoning to PUB the proposed flexibilities the proposed and potential flexibilities. I don't I haven't really heard anything on that? We're pretty much open to what's being that's currently identified in the staff report. Well, I think some of the feedback that that like Dean had about with layout changes, it's possible and I I argued myself a lot a higher density than the three that's here with with the higher density to the east side, less density to the west side. A transition density if you know what I'm saying. Clarification. Are you saying higher density overall or just higher moving the higher density part that's in the southwest to the east side there? Even give them the option of higher density to the east. So overall it'd be great to see it okay up to five but single family homes to the west and whatever to the east. I figure that the reconfiguring it will move forward as this uh of that southwest corner to maybe the east side there. Um especially by Sun. Yeah. Um regarding the garage flexibility that you talked about, um yeah, again, if it were to move forward as is, I I could see why we would maybe grant that like we have on some of the twin homes. If this is just my personal opinion, if we were to grant that on the single family homes, I would I would want to do it on a limited basis like we had maybe on those fairway shores where certain small percentage, okay, are allowed to but not large across the whole community. And it would maybe also be nice um to have a conversation with Three Rivers about I think someone brought this up earlier about if it's not an access which it's not likely to be regardless of what this is um a full access it's emergency access would there be some sort of three river trail crossing? Yeah, I think I I have that one noted. So I think that could be something that we look forward with free rivers. Um I can't remember I should have lied. I can't remember if they were already planning a trail separated trail crossing there. Um so but if that's a a benefit the council would like to see, we could work with to see if that's something they'd be willing to look at and what what the cost sharing would be that's not part of their current plan. Okay. Um Okay. So overall, I just want to clarify one thing. Councelor Baron Camp, you said closer to five. Do you You want the development closer to five units an acre. What did you mean by closer to five? Uh again I fight with myself but a higher density than the 2.99 or three that we have give them that option if that keeps them um interested in pursuing and such. I I I entertain that. I I just I think it's one of those things that all the stuff that we've seen over the years. Usually something like this, they're asking for much much higher density than than what we want. And in in the places it's been, it's I would have rather seen low density. Down here, it makes sense. Going back to the previous plan being a higher density type, medium density type number, I I'd be in favor of that with the caveat of the western side being single family. I appreciate that question. Okay. Thank you for uh getting my head on straight. And never in a million years did I think that I would say that I would support higher density. So I would I would uh I would concur with uh council member Baron Kim. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. If the density is higher, you don't get to talk anymore. Does that affect the open space percentage? So if the uh No, I don't believe so because the they are already at the highest maximum for the open space percentage. So it's like lots less than 55 foot wide require 15% open space. So I think the only question would be um do you prefer having the 65 foot wide lots or do we want some higher density which maybe would have less 65 foot wide lots more like the 50 foot wide lots but you get some higher density and maybe a transition to those wider lots on the west side potentially. Okay. Thank you. And then any thoughts on the um the public benefits? Is there anything that they're not proposing that we'd like to see incorporated? It's a little tough at this point. It's a little early. Well, I have heard the trail crossing. So, I think that that's works for now. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys for your patience and anybody that's up on the agenda. Appreciate it. On to 73 which is or 73 7 C which is Heather Meadows thirdition OS&MP final flat revision. Thank you. So, our last planning item tonight, uh, the applicant is ML Unlimited LLC. This is for the site near Oakdale Drive in Heather Lane. Heather Meadow's third edition was an OSMP plat that was approved by city council in 2024 as a part of that application. There were also there's also a cup and some variances that were approved as well. Uh, specific to this request tonight, there uh, the variances approved allowed structures to remain within the 100 100 foot buffer zone and set back for agricultural structures and it specifically pertain to lot one block four and lot one block five. Those are the two residential lots that not that would front deal. Um and the applicant's request tonight is they would like the city to reconsider some language that was included in the approvals. So specifically the language required by resolution for the open space outlook covenants as it relates to ownership. The requirement plant native grasses within the required buffer zone and to allow for agricultural use within the buffer zone as well. Just a a reminder of the final plat that was approved. So again, the two residential lots on Oakdale Drive is going to be where the buffer conversations focus and then outlot A and Outlot B are the open space outlots that are going to continue to be farmed for the applicants tree farm for the foreseeable future. So, um we have two sections in our subdivision ordinance that talk about ownership of the open space outs. Um the one it says open space shall be owned by an individual, a home owners association, the city or other legal entity that use land for open space purposes pursuant to a conservation easement. So, it's a little the language is a little loose in this section, but then you get to section 940.060 where ownership of common areas is detailed. And it it explains that where certain land areas or structures are provided within the subdivision for private recreational use or as common service facilities or centralized wastewater systems, the owner of such land and buildings shall provide covenants. And the ownership is limited to uh dedicated to the public where communitywide use would be anticipated. Subdividers ownership and control or homeowners association. Um we staff was um when this was adopted um I I don't believe staff actually uh was involved and staff was involved I'm sorry but the actual writing I believe was part also partly done by George Kamach if I'm understanding the history correctly. Um we believe the intent was that the open space outlots really weren't meant to be sold to an outside entity that had no interest in the development. Um and that was part of the discussions that we had originally. So when we finalized the resolution for both the preliminary and final plaque uh the ownership covenants uh that made it into the resolution uh were based on that intent. And so the open space outs can be dedicated to the city. The open space outlets can be sold to the owner of lot one block 4. That was because the cup that was granted for agricultural structures on that lot to remain um are uh the structures needed to maintain outlaw A and outlaw B. So it seemed reasonable that should the seller um pass on the land or sell the land um so not not sell the applicant should they sell it to someone who um is living in that lot that makes sense considering the C that was granted and then they would also have an interest in the development overall. And then the open space outlots can be dedicated to a homeowners association that compro comprises a majority of the homes within this development. And the open space outlots can be sold to a developer once municipal sewer and water are available. So um and I'm sorry that is that is the specific language that made it into both resolutions for the plat. Can I ask you a question? Yes. This has been before this council already, correct? Yes. Okay. And we've already considered it, correct? Yes. and we already voted on it. Correct. I would like to make a motion uh to uh that no changes be made to the original uh approvals. Motion second. I'll second that. Okay. Nichols, any discussion? I I have discussion. Um the requirement of for planting a 100 foot buffer from Oakdale in those two properties of lot five and lot four of native grasses. We are impacting both those properties and they're both homes right now. were saying with what was said or what we said was okay. I I I understood it or I thought it was those would continue being residential homes and to turn that into native grass plantings the first 100 ft were all the way back if it doesn't fit. I think it is good to discuss that. Um, so the way I read that part of code, I had interpreted that as meaning that portion needs to be thickly planted as a buffer for neighboring properties. That doesn't to me mean that every trees and shrubs. That doesn't mean every scrap of grass needs to get ripped out and native grass is planted instead, but it's been landscaped in such a way that it provides an effective buffer through that portion. And I agree with that. I'm just saying for for what I'm understanding, the first 100 feet from Oakdale of that whole property is in the native grasses. Yeah, I I don't think that would be my interpretation. Me as one vote that I would interpret it that way, but I would say I would expect there to be a lot of trees on those lots, a lot of shrubs on those lots, and I want them to stay there. And that's what he had originally agreed to, I thought, when we were talking about it were extra trees, extra shrubs, and those kind of things. The narrative that was included indicates that the trees that are being planted are going to be harvested. Yeah. Which I do not like. That doesn't meet my expectations for a buffer. Same. And I didn't understand it that way. I thought all of the trees that were being planted were south of the two homes in the out lot a not in and amongst their yards if that makes sense. That's the way I understood. Let's hear from Natalie. Um so I mean I can if we