is we don't believe there is a need for three parking off street parking stalls I know the staff report talks about it I know Public Safety department talks about the need but we have strict covenants that we put in place that say people can't park by the amenity lot can't park at the amenity lot they do have to walk and it it's it's it's enforced so we don't think that three parking all street parking stalls are necessary so I hope when you get into this that conversation happens the variance I think the variance one with the 7 and 1/2 and 7 and 1/2 versus 5 and 10 and nataline presented it appropriately it's the same 15 ft 7 1/2 and 7 and a half gives the builders a little more flexibility when they put a house in garage right garage left as opposed everything Happ to be all on the same side if you do a five and a 10 garage is always on the let's say the right side or the left side you don't get variations can't promise you will anyway but 7 and 1/2 and 7 and 1/2 provide more flexibility in the future for Builders and and future homeowners to put the garage in either side help can I ask question yeah how is this a hardship granted it it's it's a hardship and I tried to explain it in the in the narrative it's a hardship because it reduces the flexibility that future Builders and homeowners have in place in the house I get it I I I get it but to me 7 and A2 and 7 and A2 is becoming the standard in other communities and I think even at the the council when went through the concept not to speak for them but they somewhat agreed with the the idea that maybe we go through a a variance at this point but the ordinance gets changed in the future I get I get you my only concern is that that city code states that a hardship cannot be caused by the developer or the land owner so how is this a hardship I can make something up I believe the hardship is appreciate we got a lot of wetlands in here okay and the flexibility and the need of the wet I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt that's F that's why I I appreciate the questions absolutely variance 2 to the 55 um 55% uh ground elevation um we just think we can provide a better quality house if you allow us to have larger garages with the caveat that we have two stories above it so from the street scate there still appears to be a a large amount of house versus garage I think the ordinance probably was put into place many years ago to prevent the snout houses these aren't anywhere close to that of a house these are twostory large homes um three and four car garages and again if you drove through Holly yes you see the garages but the reality is they don't dominate the front of these houses so would you agree with me that instead of a variance perhaps a um zoning ordinance Amendment would better address this I think both the first variants and the second one absolutely but reality is because we're in the middle of an application to get the application moving fair enough but absolutely I think I don't disagree with that so variance three this is the the buffer Landscaping so what we're asking for in short is no changes along here we're we're okay with everything here it really is up here along the north property line and the East property line there's difference between the North in the East proper Lin there is a large amount of existing trees just off the property on the North property line on the East property line there's a large number of trees off the property but there's also trees along the property line on this property side that will be saved so we're asking for and the reason that's an issue up on the North End is concern that if you put more trees up there or a lot more trees that the competition of the trees and the best management practices how you grow quality trees will be affected because you'll have too many trees fighting for the for the same sunlight if you will so our concern is not putting Landscaping in we put Landscaping in all of our developments Landscaping does help us it sells product and everything Our concern is it too much will it actually survive and at the end of the day will we all be happy 5 10 years from now with the quality of the trees that are going up so we're asking here is not to get rid of it all but is there a possibility to reduce some of the numbers up there on the east side and are you asking for a reduction in the numbers because you're being told by an expert that those plantings will die or that trees will die I thought I saw something about someone telling you landscape architect um yeah there's a caveat on the Landscaping plan no to the contractor these buffer quantities are required by city ordinance and it should be noted they are not recommended by the landscape architect the quantity and spacing may be in complect with bestman practices okay so our landscape architecture has come out and said that to us and she put it on the plan cuz she wanted to make sure people are aware that it wasn't her that put it in place sure so that's the north right on the east side it's a little a little bit different detail B is what we proposed to landscape and again we've shown it at what the code requirement north of there and a little bit south of there we don't show anything because we do feel there's some large trees that we are preserving on the site that meet the ordinance as far as an exemption exemption again we think that there's probably too many trees in there and detail B and if we could get some reduction in that that would be helpful for the longterm health of those trees have you identified for staff which trees would stay and which would go so good questions um the answer is yes to a limit and I say that because we measure trees so the surveyor go out in trees and measures any tree over 8 in in diameter or Cal per inch there are probably another 25 to 30 between 4 in and 8 in that are in there that are saved that aren't surveyed it's not the standard practice to go and Survey those um you kind of can see it but then there's also a lot of lower trees that are growing up that are cause that in the summertime will create a buffer okay so yes but not every 2in tree or bu or is surveyed um so that's what we're asking for in the variance for the Landscaping as far as the four resolutions again the compant resolution we support the resoning we support understand the preliminary plat uh the variance request we support for the 7 and A2 the 55s and and ask for some discussion and flexibility on the Landscaping to meet the buffer staff will certainly is going to continue to work with your engineering staff and your planning staff to meet the require that they put in there um with the various letters and hopefully we'll come forward through this process with a project that meets your expectations as well as our expectations great thank you can I ask are we able to ask you qu further questions sure yeah go okay I was going to ask you who is your Target customer consumer of these products homes most likely they're going to be second third time buyers families I mean if if if the example is our holidale community a lot of families um second third time surprisingly there's a lot of families with Elementary age kids moving in there but if you go to the second third time you're looking at high school as well um don't like pin pointing an exact price range but those in holidale same school district I don't know if we've gotten too many less than a million dollars and that's why I questioned where people with families can afford them but that's