just want to skip to this part of the um basically the variances that were granted said that the buffer yard should be planted where it would not conflict with his ex existing building. The code does planted grasses, shrubs, and trees. So, the use of end is we would have said or if it was an option to just do one or two of those things because it says end, that's where I believe that that's what we need to do. However, um the I would also say they also part of their request, not just the native grass planting, but also allowing them to continue farming this area, which is a field has a field line on the existing. Where are you pointing at? Oh, darn it. I'm sorry. this field line that was shown on the plans but was not requested to be exempt from the buffer that the variance resolution that was adopted does not so we missed that yep and then they well I don't know that we missed it that was just what we discussed was part of the buffer zone and then they are also requesting these yellow shaded in areas also be allowed for their tree farm so that's that's the request so if we want to So, um the resolution that would um provide more flexibility to the variance that was granted could be specific to just say we don't have to do the native grass plantings or to what extent they'd have to do the native grass plantings. Um or um if we want some or all of the ability to farm additional areas within that buffer zone, that'd be the resolution that's in front of you tonight. Um so that's but sorry, I'm trying to rush through. No, I understand. And I understand Mark's motion and such. I just the way I understood it was these two the two homes would still be homes and they would add more trees and shrubs not to be harvested but as what you just said the existing farmland would continue to be farmed. And the neighbors to the west have all understood the same thing that it still continues to be farm, but it would end up being a tree farm. Correct. And that that the outlaws are the what all the way all the way to all the way to Oakdale. Well, part of the out. But I don't these areas the highlighted yellow areas were not identified as farmed areas. I didn't I didn't read it that way. I I thought those were identified as just more more landscaping for the properties in lie of adding all of the seeing now that it grasses and stuff potentially harvested trees. Does that change your opinion on that? I wouldn't want those to be harvested. I'd want them to stay existing. I don't know that but to the to the east side or the west side be a buffer so it be a code enforcement action if it kept getting torn down buffer it's a it's a condition of the flat it's a condition of their variances so yeah fair enough and there's there's a bargain there that was struck right with with the OS&mp they're doubling their density they're doubling their building rights the price of that is partially that buffer creation and the maintenance of that buffer, adding the trees and the shrubs and stuff we talked about. But again, I I thought that we would that everything in to the west of that yellow area was tree farm and everything south of these two properties were to be tree farms. So, I'm I'm sorry I misunderstood. I mean, we also granted the variance for the two driveways on the on the eastern property to continue their their deliveries and pickups via semis and such. So, wasn't there something with the structures too? Yeah. Yeah, there was a couple of them removed if I remember. Couple removed. Lot one block four right now exceeds the byite footprint. Um the agricultural structures can remain as part of maintaining outlaw A and outlaw B specifically outlaw A because that's the one that's adjacent. Um but it also would maintain all B. So that's there's a C that was granted and then the one of the agricultural structures near Oakdale was within was it had a 91 foot setback and 100 foot setback is required. So that was a variant that was granted as well. So, not to take away from Mark's motion, should we finish that or we had a We can't. Mark, was your motion on both of the requests, the outlaw request and the uh NATO planting request or just the Yeah. No, both. Both. Okay. Dean, does that I thought we had a motion. Yep, we do. Yeah. Um, we can call that vote on that if you'd like right now. Um, all those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. So, we're leaving it the way it was. Yes. Um, and again, just to restate the interpretation of the trees, shrubs, and native grasses. Maybe we should have a little bit of discussion on that. I'd like to. So, If we take the conservative interpretation that you need to have some of all of them, that doesn't mean that all of the grass has to be native grass. There's switch grass something like that could be planted in a couple spots as part of the overall buffer design and fulfill the code without having them plow everything down and plant only native grass, which is what they seem to think that they have to do. I don't think we want them to take the trees out and put in native grass. Correct. Correct. Good clarification. Yeah, I didn't agree, but I'd rather be that way. It seems that there's a misunderstanding or whatever. I'd like to keep the yards with more landscaping, and I'd rather see the yards mowed than heavy amounts of native grasses and such. So, okay. So, the You're not saying forego it, but to plant it to like what extent because I think right now the directions come from me because we do this for our other buffer yards. All of it has to be native grass. We don't just do a portion of it being saw. So that's um I do believe that is what the code says. So if we're saying that we want a deviation from that, it'd be helpful to have a threshold identified. If we're saying we still want some native grasses, where that should be located. Is it just in the right of way? Are we saying that we want it 20 feet in? Like I need a little bit more because otherwise it goes Leaving it all up to me is not very helpful because I don't know that's going to result in something that you want to see. But that's that's the direction I was going. But it sounds like we are just Well, go ahead. Saying yes to What are you thinking? I we had a motion and it was 4-1 against me. But what I would like to see is if native grasses are needed on that from Oakdale down planted in the right away. And then from the rightway, the rest are normal yards. And then adding extra trees and shrubs that are non-h harvestable that look reasonable or can't be agreed by the applicant and our planning department. Again, I I' I'd rather see those two yards continue to exist and not just turn into something else. I I think I agree with your objective. I'm not sure that planting native grasses in the right of way gets us that because then you're going to end up with well or we keep mowing it and I don't understand how we do sections of native grasses and keep them look like yards, right? Yeah. I mean, I would see it as it's part of the landscaping of the home, right? So maybe there's an area where it makes sense to have some decorative grass and you could you could do it like that. Yeah, I would I would that's where I'd rather go, but it sounds like we're saying native grasses, but I'd rather those two look like yards with more landscaping, a few more overstory trees, just something normal, not I mean, Natalie, I'm trying not to make it complicated. A middle ground, bring it to us to see if it's objectionable or not. So again, I I truly believe we're saying they don't need to do native grasses as the as the ground cover in the buffer zone. We need to adopt a um a resolution tonight that says that in the varian language. Is that what you guys are saying? I don't think they should need to plant only native grass in that 91 foot section. only native grass. I think there can be some as part of the overall design. I think there needs to be some. I think code says there needs to be some. I would agree. The code says thickly planted with trees, shrubs, and native grasses. I think you can do thick planting of trees and shrubs. So, it looks like a forested lot, a wooded lot. Um, and in that condition, I don't think it means you can't have a regular yard for those houses. So I don't think we're saying no native grasses. Okay. But I'm saying to say that that that isn't the ground cover that's required in the buffer zone. We need to adopt a different resolution than tonight. So if if we want to say that what what is it? Is it the first 20 feet from the right of way that should be native grasses? What are what does sum mean? What is the metric of some? Yeah. Um and then it would be helpful to know 3%. 3%. Okay. If we need a number for a regular yard, I don't want this for the whole city. I don't want every buffer to be that way. So, because we're trying to have these as regular looking home lots, it's an accent to go with the other things that are thicker. So, we want to see lots of trees and shrubs, but not, you know, a thick stand of switch grass. Okay. So, what I'm hearing is the rideway should be planted with native grasses, and then 3% of the lot or the the buffer zone should be native grasses, the ground cover, and then um we don't want any farming of any kind within the buffer zone. I I don't want farming of any kind in the buffer zone. I I would not think it would look very good. Like, if my neighbor had 20 feet of native grass in their yard and then regular lawn behind it, to me, that would be a code violation because it's looking like weeds. Um so, I'm I'm sensitive to that. Can I point of clarification? Does the buffer start at the rightway and then go into the yard? Because I keep hearing it should the rightway should be native. It really should because the rightway is given to the city for future turn lanes, trails. So that could go away. So I just want to clarify that I think it starts from the rightway. So it's a slightly different design objective of the OSMP, but it's one and the same. And it's trying to it's trying to clean up this whole area. So So it does encroach. So yeah, the native grasses and plantings required within the rightway is one of the design objectives of the OSMP. And so just clarifying that we to move forward, we need a need we need a landscaping exhibit for these two lots that shows the rightway planted uh with native grasses or not. Like that's part of what I'm trying to clarify tonight. Um and I think we, you know, unless there's a different number we want to throw out, 3% of the buffer zone for those two lots should also have native And then no, no farming and heavily wood wood shrubs and trees. I think that works. Okay. Um, so minus the we look at this real quick. Minus the areas that were shown for farming. Does is that enough shrubs or would you do we need more shrubs to be thickly planted? Again, I'm struggling with some of the that not your fault at all. That is just how the code's written. Um and so what does thickly planted mean? Um I think I work with the back and forth of the applicant. This was what I had tenatively approved and now that it's in front of you tonight, it' be helpful. Does this mean we'd like to get to you as well or do we need more? I think the applicant wants to speak if that's okay. Sure. My name is Marcus. Please state your name and your address, please. Drive is my address. Natalie, can you go back to that picture that you had of the real picture? Yes. This is an outdated picture though, just right. Okay. So, on the left side of the screen, you'll see the field. That's where it's dirt. That's actively trees right now. And we're switching the lot line on that propert. So now the trees are their evergreen there. Those are going to be part of the buffer zone. Um I don't have a problem with keeping them, you know, leaving the trees that are planted there for farm use. Just leaving them indefinitely. We don't have to harvest them. The all of the green area right now is mowed and it's just grasses. Um the the other slide that you had up shows the the planting that's already all been done. Um I did it a couple weeks ago. I planted all the shrubs and trees and whatever. The the big thing is the native grasses. I think it's just unrealistic to have, you know, grass that's waist high or whatever that goes 100 ft from the roadway. We can those highlighted areas right now are farmed in trees. What's planted I'll keep there. There's probably I don't know 100 trees in those two areas and I can I can keep them just like they are. Let them grow and mature and it'll be a nice buffer. Um it's the it's the native grasses that I'm really hung up on. Just to clarify, what are these seedlings that are planted there or did they meet the minimum size requirements? Yeah, those are the farm trees are the sequence. I mean, they're 34 less than all the other trees identified in there have been planted. Like I say, those the area that 100 foot planting I I don't have any issue with the with the shrubs, the trees. It's the native grasses. I like to keep it all. It's been like that for since it all. Thank you. Thank you, Marcus. So, with the applicant's input, can I make a motion to do what we want to do or what I'd like to see? I think we're also going to have to to uh clarify in whatever motion we make that we're okay with seedlings being planted. Otherwise, we're going to have to wait for the seedlings to meet minimum size requirement before um it would satisfy their landscaping and that could take years. So, or I can I can just walk through. Okay. So, that just as far whatever flexibility that we want to bring, I'm just trying to identify that all right now so we don't have to come back. Oh, so to real numbers, Marcus, how many seedlings do you have or have you planted in this area? And I assume it was for farming or it was for this application for farming. Um there's probably, if I had to throw a number, probably 150 seedlings that are under three feet tall. Um I don't have Oh, what kind of what kind of trees? There's white pines, some spruce, some cedar, and some birch. So, it's a shame. Looks very nice right now. I I I'm just saying I to get to what makes it more acceptable to code. He'd have to plant a variety of trees, what size, and all of those things. So, what would he have to plant? you have, but it's not the right now the plan that we have and not what is there. So, that's part of where I'm concerned. But yes, the um the especially if it was just done a couple weeks ago and we've been working through this the entire time. No more than 33% of the required new trees in this area are supposed to be of the same species. It sounds like they are all I think this needs to come back. I think we've gotten too confused on this. me personally. Yeah. Um the trees that were planted for farm use were planted um on the west side of property like three years ago. So they've been there. I just the the property line on lot one block for the boundary. It was a third of an acre property and it just got bounced up to a 4 acre parcel. So that's why it's it's encroaching the farmed area. Um again I have I don't have any issue with tractor and car putting, you know, it's already nice clover grass that we in our tree field. So, it would just it would just be mowed, you know, clover and grass mix. Um, all the trees on that plan have been planted. There's a number of trees and shrubs that have already been planted and they're the farmed area. So they kind of look funny. But so that's where I get a little confused. That's where I'm getting confused too because what you're saying is there's way more trees in that area than what is shown on that plan. And you also said they were seedlings. So they didn't meet the minimum size and they're not meeting the but there are also ones that are there that do meet the code. And that's where I'm so I had thought that what I thought that the plan in front of us tonight was what was there. So that's where I'm um confused. That was what was requested to be provided. So that we had that information in front of us tonight. So, could could I make a motion just to get us going? Do we already vote on this? That's what I'm trying to figure out. We voted on that, but you're asking we're asking for directions. Well, yeah, but can you give me a hint on what the motions eliminate the native grasses on the two properties on that? The consulting between planning and the property owner on which trees are acceptable. If they're seedlings and they're three years old, they pretty established. I'd rather not see the ones mowed down, but if we can I don't Yeah, I don't think they need to mow them down. I guess my unless staff has an objection to this. My recommendation would be the vote that we made tonight to keep it as is for now. table this to a subsequent meeting, next meeting, whatever works best to try to get a better picture of exactly what's on the ground there and then we can make a more informed decision on what tweaks if any we need to make. Can I just add another suggestion to that? Maybe based on the discussion that we've had, if you need a resolution, try to capture as best you can the input from council into that resolution to give you the clarity that you need. So, if I can help Natalie out with this, the clarity on the resolution is that per the plan that she had, those species and the sizes of those plants as were identified are intended to be retained. And so, staff should confirm that they were either planted or that there's the intent to be planted. Uh, and then as far as the the native species, you gave a percentage uh within the uh right of way and then 3% uh in in the buffer zone was the proposed intention for the resolution. Is that correct? In the buffer zone with the 3%. I think so. Um is that still acceptable that that that was what what was put out uh so staff can go out there, visit the site, clarify what's on the ground? Well, I just as far as species and stuff, I need some I need a actual survey of what's on there because I'm not a landscaping expert. So, Not I'm not going to know what species what the different species are just from something you can help. Yeah. What I'll do is um the the trees that are planted for farm use they're small there's minimal it's not a big deal. It's really not a big deal. Um the trees that are to be planted those I'll identify them and they they've already been planted. what you approved. So, they're already in I try to identify as much as you can before cutting them down. Um I don't think we're going to be going out there in the next two weeks trying to find a violation. Yeah. I I would say there's no I wouldn't I wouldn't rush. There's no harm in more trees. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The big thing for me is is is the native grass. If I could eliminate those totally, that would be that would be really and that's what I think for now we're saying no. Um that Jeremy's idea of maybe the 3% having staff go out there with some additional information from you to see if we can make that work and then we can see how council feels on that. 3% in right of way or just 3% overall with the right of way looking at the entirety of the site including the right of way 3% is what I'm suggesting council opinion not even 3% of the buffer is on 3% of the lot yeah well sorry of the the area that's supposed to be buffer okay 3% of that okay and then all the so then the rightway was also supposed to be native plantings do we want to keep that requirement as well so that's that's um in front of the property line. I I don't think it would make sense for that to be like tall grasses that are going to be, you know, waist high. I'd rather not just because of the sightelines of the three driveways. Okay. But if he's doing clover or something like that and you combine native clover, great. To me, that's fine. Do you need a motion to bring that rest back at a bigger meeting? Could Could I just add one thing? Sure. I I think and I and I understand where my colleagues coming from. I think the 3% number is a bit arbitrary. E the land owner doesn't want the natural grasses. How are we going to enforce 3%. I say it would be my recommendation either he has to keep it as is or remove the condition of the natural grasses without this percentage thing that can't be enforced. I'd agree with that. I I would say that you could say that about any landscaping plan ever. So, we do have the ability to enforce especially if it has a condition for a variance and uh if there's an approved plan, I would say there is an ability to enforce it, but ultimately I I whatever makes sense. At this point, I just want to wrap this one up. No, no, I I hear you. I just don't know how you count 3%. Yeah, it would be based off landscaping plan that need calculations. Yeah. And so so I think the decision really should be do we require the natural grasses or not? And if