not for me to decide um okay thank you and um ideally you know the the multiple Builders um and attracting multiple Builders I think is great um how many Builders ideally would be the goal to have so right now that hasn't been decided the honest truth it could be one Builder but they have such a variety could be two builders in the in the narrative there's two different Builders planed showing um generally you get more than that and there's not enough for a builder to truly Market a project it's only 60 Lots so we can't have five six seven builders in there cu the builders Can't Get Enough traction so chances are it's probably going to be one or two buildings get solid TR I would like in the public we haven't actually opened the public forum yet this is just the applicant giving his Nar like giving his talk so if cor so there's nothing for me to close no not yet but we need to begin so don't go away I have left okay with that I'd like to open the public hearing and uh anyone here have any comments yes all right and please just state your name and your address if you're a resident sir my name is Fred Van kusy and I live at 6215 hore Circle which would be right wherever that minute okay get back up to that so he said he wants to go from a two hey hey folks folks R but I can only listen to One thanks I'm sorry that me if he does that you can put multiple home I think it states in the code that they can have single family homes and multiple family homes if you go to uh a three uh are you talking about density yeah okay okay so he gets three Builders let's say and they buy those three lots or four lots and this guy says well I'm going to put bu in there can you do that it says multiple family we will note the question and once public forum is closed then we'll give staff a chance to address any questions that came up and there seems to be a lot of variances you know I mean we need a variance for this we need a variance for that the width if you want to see what a 65 ft lot looks like go to a Dina to the teardown section and see their houses they all end up to be 51 52 53 ft they need a variance because they got to have three car garages they got to have the little office space they got to have that little porch M so I'm not sure about all the variances my next question is if you put he's going to put his swimming pool right next to my lot right so you're going to walk down this hill down this road down that called theack to get to that pool if you drive down to the the site no no mother is going to take their five sixy old kid from up here and walk down to there she's going to drive them down here so where are they going to Park they're either going to park in this culdesac or they're going to park in this culdesac and walk the new path to get to the pool what time does the pool open and what time do it close you know am I going to have noise am I going to have things like that um he mentioned the wetlands I'm not an expert about Wetlands but you guys just redid hackmore Road and I believe if you check with the contractor they got drainage going down to where he want to fill in your Wetland I'm not sure though but you'd have to check with the contractor and the buffer zone you're at are you going to add water to this because all the drainage from the road project all goes into that pond so I don't know if they checked with the the city about the city engineers and the contractor on the road because we're getting water from Madina across the street go underneath the street through this cul the Culvert ends about it right here and goes into that pond I know that pond then drains back to Plymouth on hack more and 101 that's where that is but if he's going to build these 50 foot houses on these 65 ft Lots they're going to be right next to each other they're not building small houses they're building big houses don't you think they should have a big lot I mean 80 feet isn't much I know he needs want us to make money I I realize that and I know when they sold the property that there were going to be houses there I knew that but there were going to be single family 80t lots but now we're asking for variances and a lot of variances it's just not one or two every time they build a house they're going to have to have a variance and the thing that the thing that I read on the the website was from it goes from M the single family twos to threes it says multiple family housing so that's what concerns me all right and if he's going to have three contractors in there and they're going to buy so many Lots all right it isn't like he's building house yep understood so just for the sake of time yeah uh I'll give you 15 more seconds okay but and like I said you tell me how you're going to walk from here to there probably with my feet yeah I don't know mom's going to do that well then Mom Mom Mom has that prerogative okay so all right thank you I got nothing other than I don't like it okay fair enough please state your name and your address good evening yeah it's Jonathan schmidth uh 6340 County Road 116 so I may have I don't want to compete with this gentleman here but I might have the most bested interest to be able to bring up the map again I the one house in that top corner lot surrounded fully surrounded almost by this development um so we uh here we are so um so we moved here about two years ago I actually bought it from my father-in-law who's lived there for 30 plus years owns handle Lumber um we wanted the land we wanted the space for our kids two twin daughters um and so much so that I love nature so much that I joined the parks and W or parks and trails commission here last November um just go city um and I can understand that um there's probably not much can do about it going in in general but I think we'll probably become good friends in this partnership because I've got a lot of questions so I think before I get into the questions I need to make sure that this this is the appropriate time to actually ask some of the questions but I do have about 20 questions and Y now would not be that's not going to work so what would you recommend as the best way to have yeah well if you if you have 20 questions if you want to prioritize one or two which I did and we'll do our best but really it's not for us to answer questions and we typically refer questions to staff so here is what I would prefer I would prefer that you submit your 20 Questions uh to the city and a wait a response and I will ask staff to make sure that your questions and the answers are attached uh to the application that gets submitted to the city council is that fair y yeah that's fair and so directly the city council not to Steve here or any part of the development team Natalie how would you prefer that uh just to clarify so what are the what are um I think sending them to staff is fair and you could even send it to C you could copy Steve certainly um and then I would say if you have like concerns like a few questions now could certainly be answered typically don't have a back and forth I do try after the public hearing is closed I do try to address questions that I have immediate responses to so we definitely don't want to turn down your questions but if it is a long list it might be something better that we have time to compile that information for you absolutely so absolutely so um you know I just give this and then this will at least give you guys an idea of kind of where my mind is that on some of the questions this like I said we're not going through all these but I just