we're leaning towards no then I think the percentage should be zero. So just so I would I would support that. I would support the 3% as well but I think that there are some challenges. I hear that. I mean, the only reason why I would struggle with it is we're going to get the same kinds of requests from people forever once we start down that path. Well, adjusting the standards anytime, we're going to get continue to get the same questions. We do have an OSMP plant next week that has a very similar to the so yes, I would assume if we grant it here, they will also request that they not have to major as well. That's a concern. But is it that's going to have two established yards on the but if you plant a butterfly garden as part of your landscape plan with native grasses I'm just saying that's an easy way to meet a low percentage requirement I'm sorry what was your proposal if you plant a butterfly garden Jeremy butterfly easy way to meet a low threshold so are we at the 3% in a normal way is that is that OSP coming up the next meeting Yep. Maybe it wouldn't be the worst thing to assess that together. Two items on the same agenda. I um So, what would you like for me to bring back on this one then for the next meeting? If we can get the data from the applicant. So, I have three days next week before everything's due. Okay. Or maybe the subsequent meeting. Okay. This other one be July 10th. Yeah. I'm not counting for two weeks. Oh, yeah. You're not here. Yeah. July 24th. This property isn't going away and the applicant seems willing to work with us. I would say you don't need to plant. I mean, you don't need to make changes to it in the interim as as it's coming back to council, right? That seem fair, reasonable. Yeah, I would please stop making changes. That's part of the problem. So, don't make any changes. I need to know what's there. Don't do anything else until we get this figured out. We've got this one the one vote for now and then we'll I'll table this till a future meeting uh determine projected July 24th. Do you need a motion to table? I'm making a motion. I'll second that motion. All those in favor say I. I. Thank you. And then just real quick, the the owners That's just I believe so. I think Yep. Thank you. All right. I'm going to take a 5m minute break here and then we'll come back and we can finish up relatively quickly. Hopefully we'll be in recess till 9:06 on that clock. 9:04 in real life. Is it green? You got to wait for it. Ready? Okay. So, you got to go into your monitor settings. Oh, and move it over. Well, or duplicate your screen one or something. Yeah, you have to duplicate your screen. So, Ollie and Sven went to airborne school to become paratroopers. Oie uh exited the aircraft the very first time after doing all the training. And uh as he went out, his his shoot didn't open. Well, then uh he did what he was trained to do and he grabbed his reserve shoot and he pulled the handle and the reserve shoot didn't open. Oh, what you going to do? He said, "My main shoot didn't open. My reserve shoot didn't open. I bet you the bus isn't going to be down at the drop zone, too. But I'll be here all week." Yeah. You're all You're welcome. You're welcome. Tickets available. I don't have it yet. Lots of tickets available. Uh well, yeah, it's just black on her end. It is green. It's supposed to be green when you hit it. Well, well, hit the green. Hit the green button. Try one more time. Button again. It's just not Where where is the presentation? All of the information. presentation. We got it in front of us. You got it in front of you. Go get them. Sorry for those in the audience. If you want, I can turn my kind of look at an angle if you like. Um, so we're here tonight regarding the city park bid results, myself and then Steve, one of our consultants on project. Um, as part of this, we had two different bid two different bids for the project. We had one for site work which did include the site work plus six alternate that were predefined. So alternate A was the boardwalk B was the diamond regional trail just that we could have a clear call out of how much those cost would be especially since they would be reimbured by three rivers. Um C was the full parking lot paving. Uh D is the pin wheel trail paving. So in between the three ball fields and then the open green soccer field. Uh there's pathways that between those north and south and then to the east as well. Uh and then we've got pedestrian lighting as alternate E and then alternate F is athletic field. Um and on my slideshow I do have pictures of them but like I said they are in your packet. So it kind of gives a little more insight to exactly where and what that me I was just taking it off straight off the memo. So the Second bid was for the building itself which would include the building. Um it was done in a lump sum. So the alternates are included in that lump sum price for the building that was included. Um the two alternates that were included in that one interior room partition. So that was to split the room into two separate rooms and then the eastern building overhang which was very much appreciated by like the parks and trails especially but ultimately it became an alternate because the the building appeared to be too high. Um, both bids came in under the estimated amount that we were projecting. So, upcoming projected cost, we'd be looking at 850,000 for the playground. The apparent low biders would be the ones that we recommend going with. Um, with that 2.8 for the site work and the 2.2 for the building, there's about 75,000 in room invoices that we're still processing through. Water connection fees would be approximately 15,000. Electrical service by right Henipin would be 20 to 30 is our best estimate. There would be construction administration costs to the tune of 6 to 7%. Uh geotechnical services at approximately 35,000 and then wack and sack fees at 10,000 for a total of 6.2 approximately. Beyond that we do have external funding that we have talked about every step of the way. Um, so we can get up to $525,000 reimbured by Three Rivers through the cooperative agreement that we signed with them. Um, that would be for 2025. Should there be additional costs to the project, there is up to 525,000 also for 2026. Um, we have the HUD federal funds to the tune of 500,000. We have the Hen County Youth Sports Grant, the 300,000, 100,000 from the Northwest area, which they did say could be used for other items beyond just the splashback. Um, which is not shown in this project in this case. Uh, and then 45,000 from Hanover Athletic Association and about 5,500 from the Athletic Association as they wrapped up their books. So externally we've got almost $1.5 million in funding towards the project. Um we are currently waiting a little bit for the playground itself uh because we did submit that DNR outdoor recreation grant. We're hoping to get some money back from that but we haven't heard yet. It would be 350,000 and uh we would find out by June 30th. So all that to say park dedication fun is about 5.8 million right now. So between external funds and park dedication, it looks like we would actually be able to move forward with the project. Um very so that we wouldn't even need to use all of the park dedication and we also enision that would be coming in the first. So the main questions for tonight are regarding the alternates that are included in the package. So staff recommendation is to move forward with alternate A, B, C, D, and F. And we're looking for council thoughts on specifically E. That's the one where we could kind of go either way. And then as far as the building, does council support the including the interior room partition and the eastern over and that's included in the bid. Correct. Currently. Correct. So if you decided not to move forward with those, they would be taken out. The only other thing I do want to add just the four questions. Um we are not necessarily looking for a motion tonight. We would be coming back on the 23rd to ask for more approval. We're more looking for feedback discussion tonight. Okay. Uh, for this entire project, what's the tax bill to Corkran residents? Okay. Because I see project costs, external funding. How how much money are you asking for from citizens? Zero. Zero dollars. Okay. And then external funds taking with us for half of the city. And then to clarify, there may be an opportunity for those who'd like to to donate. Um, but yes, there will be ongoing opportunities for that, but we're not billing a taxpayer for this. Okay. Thank you. So, just to be clear, no tax money is going toward this. Correct. Park dedication, donations, and grants towards the capital investment. Uh we we've already had tax dollars that help maintain the park and that would continue just with full transparency. Sure. Uh so so uh that that will be ongoing um to continue to maintain the park in still the same footprint as footprint in your own correct. It will have maintenance two buildings playgrounds in a different spot has some different amenities. I'll jump in with my thoughts. Um I I've spent a lot of time kind of digging through this with the understanding that we have a couple significant amenities that we want to add on as money comes in and as we complete this phase one, namely pickle ball courts and splash pad. Uh with that understanding, I would be supportive of adding item or um alternates A and B which are reimbursables uh of about 5 $25,000 this year uh from Three Rivers and it connects that whole loop with boardwalk and because you significantly more looping trail uh C which is um is CP did I mix up my order? Um, C is the one I hesitated the most, but I think I've been convinced on that it will be a benefit. Um, D, uh, I think for the cost adds good additional connectivity and walking paths. Um, E I don't think is needed, particularly at this time. And F I think is a great add-on. Um, and then we'd just be looking at or I would just be looking at as money comes in, we tackle probably the pickle ball courts first given the price and then the splash pad as well as we start looking at the other parks in the city. And correct me if I'm wrong, but we are subbing to the location that was predetermined for the splash pad. So, we're trying to be as proactive as possible costs. They're going to be longer now, so let's do what we can to get to there and set us up for success in the future. I'd agree with the mayor. Um, exact same stuff. Building two, we went through side work. I'd keep the building as is. What What does that mean? Like with the two options you asked about? Yeah. Don't remove them. Keep them in. Okay. I agree. Can I ask a question about the pin wheel trail paving? Sure. Are the other trails leading up to that paved or are those not paved? trail, but like when will that be done? Like is it going to be like we're going to have dirt and then go to the paved area of the pin wheel? Are you talking from the parking lot to the pin wheel? I'm assuming the pin wheel will have several like exits, right? If it's a pin wheel. So there should be a picture in your packet. Alternate A is the one that if you go to What page is it on? I'm in the Stantech memo down [Music] two of specific probably Oh, I was looking at a I'm sorry. Okay. I was like, I don't think I saw it. That's probably your best option for looking at the 205. She was about the pin wheel. Yeah, the pin. Talk about the pin wheel. But this is probably the best visual that you're going to get because it goes right to the pin wheel. Um, so you've got one that runs east and then there's the north south one that connects from the parking lot to the lake. Right. But the pin wheel is the paving between the fields, right? The pin wheel itself is the ball field is outside the ball field. Pin wheel is like the setup of four ball fields behind a circle. So then the pathways are just within I think you might work here. It's got the green one the scopes of the hub. So the whole outside is going to be paved. That's the Diamond Lake Trail. The whole side is the Diamond Lake Trail and this alternative south portion in the east portion of the Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. So it connect. So it does connect. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Got it. Thank you. Sorry. I think the pin wheel is like a turn that can get lost. I was thinking it was like a base area and then it was going up which kind of is. Let's call it the three spoke. The three spoke three spoke wheel. Big T. Okay. crossing. What other questions can I help you at this time? Sounds like general consensus on those. Great job. Yeah. Getting us to this point. Um, can it be done by August? Exciting. Uh, I did include a time frame. I think I read it. I read it. I read it. You're okay. Um, so I think we have general consensus on the the alternates and we want to keep in and add on. Yes. Um, I did have a question. Where are we on the park naming process? I mention it. Uh the packet just got posted today for parks and trail and it was included in their thought of heritage. Okay. So they are going to do that next Tuesday. Um and then I'm going to turn out their response very quickly to you guys for the Wednesday. I I like that name. I like McKe Field. No, maybe someday if I But which one on the pin wheel? Um, but I do like Heritage Park a lot. But good to hear I suppose the uh the commission feedback. But um yeah, if you could I think we have consensus generally if you could prepare some stuff to bring back so we could move on that as well. You will see me back here. Perfect. Thank you. Gorgeous. All righty. Thank you. Thank you. On to new business. Uh we have two items 9A which is justformational only at this time. It is Henipin County uh Conro or Cassad 117 and Conro 19 improvements. Yes, Mayor. Uh the int the uh purpose of this item is just really to update the council on where this project stands. Um I believe as the most recent time it was brought before council there was a letter of support for a grant uh application and that was uh January of 2024. There were some previous conversations to that, but this project's kind of been out in Henipin County's world uh on their radar um as a as a need. It's kind of the awkward intersection in the very northwest corner of the city. Um H City Hanover has been kind of championing it for a while. Um and we we participated in some grant applications. Um and more recently the project has gained traction. It received some federal uh ear marking through the through the same program that we got support through the city park. Um and that that really kind of engaged Henipin County and now it's now it's their implementation phase. So they're just gearing up this project um and and they're going to be embarking on a public engagement process that starts in July. So the purpose here is to kind of disclose that share share with you that it's happening. Um and because a portion of the project is within the city of Corkran, we are we have some cost share elements to that. They were identified in the grant application or potential cost trails. We haven't signed up to anything yet. Uh we've shown support for the project. Are there potential ways to mitigate that with different funds like u is this the one that had potentially you could use MSA? Yes. Yep. So and I should pause there J I think if you're if someone's able or dev is able to pull up a schematic. I do have a schematic that shows you a specific so we can look at it. Uh it was the design the preliminary roundabout design that was included in the 2024 plan. I think there's actually a file in there too that shows a roundabout that's more zoomed in, but that's the location of the intersection um right at the northwest corner of the city. Um so really they're embarking on in a public engagement program. We'll be listed as that because within the city and if the county has a specific cashier kind of policy that attaches this to this. So without our support the project just you know would go away or you know we would be at some risk for kind of changing our position to some degree to be frank with you. Um but we do have that ability to get out of it still. But so if we were strongly against it, we should voice that now because this is the schematic that was previously shared. Um they're looking at a roundabout for this intersection. Um and they will be engaging that process. What does it mean? There's a public meeting at the city of Hanover coming up in July. There'll be a popup event at our 199 soliciting feedback. This isn't scheduled for construction until 2027. So they have a kind of a long drawn out all processes and so we're just kind of populating that. Uh it'll go out in our newsletter if you show support and it will be part of the engagement process with the county. Uh as they further design there'll be some rightaway needs. There'll be different factors. So we're really just embarking on the pro project. uh their initial cost estimate well this isn't in the report but their initial cost estimate in 2024 was a for corker was 152,000 the revised cost estimate is 170 that was in there I apologize is 167,000 so it has gone up it might move around a little bit it's too early to really define that but but we're really looking at like a roughly three right now it's they're proposing it as a 3.7% cost to the city of 38% % cost but I think we're getting good value for the portion of the project when we capitalize on these other funding sources and grant programs. So when you get one grant the match other grants sometimes match it and so that's how we can kind of reduce our percentage. So I think it's good value. I'd recommend that we there's no reason to say no at this point. What's that? I think there's no reason to say no at this point. We haven't committed to anything. I'd like to see where it goes. Like to see the public uh, you know, input sections and see how this develops and where some of those numbers end up and what we could maybe do with MSA and all that before we make a financially binding decision. But I think it's worth keeping an eye on. Can I ask you a question? Yeah. Um just curious is is there a trail like pedestrian trails that go along there that corridor on the east side of 19 rivers trail. Okay. Uh and that would remain three rivers. So it's east side it does wrap around and that will be maintained. Three rivers is also part of the conversation. They have property and obviously the trail. So so really the things that that we have to be mindful of is we do have a cost participation right now. They're projecting at 3.8%. That's better than a standalone project. county. It's more of like a 5050 match depending on what you do. So, we're getting good value there. And then there is the long-term maintenance agreements that they require of these type of contracts per their policy. We only really have a trail in Corkran. That's a Three Rivers Trail. This would have to be, you know, detailed out later, but um you know, we may be able to Three Rivers doesn't maintain their trails and it's a Three Rivers Trail. So there's maybe an opportunity for us to carve out any trail responsibility since it's not our trail. So long-term maintenance might might be avoided potentially in this case because we don't we're not going to have dual trails paralleling 19. So um so I think it's a I think it's a good deal. I the details to be worked out, but I think it's something that we should uh continue to monitor and and if you get if there's questions, Lauren and I are are the contacts through the city. We are included in that design meetings. So, we're following the process. That's awesome. My question is actually related to like Have there been studies on the safety of roundabouts for pedestrians as long as we have a trail there? Um because that's a super busy intersection and I'm I'm familiar with roundabouts and I've seen very many many many close calls with pedestrians because the the walkways are so close to where traffic is trying to get in and off of the roundabout. Is there a way in your design process you can push where the pedestrians cross out further so it's not so close to where all the traffic is? Because what happens is if someone's trying to go, someone's trying to get on, there's a pedestrian cup crossing. The person trying to get on doesn't see the pedestrian crossing. The car in front of you sees the pedestrian, but you almost get rear ends or you hit the pedestrian so close. So, I think it would be safer, and I've seen this happen, too, where people are walking outside of where the pedestrian crosswalk is to try to move away from the traffic. That might almost be a conversation with Three Rivers. I was going to say like we're just embarking on the design, but I think Three Rivers is going to highly scrutinize this crossing. Okay. Being so close to their park. So, we