just want to share these with you they get as many copies for everybody that's fine nonetheless I think um you know I'm also representing the neighbor to the north there he couldn't be here tonight um I'd say one of the biggest concerns that we have here is really the the drin so we're very appreciated that we're keeping this Wetland it's actually absolutely beautiful and gorgeous and and and keep that a wonderful there um back behind here though and you'll see it on the very front of that packet that I gave you back behind here it's actually about 40ft drop you can see there's a wet land under here and it's it comes down and then it comes way up as it as it comes back to this so really currently a lot of that a lot a lot of the water drains right into there up through here and then onto the the neighbor's property so what I guess my biggest concern is well for one all the vegetation that is here it's unfortunate that that would be just gone so I me obviously there's any way to move these further out and and preserve some of the the natural um you know the natural barrier there I guess would be appreciated but it's not looking like here but really the concern is when this dra where will this water go um that typically drains off to that side that's that's clear there but then what typically drains north of here and off of my property onto this you know how are we accomodated to that so if you do look on page like I said this will just be the main concern that I have today if you look on page two there you can see a side picture I'm standing about right here looking this way you can see how much it comes down from my property up there on the top left and then you know goes back up so and then the LA the other picture there on on page is I'm standing here at the bottom facing this way up so it's it's really it's a hill so what I'm curious about is are they are they filling all of this in to be level you know is this a is this a level plane right here everything gets filled in and now our runoff is to go I guess where you know into all their backyards or or how does that work yeah no no no no no no your questions are for us not for the applicant okay so if you have that that question again feel free to submit it to staff and the staff I know will get back to you in a timely manner and I think I heard you say are you on the par parks and trails or and do you anticipate hearing uh input about this property absolutely yeah well if I were you I I would recuse myself because I think you have a conflict of interest okay would it be for this one topic Mr chair his the the planning I'm sorry the parks and trails commission purview is specifically to the park dedication uh so he he they already did make that recommendation believe it was a conflict only because I heard the gentleman say and we're going to have a lot of questions for you and I'm just concerned about that sure no I I I I totally hear but I I I think the the parks and trails commission their purview is very limited in scope and and so I don't think that was a confence so you're good to check check with them too um but but yeah thank you so um so really I I think that's uh one of the biggest thing it's just and just the preservation of some of those really um Majestic massive trees that are on the whole lot not just my space there's two huge ones here that you see on the back side there under nice Falcon family underst those types of things we we appreciate your comments we've gone well over the time I I do appreciate your comments I don't I'm not trying to give you the bums rush but it is getting late okay all right thanks a lot thank you uh so with that can I uh get a motion to close the public hearing I'll make that motion I'll second it all in favor say I I all opposed Mr chair could I speak to the first element's question about two family lots about the two family lots two family for two family homes okay so just to clarify the zoning District does allow for two family homes that is accurate um so if you look on the screen here two family homes we have a minimum lot with requirement of 100 ft none of these Lots I think maybe one lot had an 100 foot lot with so they would require replatting as a single lot to do a two family home for most these lot um a be the um and I don't even I I have to look I don't there might not have been 100ft lot withd I'm just up to one is what I can recall maybe having a 100 foot lot withd um and then there is an HOA that the applicant is proposing so as currently proposed this is a single family development that would be under HOA Covenant I I think that that uh the applican would have to speak to it but I I think two family homes would be fairly big departure from a single family HOA but he can shouldn't speak to that as I think I'm all on board I don't know do you guys need the applicant to speak to to that point um or can we just keep moving forward that's my question I'm sold no two family homes here multi family you can you can sit down for a second you know I guess what I'd like to do you know this is a pretty large application and what we've done in the past as you know we've we've broken down the app application into the key requests and in this case I think the key requests are the comp plan Amendment zoning to rsf3 the preliminary plat and then finally the variances am I correct Natalie okay so what I would like to do is I I'd like to break the application down into those four separate asks and that we we focus on on each one instead of just going all over and trying to get our arms around it so um I would suggest that we start with the comp plan Amendment does who would like to start or does anyone have comments about the comp plan amendment I approve it I approve too oh so you I don't need to have any discuss favor okay all right so no discussion correct I'm in favor do I understand that that allows for Less density per acre as long as you meet the density required within the mus overall and this would yes so I guess I guess my only comment is that I think we've had a couple of amendments to our comp plan recently and uh a plan is not really a plan if we just kind of do what we want you know and you know any which way uh but here I do agree with staff and I am in favor of the amendment I think that it will provide diversity and housing options across corkran uh there's no question that corkran is rapidly expanding additionally we're not like older cities like St Paul and still water uh that have housing and neighborhoods that have been built across time so to that end I think it is a good thing that this comp plan Amendment uh will ensure that our growth has uh options which is what I think this is offering the city uh has options available for home buyers and uh developers um would you like us to make motions and vote on each of the four so with that I'll make a motion to approve the comp plan amendment can I get a second I'll second all in favor say I I all opposed okay anyone want to discuss the zoning to rsf3 isn't it zoning okay perhaps there needs to be a clarification is it rezoning to rsf2 or rsf3 it's rezoning to rsf3 currently it's zoned rsf2 and then it's also adjusting some of the verbi an rsf3 to to account for them to accommodate the very low density yes I would love to kick off um and I'm I'm super glad to see that we have multiple members of council here tonight as well to to listen you want something or say no I'm just saying I'm glad you're here because um I think you know there's just been a lot of really important discussions happening with the city right now and I think that if I think back to particularly maybe Jay or Mr Tobin's comment when we when it was approved of the Hope Community Church development you know providing opportunity for higher density in certain areas of the city will allow for lower density in others um also the the burden of proof or sorry hardship required to particularly make an adjustment to our city plan needs to be demonstrated and other than the effectiveness to add lots and profitability and feasibility of more lots to um this development I don't see particularly hardship evidence um to justify making this change to our overall City Direction and strategy I think we're in a really important time where setting precedence we're setting our strategy as a city we're setting the tone for how we are going to be adjusting and this is not a PUD so we have an opportunity to think really hard about this and why we would do this and for those reasons I particularly would like to hear um if anybody is for this and maybe I can understand that a bit more because right now my sance would be that I don't see why particularly other than for the developers interest we would move to to uh three I believe it's so that we can meet an overall density of the city so it is not to cater to the developer it is to cater to the fact that we are being held to a requirement regarding density and so in order to do that on this particular lot because we look at it as a development by development basis is how that calculation is is made so in order to meet that at this particular development it needs to be rezoned you can correct me if I'm wrong I don't think that's true so just to clarify there isn't a hardship standard for rezoning um that is for variances your correct is a practical difficulty standard it's a little different than hardship it used to be hardship legislation was changed to change the threshold to be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance um so the zoning ordinance amendment to rsf3 uh I I I do agree to be able to right now the pred it is coming back at two units an acre granted that could go up slightly but I to a drastic change to that is not anticipated um and to move to a minimum 80ft lot withth requirement we're talking about even lower than two units an acre uh so I think to be able to Contin to minimize deviation from our compant Amendment while still allowing for uh lower density to be had in the city within the Musa area um I think rsf3 and it does say in the purpose of rsf3 it is intended to be the primary district for new development new single family home development within the city uh so or I'm sorry within the Musa so it um I think it would be very difficult for them to meet density requirements with that 80ft lot withth requirement and the larger lot size requirement with rsf 2 are we saying the overall density requirement of the city I'm saying right now the comp plan Amendment would allow for Den density at 2 to three units an acre and at rsf3 standards it's coming in at two units an acre so if we move to rsf2 standards it'll be even lower than that so it's both here and as the city overall to to be able to make sure that we are not counting our eggs before they're hatched in terms of density being granted elsewhere um but allowing for some deviation in our plan now and then staff does want to take a closer look at all of this with our 2050 update but right now it's a very near scope yeah because I was wondering you know the approval of Hope Community and these large Apartments like how is that changing our strategy and our plan as a city and if we're saying yes to every single opportunity to build smaller Lots like how are we looking at the overall calculation and how it's fluctuating and changing as we're making these decisions additional density is anticipated with hope very strongly anticipated again I want to be careful of counting AIDS before the hatch we have not seen a final plat uh I do hope that those some numbers will be available for a 2050 update in terms of being able to count some of those final plats towards our calculations um I think that we have enough reason to move forward with a proposal or two coming in at two to three units an acre but I do think we need to be very mindful as to which projects get that change at this time again it's just a very narrowed Scope when you start pulling it strings sometimes they more come so um I would say that it's there's there's re I think the the goal the goals that I keep hearing from our city council so we would like to allow for lower density development and I think that does this um and I would say it's very telling that even with rsf3 standards it's coming in at two units an acre I would also like to note that the location of this particular property being at the crossroads of two major roadways isn't necessarily the place uh I think it makes a nice transition from some of those what we I don't know what we were calling them a while ago but those established kind of rural neighborhoods um it it and what's across 116 from it which is like a significant number of of row homes right so it is in in terms of making a you know making sense transition I think it's a place to be if we're going to shoot for the stars and make some kind of on the line decision about where we're going to come in under to I don't know that this is the location to do that um uh in terms of the the clientele that would be buying homes like that or be affording you know do you know what I'm saying like you're at a busy intersection and so if you're going to make that uh argument for a really um a neighborhood with really really wide lots and all that sort of stuff is this the location even to put those uh do you know what I'm saying okay thank you it's 9:30 so the language is not coming as eloquently but I'm just saying I think that where this is uh the transition and the type of neighborhood that's already surrounded it makes sense to go to the rsf3 so I would be in support of um making that Amendment or that change well with the comprehensive plan amendment I do not have any issue with resoning to rsf3 especially since the minimums have been met or exceeded and with that I will make a motion to uh recommend resoning to rsf and I would second okay we have a second all those in favor say I I all opposed I N N I know right it's the double negative okay all right and then if we can move to the uh preliminary plat um any discussion on that [Applause] piece the only uh question that I had is that here is a situation where we have a road onroad and I know that that has come up before um there is the neighborhood um off of Bass Lake Road just past cook Lake Highlands where again we have a road on road where right so my and I guess I'm bringing it up in the preliminary plant just because that addresses kind of where the lots are I believe that for future residents it would be far more beneficial to be on the side of the road that it's platted right or the side of that culdesac um rather than making the homes a but Hackamore you know what I mean and then pushing them so I think it makes sense I'm just wondering um if there is going to be any additional uh lands like what is it going to look like in that space between the road and the road cuz I think there's a walking trail am I correct okay right the plan shows that the road this road bucks right up to it but he could answer that yeah if you could I know we have those big boulders that's the neighborhood that