can share that feedback. That's something that will be a priority. It's a priority to Hen County. The goal of this project is to improve safety for both traffic and pedestrians in the area. So, you know, I tell you what that looks like today. They don't have a design fully yet. This is just Well, it's it's templated here for for two and and a point that I'd make, you know, when you're talking about in Ridgefield, it's it's every component of it. Yeah. Uh the trail is only meant on the on the east side until it crosses to the north side of 117. Then it crosses to the west side in order to get to Crohassen. So, there'll be two CR crossings rather than four crossings is what they have templated. Well, especially with the speed on this one because the speed will be much higher. Yeah. And and to Kevin's point, uh, Three Rivers as they're responsible for the trail and the anticipated traffic going to the regional park. Uh, that that that will be the champion of that. Yeah, it's really their trail. We can advise and have input. I think they have pretty high. I mean, they're kind of the Cadillac trail designers in the metro, so they have pretty they're very experienced in these type of situations. So, I feel we'll represent that. I mean, we represent, you know, I don't want to be clear. We've represented that, you know. whatever. We also want them looking at the intersection of 30 and 19. You know, we advocate, we know that's not the greatest intersection. That's not part of the scope. I want to be clear, but we're commenting at a staff level that making sure we're looking downstream in different directions to make sure that we're not doing something that has a significant worsening of those intersections so that we're advocating for those concerns. Maybe thinking about traffic calming as elements like where you have those crosswalks. That crosswalk could be raised like two or three inches. So, it's almost like a speed hump that you can still plow over, but cars have to slow down to go over it comfortably. Could help to make it safer. You can tell Henipin County and see what they say. I hear you. So, if you have ideas, relay them to us. Again, two county roads. We can we can certainly advocate. We're probably not the final deciders, but we will take feedback that you have and relay that to hopefully between you and the three people there'll be enough. It's the again the goal of the reason that this is being identified and north we we usually that much you know tension out here is because that they have identified this as a as a safety issue and so they're they're prioritizing safety again for both pedestrians and vehicles. So I think We'll take all that data and it's really a county project. We're partner. We have we have some say we're at the table. 3.8% say we're not the final person. So we'll do our best to do that and make sure the process is really keep everyone in touch. But again tonight was really more about hey this has become a real project. which is I think a good thing overall and the details still have to be still to be figured out and there will be a heavy uh engagement and communication plan put in play which is standard practice for county projects beginning in July. Perfect. Mr. Mayor, yeah, I'll be remiss if I don't say it. Is there any way it can be a four-way stop before this happens? adding one more stop sign, be it a temporary signs that say future roundabout, something to prepare, but we got to stop that traffic. There's people that are running the stop signs east, west. Um, and then obviously the the northbound is there's no stop. Is there anything that can be temporarily put in there to highlight the fact that all four directions should be stopped? be because we don't control, you know, it's not within the city. Can we ask Henipin County again? Each time Commissioner Anderson has come here, that's that's come up as a point and each time I've seen him, uh, we've emphasized not just that point, but to Kevin's point, we have several dangerous intersections on county roads within the city, and we emphasize them each time. So, we'll continue to advocate for safety as soon as possible. And I would also say, you know, uh, because of Kevin's efforts and our communication, we've seen some positive return on that investment. No, I appreciate it. I just I don't know why I do know why. I've seen people nearly get hit, horse trailers, everything head north and people just cut in front of them and stuff. So, and then it's already in contentious intersection with some of the land owners just north and east of this corner. So, it's a whole event center. Turn it into an event center. Thanks for listening. Interesting thing I just thought uh that I'd share with you, uh, Council Member Nichols, I have a cabin in northern Wisconsin. I hadn't seen this before. They just recently installed this along uh State Highway 51 near my cabin, but where the snowmobile crossings are, they actually raised it about half an inch and and it's it's about uh 4 foot wide and white uh in order to emphasize that there's a change in in what's happening. So, every every point along 51 where there's a snowmobile crossing, they they've raised it that way. Great. I I had not seen that before until this summer. So another side note, when I was in Iceland, so thanks for letting me go to Iceland for the last, but every pad crossing in Iceland had a raised like that's how they dealt with it too. Not going to say we want to do that, but just another caveat. Thank you. Thank you. Now on to 9B, uh, Horseshoe Trail Street Improvement. Thanks. Thanks again, Mayor. Um, so again, another project here that's coming up or just a decision coming up related to uh some street improvements that were associated with the Tava development. So I think it was 2019 that the development was originally approved um the very far western connection. So Tivera 7th edition which has been approved and is in construction uh there there was two offsite improvements associated with that. So on the screen here in red was basically a a road improvement, a street improvement project that was converting two of our collector roads, horseshoe trail and old settlers into a paved surface and that was as a result of the development in that. Um and then and then the blue part on this map is really a water main looping. So we're just kind of identifying the two questions. If you get any feedback, we we've sent out some information to to land owners that will be impacted. Again, these the the blue and the red projects are developer paid projects as a requirement of the development. So, those are in play regardless. The area that we're focusing on here in this conversation is really the yellow highlighted area. So, it's from the eastern property line of the Tava development. So the western edge of the bubble on your screen uh through the trail haven or trail lane intersection basically to the 90 degree turn where the road changes from horseshoe trail to I believe trail lane. Um so that's the area. It's a gravel area right now. There's some drainage issues right at the intersection of trail lane when we have like large uh there's some grade there and there's some challenges collecting water when we have like large capacity events or intense events. So really the topic of for tonight is do we want to address that with this project? It would be a city paid for project to some capacity, not developer funded. Uh from a maintenance standpoint, it's going to be a challenge for us to keep it as to keep it as gravel. Uh it it you know, and especially with it kind of being peacemealed like and surrounded by pavement, uh that that tends to have more issues. Wherever you transfer from pavement to gravel, that's where we have the most potholeing. If you areas like that. So now we have three spots where obviously we're going to have a big pothole there fairly regularly. So we're going to have to drive a grader down from Northwest Court where public works to hear routinely. We anticipate more calls and complaints sort of. So it's really a question of do we want to do something with now there was a conversation five six years ago about what we do with this section of the road and it was elected to to just remain gravel. There was different back from council. I I I mentioned it in the staff report. It really wasn't a firm directive, but there was conversation of potentially that leaving a gravel would help the church cut through traffic. I don't know. It was never really voted on. It was a topic of conversation. So, I wanted to be transparent tonight and say that was I that was a topic uh when the original role was approved. I believe at that meeting I stated that I would say from a maintenance perspective, it should be paved. Um I'm re restating that position tonight because my role is to pay attention to maintenance costs and to provide an advocate for that. So that's why we're here today. It's cityled. It's it's cityledd public works le for this ask and it's simply an ask. Do we want to address it now? Why we want to address it now? A we eliminate that maintenance. We could capitalize as an alternate with the red project, the street project. So whenever you blend sections of road with larger sections, you get a lower bid unit price. we would have a better return, better value for this work. So, it's kind of a it's kind of a we save in maintenance, we save uh in potential price. We believe that's been transparent through all our processes. We don't know until we have the bid. So, um so first question is do you support that consideration? That consideration mean just taking it to bid. If you support then if you do support it the next question would be is technically our assessment policy says when we make a street improvement project you know converting from gravel to pave would be considered a street improve project do we want to entertain an assessment of benefiting properties and I'll pause there and let you talk questions I I have a question this seems unusual how did this happen is there some history here like I don't understand how we have this what previous council said no before any of us. But I mean that doesn't make any sense. Is there some reason like do we know why we have this gravel chunk? Sounds I mean right now that right now all the red sorry all the red and yellow are gravel today and the blue and then the stuff to the southeast is paved. Okay. So oh so it's not