I'm talking about just off the just past cork yeah um and that's kind of what Shields that road on road view Oh I thought we were Oh no you're right you're right you're right okay so we do show extensive Landscaping between that road and the trail and more um not that it's a perfect example cuz they PL planted them towards the end of the year you go about a half a mile East on Hackamore 47 I've never been able to pronounce what they've changed it too so we're going to keep it at 47 we go about a half a mile in there in clouth they have got a fairly similar example in that case there's I think eight homes our Landscaping is more intensive than them but I also think the end of the day it's it's a straight shot parallel with with 60 or parallel with is it 62nd too yes first time I've no 62nd there um so they're parallel so I don't think there's a need to block headlights if you will the Landscaping will have a nice buffer but I also think if you saw that you looked at those pictures of the houses that front Elations of those houses are so nice that I think from Hackamore it would be a very very nice streets game okay so but we do show shrubs lower level plus a lot of ever trees okay and so that's what braks that up that was just my my question regarding that and I don't think I have a lot of other questions and I'm just not sure where they fit in um as we break it down this way and not questions but um we can get to that I guess whenever we do was a traffic study conducted or is that okay I didn't see any info about that traffic study and infrastructure feasibility study uh was completed uh typically the engineering memo will touch on that um no let's see here but yeah the let me see if I can get to the engineering real quick um that was where the emergency access was discussed in terms of um City wanted it evaluated whether it made sense to have a connection to 116 now uh but through working with henen County they are not allowing for that uh connection at this time they did allow for a public emergency access uh so that's shown on the west side of the project um right but yeah I think there really are no Improv that are offside improvements that are required of this development because we're already updating heckamore Road as a city um and then they don't have any direct access to Cony 16 at this time so that will fall on a development whenever the north is redeveloped the pro are used to the north are redeveloped I bring this up to note that the public comment that was sent via email expressed concern around traffic in this area so I also didn't read that part so thank you uh next Natalie uh you wrote that one of the two Wetlands would be removed has that been approved by the DNR uh so there's two small Wetlands that I believe are going to be a non-issue because they were farmed Wetlands it's the one in the southwest yeah and then the Southwest one that is still that is part actually we're having a discussion with engineering and our Wetland specialists in the applicant tomorrow so I don't believe that has been approved that I think is what he was talking about in terms of any help that Planning Commission can bri but it's a little out of your purview because it is up to it is unfortunately sorry question the one thing that I will point out uh that I don't it again I don't think it fits in this and it's actually not directed really for um the applicant at all I just wanted to highlight it that on page seven um of the staff report under um uh I don't even know what it's original number is here if I flip back but it's basically D on page seven it indicates that the applicant indicated that the development will have a homeowners association which will be required by the city with the proposed Outlets Outlets excuse me and the reason that I want to bring that up is this has been a concern as we move forward trying to preserve um space Green Space is that it's actually requiring uh homeowners associations and so if someone wanted to live in corkran and not live in a homeowners association neighborhood they're significantly limited to where they can move and so I just want to note it because you guys are here that I think obviously the intent of it is wonderful I mean if we can preserve environmental but if it is requiring a homeowners association I would ask that that be something that's reconsidered um just because HOAs can be used as a factor for exclusion uh in terms of home buyers so I feel like it has been HOA heavy so I just wanted to make that note not for you not that I want to change it for this particular neighborhood but I wanted to highlight that yeah if I could comment I don't think we have the author authority to make that recommendation well the only reason I'm bringing it up is that one of our the well you can you'll have better language around it I can already tell because you've got it in your eyes but it's as we move forward we're trying to create um we're trying to tip the scales in terms of promoting and encouraging reservation of open space but when you have that open space that's not owned by individuals because you opt for smaller lot sizes and larger open areas it through our city code that is uh someone has to maintain those outlots or that open space and preservation area and by default then that becomes a homeowners association and so because that uh is something that originated through city code that's the only reason I'm highlighting it I'm not asking necessarily for uh an amendment but I'm just continuing to highlight the fact that something that is well intended is perhap having a um an unintended consequence a question is that something that would be addressed in the comp plan no so if I if I can Mr chair to be clear the require so basically the alternative would be for the applicant to draw the lot lines over uh completely over the wetlands so that is a that is an option it's not that the city is ultimately by to like because they're preserving these wet land spaces they have to have an EA it's because they're showing them in outlots um that that's the best way to protect the city's interest is to have these HOA um otherwise uh without them having the an outlaw without an HOA the likelihood of a going tax forit tax forfeit is very high so that's what's triggering the HOA um hopefully some rest assured to you planning commissioner is uh that was the applicant's intent since the concept planed to have an HOA that was not that so this is just because they're having an HOA it's fine um so it wasn't something that well if you're going to do it this way you're going to have to have an HOA and then they were talking about implementing it um so I but sure it was more in the standards that we just recently passed where uh so anyway if it wasn't applicable to this one the Pud standards if it correct so the only reason that I'm addressing it in this case is because it happened to be an opportunity to highlight it not because it was relative at all to the applicant in in question tonight Mr chair can I make a can I ask a question to the developer sure please um regarding the pool you know and and its position and its accessibility to Residents and the parking is a certainly a concern for a lot of people um is there another place to put it or what or is there why a pool versus another type of amenity I'm I'm curious kind of the story there there's a lot there there chair and Commissioners there is a lot there let's see if I can answer them I'm not going to answer them succinctly I'll just answer the questions as they come into my mind pool versus something else uh from our experience this price point a pool is an amenity that the homeowners like okay okay so that's why a pool different location absolutely the issue is when we originally came with our sketch plan that cesac bubble on the Southeast Corner we had it smaller so we could have had another lot or two the city asked that it be a full-size cesac understand why for emergency vehicles so we expanded the culdesac which reduced the depth of that parcel that parcel can no longer be built as a single family home so it made sense if we're going to have an amenity lot that that one makes that that one seemed approp because of because of the size of it could it go somewhere else sure but we'll lose a lot and I honestly don't know what that does to density out lot e is in the center of the development and it looks like it has air amount of space By by Outlet I think that that Center Outlaw there's a lot of topography there getting from the roads down to the wet I will say if we're just addressing the parking for that pool house um it reminds me very much of a neighborhood in Plymouth that's off of Vicksburg and 55 or 55th Place and similar although that neighborhood is huge and their pool house for that neighborhood is right at the entrance so it it reminded me of that in in terms of this only because it's not centrally located it is at one end of the development or the other um they the way that they accommodated uh parking was just to have a I'm going to use the wrong word but the curb in right okay off the street so but I'm reminded that we don't need to make this a huge deal cuz what a pool is open probably from Memorial Day to Labor Day so three months out of the year 34s of the Year this isn't going to be a huge deal um I guess I would be in favor there is parking there I do think that people will park I think that anybody who lives probably more than 10 houses away is going to want to drive um so I would be in favor of kind of what staff propos if there's a way to create the the three parking spots there um and then maybe bike rcks you know let's encourage folks to bike to the I say bike rcks it's an idea but anyway that was what I those are my thoughts regarding parking anything else I think park I think more parking there is probably not necessary especially it's you're not supposed to drive there it's supposed to be walkable supposed to be in the neighborhood kids can bite let the kids bike well I'd like to make a motion to approve the preliminary plaque can I get a second I'll second uh all those in favor say I I I all opposed n nay yes okay n you got the double negative corrected okay and I think that leaves us with variances correct so um I guess in my view the variance requests that are rolled into the application are the most difficult part for me um it seems that these asks are very much like those that the commission uh heard in the Pud context where these items would be packaged as flexibility my instincts tell me uh that they should be approved and I and I indeed um think that the asks make a lot of sense but PUD flexibility is not the standard to apply here because there is no PUD um however uh that is one of the things that I do appreciate about this application uh the resoning application Cuts directly to what it should be so uh you know Natalie I see one of your suggestions is that these variance request EST should really be a zoning Amendment and I agree with that um so uh in a bit Natalie I'm going to ask you to describe what that process would would look like is it simply a request to the applicant to recast their request as a zoning ordinance Amendment um also because it's so close to a PUD flexibility request won't changes to the zoning ordinances need to be made anyway after the puds move from PUD to their under underlying zoning so I guess what I'm asking is uh that wouldn't this be a solution to modifying now what we uh would need to modify in the future uh anyway um briefly with regard to the side setbacks um you know i' i' I'd like to uh tackle one thing here is uh this 7 and 1/2t side setback uh my comment on this is that if I were a homeowner uh it would be good for for my census to have my property lines the same on both sides especially when when when mowing and uh as staff noted this is really a distinction without a difference but I uh I um also am not clear whether the property's boundaries are enough to show a hardship especially since homes will still be 15 ft apart either way uh so for that Natalie in your view is this a zoning ordinance amendment that provides 7 and 1/2t side setbacks as an option or in lie of the current Arrangement 10 foot on garage side 5 foot on uh living space side um and I guess you know ultimately I could be seded either either way on that point with respect to the garage door percentage I agree with staff that this doesn't seem to me to meet the variant standards um you know it's a it's a tall or should I say a wide order little lame attemped humor okay I tried um I got it for that reason um I just want to say that I do not think that this request uh is in response to a hardship you need to a parcel I would support a zoning ordinance uh Amendment and then just my final comment on the buffer yard uh this variant uh variance request seems very reasonable and the hardship is that the plantings will not survive and we have uh I almost want to say expert testimony but we do have expert feedback on that do you want to answer the his question so uh um I'll be it a little bit convoluted since we already voted on the zoning ordinance amendment I think that it I don't think we can change the vote at this point um of the three potentially the side setback could be addressed um with the with an additional text Amendment and our zoning ordinance Amendment um for the project um again the route the applicant has chosen was based on Council feedback so I think at this point it would be fine for the commission to say that uh they support some which one which variances are supported which ones aren't and it could be a recommendation for the applicant to proceed with a zoning ordinance Amendment and then Council can keep that in consideration um but yeah as far as what The Zing orance would look like um setbacks could be addressed in rsf3 District standards the garage maximum would actually have to be a change to rsf1 because that's where the architectural standards are outlined for all Urban residential districts um and then the buffer yard if that were to be a zoning ordinance amendment that would have to be a change to our Landscaping performance standard so the so we would have to do a new public hearing for the garage maximum buffer yard because that section of code was not noticed well I I guess I mean I'm fine with the buffer yards so um do we have any discussion on the buffer Yard n no I do but that's just because um how do forests grow you know I mean like it's dense trees and up narrow trees I do understand that that when you have mature trees they are going to take most of the light from what it is she's planting so I can the understand the landscape um comment um I I just feel like so much changes when development comes in because even the removal of trees changes the way the wind moves through there and so it could really harm you know the trees that have been there for a really long time so I just find that I would rather stick with the um implementation of denying that variance how about of the buffer yard variant which