just the yellow that's gravel. It's the whole red and the red too, but the red's getting paid for is getting corrected ready and paid for by the developer. Okay. All right. And and what's the price for the yellow? We estimated it a very quick estimation. We do a lot of bids, so relatively accurate, but we haven't designed it or anything. Um that's 135,000 we anticipate. And do we know was there some odd reason why this short length of road was left gravel. I think what Kevin was getting at a little bit was previous council had some discussion maybe informally about if they left that gravel, would that cut back on cut through traffic through the neighborhood from people going from the west? I'm not so sure it would or will. Um especially when it's paved to the north and to the west there and to the east south there. Um and even if it did, would that outweigh the maintenance cost and issues? Um I would like I'd like to see us look at look into this project. Is there a way we can get some of the 429 information on assessing before making a decision on that? Because I'm just not sure what who all potentially benefits and to what extent and I'd like to see that before. Yeah, I can just speak to some we we haven't done so when I came to I've only been at the city eight years. So when I first came here, there was conversations about some of our larger collector routes, trail haven, Willow, then there was Willow advanced final design before it didn't end up going through. So there's some pretty extensive, you know, we can't compare that directly, but that those projects had a they had an assessment for, you know, direct access, which would be properties that have driveways off the specific road. Uh so Trail Haven is a good example, right? Trail Haven, anyone that had a driveway on Trail Haven had direct access assessment value. And then Fox Line Tree Line is a residential street off of that that that was at that point evaluated for indirect access, meaning they had to drive down the collector road. They live nearby, but they weren't directly accessing off of it. Um, that's probably the best case study of anything that I'm aware of in Corkran. In those specific cases, it was approximately they varied. Everything varies. it was about 25 to 35% was the what I saw when I looked back between indirect and direct assessment values. So when I look at this piece I see maybe one one property the property to the north of the yellow has a has their main driveway off of trail lane and they have a garage or some sort of accessory structure off of the yellow. So that's a maybe direct access maybe not. Uh and then Really, I we have to evaluate the neighborhood to the southeast, but really trail lane would qualify as indirect access because you have to drive through the yellow to physically get to trail lane. So, I would say trail lane would be comparing to those past projects would probably fall under indirect. Again, I just want to caveat this is high level looking back. I'm not maybe get some just some additional information. So, I guess what I'm getting to is there's I think there's nine lots there and in real rough guess it's like 25 to 35,000 assessments, right? And we we could look at it. I'm just trying to give you a little bit I did a little tried to give a little bit of context and and probably to go through the 429 process, we'd have to do a feasibility study. We'd have to pay for a an appraisal. We'd have to do some notices. Obviously, staff time is a cost, an opportunity cost for busy um just a non-staff time cost might be 10 12,000 15,000 I'm guessing. So we're you know we're probably gaining 15 20,000 at a very preliminary thing if we considered assessments. So I guess maybe the better question for council is is it unique enough that we maybe want to forgo that and just handle it ourselves. I think it's small I'd rather we handle it ourselves. I agree. Can I ask a quick question? How much does it cost us to like um do the dusting on that one? The calcium saving dust control cost anyway because that falls under maintenance cost. Yep. That we regularly dust control that I could provide make up for the cost pretty quickly. I'm saying that's fairly cheap, you know, comparative, but that's an annual thing. Overall maintenance, I feel like we catch up to 130ome,000 pretty quick. Do we have anything slated in our road budget? We don't. What I would propose is looking at we're going into the budget cycle. We generally have an asphalt maintenance fund or line item that has we have applied either it's it's an asphalt road. It's kind of a blend, but I would propose just maybe beefing that up on a one time year to cover any of this. potentially even reallocating it to this depending on to your discretion and where the budget lines but if this would be a project done in an expenditure done in 26 so we'd have time to budget for question and I would go I would just say I think we have time to decide it's just the decision point is if we're considering assessments that does there are strings attached to that and it's a formal I think I think council's okay with so if that's off the table it's it's more of just getting it done and getting a price and and uh and then planning a budget for it in 26. Okay. Uh and I think that's doable with where we sit in positioning of different projects in within our budget and or adding a little bit extra on a one-off if there is available budget. I think we can get there at this price point. And again, we would still have an opportunity to look at it. If prices were 200,000, we might change our opinion. Again, we hope that they're more like 110,000. I think it's more likely to go down. Um I think there's value in getting a number like we we've seen with a couple projects here most recently with City Park tonight, right? Getting a real number helps you make a real decision. Process-wise, I did want to emphasize something, but I didn't want to get lost in the conversation. So, if we were to do the 429 process, we'd want to do a feasibility study. 20 to $30,000 on a feasibility study. So, if we were ever considering assessments, we at least would want to recoup the cost of the feasibility study. But then if all we're recouping is the cost of the feasibility study, the juice to squeeze ratio is a bit off. Unique project. Um, one other thing I would just throw in there is if we could look at if it makes sense, if it would help, if it would be feasible to put a stop sign or something at the as the horseshoe kind of turns down into it's not Valley View, but whatever. I think that's trail lane actually. I remember it. Is it? Yes, it's there. at a stop sign if that would be beneficial. I don't know. Just something to consider. Yeah, we look we did actually look at that. Um preliminary engineering guidelines if that's not a spot that you would engineering standards would tell you to put money. Okay. Um but we can follow up and provide more context as we move forward. But just as a highle initial look, that is not a normal guideline situation. Yeah. Or or other potential solutions to try to mitigate if if we're concerned that if it's all going to be paved that people would might be speeding into that neighborhood. It's a pretty hard 90 turn. It is. And so sometimes those turns self control you. Yep. That's true. To be able to make the turn. Um but but yes, we can continue to to try to seek improvements at a high level. Again, that's not you know by engineering standard would not be a justification or a recommendation. Gotcha. All good. Very good. Thank you. Thank you for the Thank you for the direction. And then with that, we just have staff reports. Anything, Jay? Uh Kevin's got one. I love that sweatshirt, by the way. [Laughter] But you stayed for the whole meeting. [Laughter] Thank you. Kevin's just record. Thank you. Come back in two weeks. I'll be here. Kevin's just got one uh staff report coming. Sure. Thank you. We just have an update related to the watershed commissioner application process. Uh so we've been really promoting that a lot. I think uh the council has as well and uh recently we've had three or four people verbally say they're interested and several pick up applications. We did actually officially receive our first application, formal application for awesome one of the spots here um probably a week and a half ago. Uh and it's been a while since we really went through this process and uh so one of the ask is to identify you know a process for selecting that person. Right now we just have one. We anticipate possibly others. Do we want to continue with our same kind of rotating thing. I know I know you and I did one recently, so it'll be you and me, Jeremy. Sounds good. I don't think we're done with you yet, so it's probably my turn. Yeah. So, if we continued that, just our regular appointment process with me and a rotating council member and then I think it would be probably Lauren because she's myself would probably be involved because she's kind of whoever on staff wants to and and I'd be more than happy have them join us. So, a quick timeline that Kevin and I talked about be because of uh some of the constraints that we have happening on the calendar is uh those who have expressed an interest, we're going to ask them to get a application and and confirm their interest with a submission uh by the 20th, which would be next week. Uh you know, we we need to get the process going forward. ask if we could have the interviews occur then uh that next week with whoever that is with with the two of you and everyone be out of town that week. You will be. Won't we all be out of town mostly? Uh so before we go out of town. So between June 20 the the request would be to do interviews between June 23rd and July 1st. So within that window 28th 29th to 30th. Yeah. So, so, so somewhere within that window. So, that would allow us to get it into the packet, whoever's selected by July 2nd, so that we could make a decision on July 10th. Okay. If that works, at least for the first wave, we're hoping that we have more apply. But if we we have basically one empty spot in Jeremy, are you are you going to the league conference? No. So maybe even we could set up a time where we I could call a conference in and step out of the thing there. I'll have Lauren send out an email to council member Nichols and the mayor and myself and we'll set a time and then for a couple times that we can perfect or whatever works