which variance the landscape yeah the which is the buffer yard so the landscape variance I can understand that you wouldn't want to plant a Tall Tree there because it's going to try to lean away from the wooded area that's already there but you could require under story trees there and they're very attractive and you know they're high enough to be a visual still be a variance though because of how many overstory trees are required for a buffer yard ordinance formula I I would if there's a way to say put in under stories instead of over stories I guess that would be a good solution to it and it would be a attractive I don't know if that's possible although aarian I think that's a good idea I that's similar too the problem with relying on existing trees also there's a lot of ash trees that are dying right now large large overstory trees we have dozens of them just on our 5 acre property that will be gone in a matter of years they've been debarked this winter by the pated woodpeckers well I I'll make a motion to recommend approval of the um buffer yard variants can I get a second is that for landscaping also um I I it just the seven and a half foot no I think the seven and a half foot is the side setb I made the I made a motion to approve the variance with respect to the the buffer yard buffer yards and it's based on the fact that he has a uh Landscaping expert who said that plantings may not survive I don't I don't want to force someone to to pay for plantings that we've been told are going to die does by an expert does the city have a like a a natural expert or is this in the engineering memo or do we have any validation of that not to say it's not correct I'm I'm just you know what what's our what's our other external opinion on this do we have one uh we don't have a landscape architect staff at the city a landform do have a landscape architect that we can get an opinion from my understanding is that the um the city that the ordinance was taken from has said that there's been problems with the trees longterm viability my concern is it were taken a developers opinion and I would prefer not to do that so then what is the solution for if there is because again I don't want to make somebody pay for something that's going to die although that is happening regardless of um of whether it's because the competition for trees like it just sometimes happens right and so um my understanding is that as long as the developer still has the um management of the property they're responsible for replacing that once it's gone to the homeowners association then that responsibility is dispelled to replace anything that dies am I yeah corre for the property so the trees that are in the buffer yard don't necessarily need to be um in an outlaw they can be on a lot yep so it either be the property owner depending on how it's broken up so it looks like some of it would be um some of it's on Lots so I don't think it would be necessarily the HOA but individual cherty owners required eventually to replace trees that have died if we deny it are there other options for them to meet that requirement that might be more flexible other than planting trees where they're going to not where they won't Thrive so there are a couple options within the ordinance to to have different like if there's a fence then there's less Landscaping required um also there is some flexibility if the area has been deemed an existing wooded area then they can be exempt from the buffer yard ordinance it seems like it could potentially apply here uh probably better than a variance and I think the long-term solution would be a zoning ordinance amendment to re-evaluate the number of trees we requiring in these buffer yards so I do have a pending motion to approve the uh variance is there a second hearing no second is there someone else who's going to make a motion so the proposal from staff was to move forward by just saying that the existing wooded areas would qualify for buffering uh correct and then denying the variance okay so I'm in favor of that one however I just want to V like I want to run something by you we had the um self storage place right at the edge of Greenfield and there was the question about counting uh Landscaping that was on someone else's property as a part of this buffer zone and I just want to make sure that all of a sudden we're not finding ourselves here in contradiction of what the outcome of that um decision was I I I think we are very close very close to contradicting ourselves the same issue yes okay and will you remind us if you remember what the solution the ultimate decision in that by Council was made or unless you guys remember I believe they told them to either apply for um oh I can't remember now I think it was either apply for an actual variance because maybe they brought it up too late in the application or zoning ordinance Amendment it was something that was discussed um I think it was discussed but they hadn't applied for a variance when it came in front of you and it was too late to add it in um and so instead of having Council adopt something on the fly or try to provide flexibility on the Fly that didn't fit within her code they like either apply for a variance or um some kind of zoning or amend Amendment or they need to proceed with the buffer yard as required um so yeah it's it's it's a little tricky so in this scenario for us to not contradict ourselves what is the best course of action moving forward the applicant needs to plant the buffer yard as required okay so then I would make a motion to approve the two variances for the 7 and 1 half side yard set back on either side the um garage uh percentage and then deny the uh buffer y variance can I add one comment if we're going to all three now sure oh yeah for sure I can pull my motion I pull my motion for further discussion okay um regarding the garage I think it's awesome that the Second Story I think that's good staff removed or recommended to not require or take them up on the offer of the 30 foot setback I would say that's a public benefit I don't know why we don't take up on it yeah if you remember if I can just add something if you remember early in my presentation I said I made a mistake I was all confused about the 20s and 25 I really do want 25 for everything I I I The Narrative says 30 my preference was being to stick with 25 for everything so the 25 is a 5 foot increase from what's required what's required so my preference and if I can amend my narrative I'd say 25 ft not 30 ft oh come on five more feet although although to say if you took it from the front or if you added it to the front you're just taking it from the back and as a resident I think most people would prefer uh a larger backyard than uh FR okay so we have 25 ft within our current as proposed okay so to keep things moving I will make a motion to recommend denial of the buffer yards can I get a second second I second it all in favor I all opposed nay uh that passes is does that include the two variances that we're approving or do you need to make a separate motion for that no there'll be two more motions coming up I'd like to uh I mean does anyone want to make a motion on the side setback I would make a motion to approve the side set back to 7 and A2 ft the variance and you don't want me to throw in the garages at the same time you want to keep them separate we'll keep them separate okay throw it in all right that's my motion anybody second I'll second that all in favor say I I all opposed n one nay anyone want to