for you and we'll the only day that doesn't work for me is the 24th and then when I'm at the conference but I might be able to step out of the conference as as long as we can get feedback in order to get in the packet by July 2nd that would be helpful. Perfect. Uh, council reports. Uh, I had one, but I think I'm going to push it off to a later meeting when I have more information. Got some information from Leo Minnesota cities about some updated laws and and things that happened at the end of the session and the special session, but they're going to send out a more detailed uh full packet and I'll make sure to get that out to Jay so we can get it out to council when that does happen. There's a few things that weren't expecting any changes on that um might be beneficial with us particularly with the one with um a lot more flexibility with remote meeting attendance. You don't have to have a sick uh doctor's note or anything like that. No max three times. Seemingly it's unlimited. You don't have to be in a public place that you stay. You don't have to go to a hotel lobby and stay in the hotel lobby at wherever. Um they just make it a lot easier. And we now common technology that can help facilitate that. Yeah. So that was one of them. Okay. I was talking about the iPads rather than the the Zoom and a few other ones, but I'll like I said, I'll let you know when that comes uh when I get that full packet in the next week or two. Um, only other thing I did hear pretty uh, resoundingly was that they, I believe, are very confident that the housing bills that we saw this year and in previous years and fought against with a lot of other cities will be coming back in full force next session. And that coalition is slowly gaining strength. So, we're working on some ideas of getting groups together and and trying to come up with alternatives and all that. I'll keep you guys posted as I have in the past. Um, only other thing for me, just to let you guys know, I will be out of town uh July 16th and 17th. And that's it for now. I had one thing. Uh, we got emails, I think everybody got one from residents who had uh overgrown ditch weeds from the installation of sewer and water pipe along Hackmore. I stopped by this morning. I just sent photos to Jay if you want to share them with everybody so they can see. I I'd appreciate it if that could be solded. I think when we do road projects, we require saw to be replaced. Uh, I would imagine this should be treated similarly. Jay and I are meeting on a Monday. Yeah, the mayor brought me pictures, too. So, we've got lots of pictures. Kevin and I have been talking about it. Uh and and also, you know, being candid, one of the things Kevin and I talked about is is this being a joint project with Madina? Uh there's some concerns there about uh is the Madina side getting the same attention that the corporate side's getting. I think this is after that road project though. This is from the spring, right? I'm just talking in terms of how that project played itself out whether it's with soding or other things. Uh there's a at least a perception that there might be some different applied standards and so how do we take one side gets soded and not the other? I'm not I can't answer all the questions but uh the the the pictures one side looks better than the other and then you ask why. We'll dig into it. Yeah. So there so the Hackmore project's not closed out, so we'll be able to address it. I think their main concern is not it being not addressed fast enough. So I've spoken with both of the residents several times. So I um I think I have a good relationship with them. So I I think they're fair comments that they have. I think what I heard from that in previous conversations is really related to timeliness. of that and so I think most of the timeliness questions are tied to Hackmore so we're working through that that hasn't been closed and then there was the watering project that was required with the woodland hills was basically a directional drilled water on the north side that happened this spring tied into steeple chase basically in Ravenia that was drilled so there's there's a hydrant there's probably some disturbed areas around the hydrant be kind of like where they have pit so very limited disturbance on there so the stuff that looks more incomplet what would be tied to our developer. Uh so we have some control over that and the stuff that's really not going through in the weeds that parallels Hackmore is really the other contracts. We're working with some contract overlaps and different entities. So we'll we will re-engage them get. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else, Mr. Mayor? Yeah. Um address 21165 County Road 10. The utility pole got hit will be two weeks ago this coming Saturday. It is draping down over one of the that property owner's driveway and I'm guessing there's not much more than 10 12 ft of clearance. Right on that address again 12265 County Road 10. There's orange cones everything around it. Nothing's been done. The pole is still hanging. It's a utility pole. I assume it's Comcast. And anything else is not electric, but uh that neighbor is asking me if there's something that the city can do. It's not a city. So if it's parallel counter 10, we would not have permitted it. So what we can evaluate there's orange cones. There's a It's an access issue. I think we'll look at it and evaluate it, but we don't have a permit for that. It's a county road. There's a bumper cover there from the vehicle that hit the pole. Broke the pole. No. No. It just It's been almost two weeks. So, two things. Um September 11th, I will not be here. I'll be gone. I don't have a calendar there anymore, so I don't know why. I will be in France with my daughter. I know. back some macaroons for your council friends. I can do that. And then quick question on I noticed they've been putting a lot of those metal flags down in the ditches again. And I only bring this up because my daughter and I maintain the highway from like where I live all the way down to I think almost to the stop lights. And we must have picked up if not a thousand 3,000 of those stupid little flags with the wire sticking out of them. Like they're orange, they're pink, they're all kinds of different colors. The locators. Locators. Yep. Who is supposed to be picking those up when they're done with that with whatever project that they're doing? Apparently you. You're doing a good job. Are they done? Were they done? Do they have to rehire the locator to come back and put them all in? Yeah, it's it should be who puts them down or who I mean whoever's associate with the project. So like how do we monitor that though? Like how do we like I know that's like a slippery slope. You could send maybe the area that you picked those up to Kevin. He could look and see what I mean I don't even know if he'd be able to know cuz it there was like like they were like rusty and like really really bad. So there are some in that ditch on Hackmore as well too. Yeah. I I guess I might have to do some research on that. It is a challenge if it's associated with a project you know the contractor calls in. We can get on them to clean it up. But sometimes it's calling to locate forformational purposes. That's a public publicly protected required process and but you know we have to look at that the flags don't always have identity in order to go back and figure out whose flag right away if you could do some digging and see what you can find out that it's not an easy one I know I'm sorry good job but it's real now that you brought that up do we know what all the survey is going on on 116 I I don't know what they're doing honestly I know that they've been um doing soil borings. That's that's a county-led project and we can try to get an answer on that. Those are the holes in the middle of the Y. Just asking just asking what's going on. Don't update is I believe on the 23rd uh our contractor for the St. Tree 79 should be starting. Will that get going? I think on the 23rd and then the intersection up on bike in front of Hope there at Hunter Ridge and 116 should be almost starting at the same time. Perfect. Wow. So, we have two kickoff main so it'll get busier on 116 and then uh Lin Road Lin Road just between the Red Hen substation and 116 is also a project you'll see that was required with that red substation basically strengthening the pavement so they can get access to that. So, that's was a requirement that that should be It was supposed to be today. So that it's a short shorter project, but you'll see signage for and we've been working with the golf course on that and so if you hear anything related to us, but that'll be kicking off here maybe tomorrow. Cool. Question. Oh, go ahead. Well, also on the 23rd, just a reminder, we're gathering here. Okay. Uh first for the work session, and we will be uh having car pools with staff to get you to the site 5:00 here. uh 4:30 I think the collection time. Okay. Uh so that we can get everybody uh down to the site. Uh we'll have light refreshments. We also will have in the coun in the uh conference room for council members, we'll have uh pizza and some salad. Cool. Uh so that I mean because it's going to be a busy evening. Um and uh we're doing a walk through next week. So, if you have any questions about it, if you could send them to me in the next few days so that we can make sure we have a plan uh to address your questions as part of the walkthrough. Um and then also on the 23rd uh is we should have our final decision about housing first. Really quick question. Do we, this is off the cuff, do we have when we approved the substation on Lurin, did we put anything to place to have them deconstruct the other part of the substation? Five years. Okay. And I know so I I thought that I had sent a note, but so so I I I met with their uh head engineer here about three weeks ago and uh we found out that they do have plans to be taking down the fence uh and taking away part of the parking lot. They have to maintain part of the parking lot because they still need access to that. So, a significant portion to include most of the structure should disappear within the next 12 months. Nice. Sweet. That'll be huge because looks like a jungle when it's on both sides. It does a lot better. So, perfect. With that, I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. So, move seconded. All those in favor say I. I. I.