make a motion with respect to the garage door area I'll make a motion um I'm going to I'm going to agree with staff that this does not seem to meet the variant standard so I'm going to make a motion to deny the garage door area percentage can I get a second second all in favor of denial say I I all opposed nay nay so we need an affirmative motion though to recommend approval as that was 23 unless I got the numbers wrong do you want to make it well I think it was 3 to two 32 okay yeah yeah I'm sorry it was a a yeah it was 3 to two to deny the garage door area variant did you vote nay I voted nay okay so if you voted n to deny for a motion to deny recommend denial then that means that you are in favor of appr the VAR approving the variance I understand that okay so then so then it was okay so then what you're saying is someone needs to make an affirmative so that it can go forward so I make a motion to approve the variance for the garage uh percentage a second wait what just happened here we we have three V yeah we were out we were out numbered three votes to deny okay I apologize if I got the numbers wrong to approve sorry that was my bad too I thought I heard three I thought I heard three say name so that's why I apologize okay can we take take a poll I'm nigh n three Nays two oh on the second now okay no so I apologize let's go back to the first one yeah if my I heard three names there were only we were out so my we were outed correct okay so with that I'm going to make a motion I mean oh wait we still have some more stuff to do uh [Applause] yeah just give me a second Natalie I've misplaced my [Applause] little my little uh oh here we [Applause] go all right and Natalie you removed if I think we're on AA you've remove excuse me you have removed AA correct a a i yeah correct and we have no other business okay no other business uh we have two Representatives here from city council any are you done with them I yeah we're we're all done thanks for coming out thank you for your [Applause] feedback I'm sorry I interrupted that's okay uh any any reports or anything I know usually we ask questions of you it was a staff report wasn't there there's anything on the staff report you want us there isn't a staff report it's just a planning project update but not a council report I don't know if there's any you guys got any questions for us is usually what I ask you guys absolutely not could could I say a couple things please yeah uh so um I I hope that the Planning Commission is paying attention to the things that are happening in the legislature right now yes uh there's there's a lot of big deal things that are going to have serious implications for corporate and so if you don't know what I'm talking about please check into it uh because there's at least three bills on the floor right now and we're trying to do an Omnibus Bill that is really really going to change the way that development happens in this community and so uh if if you have thoughts on how that impacts you I encourage you to contact your other elected officials and make those thoughts known uh if I could um so I wrote a uh letter to members of city council about this I sent them to our uh elected officials um I sent them to the Star Tribune uh my comments are being republished on Sunday in the Star Tribune I am very disappointed in every one of our elected officials because the only response I got from anyone was from the Star Tribune oh not even the canned response that you get when you just submit an email not even the canned response okay so essentially the state wants to strip uh local government of uh their uh their right to determine what their cities are going to look like moving forward so M Mr chair I do I do want to clarify that when he's speaking about elected officials he's talking about those that are on the committee uh I met with Senator limmer and I met with with representative Robins when I was at the at the capital on Thursday and they are both understanding of corran's situation and supportive of our position then tell them to respond to emails from their constituents fair enough um but I I just want to make sure that you're keeping a pulse on it there's going to be another hearing that happens on Thursday that's the next one it was it was going until 3:30 today the next hearing it's going to go to state and city and veterans committee uh now that's that's the name the committee it's a weird one uh that's the next hearing that's happening uh for some of those bills uh and pleas please pay attention to it because there's going to be serious very serious implications for us and they're trying to backdate it so it becomes immediate uh so so some sometimes these bills we have time as City staff to try and prepare the and if these changes really happen it's going to be Swift and it's going to be huge is it possible because you meet with them I mean they won't even return my emails is it possible for you to ask just a a yes or no have they received uh or have they been influenced by lobbyists so uh I will say I asked not quite that point blank but but I asked that question as it pertained to their positions and uh one of the responses that I got is they're making an intentional uh choice to kind of distance themselves in order to maintain objectivity that was the response that you know because when I spoke with the Star Tribune reporter he said that they acknowledge that they have been contacted and and heavily lobbied by the the developer lobbyists so I I'm I'm surprised to hear this it's all being all pretense of affordable housing yeah yeah you're exactly right well you know we're just not smart enough to govern ourselves yeah and now they're looping back one of the big gaps in the proposals to deal with the realities of some of the utilities infrastructure who pays for what capacities those sorts of things uh they're now trying to talk about that uh but I understand why it makes a lot of sense for for some of the communities inside the 494 loop as they're trying to address it uh it doesn't take into consideration those of us outside of the 494 Loop and and the fact that responsible development is happening there's good discussions people can agree or disagree with the decisions that are happening but conscientious choice is made by elected representatives or appointed Representatives within our communities to take that away uh for people who have no idea what's going on in court or any of our neighbors is irresponsible M and uh before we adjourn that was the best application I've read since my time here I a little bit together she did well that would it was because I'll tell you what I am I it was nice having uh having an application that just checked the boxes without asking for a hundred you know different uh you know different concessions and I I appreciated that so may I ask One update of city council um what is Lindsay was first go first you go first no no please I'm just giving G I just want an update on what is the status of the organic recycling program cuz I know that they are in discussion and um I know that one company chose to charge right and the other didn't and so I just want an update because I know the city clerk was working on that so I'll respond because is waiting for the same thing for me uh so our our staffer that was handling that action um has been out of the office and so I will be getting an update later this week and and trying to provide an update I was hoping to provide them an update at the council member or at the counc meeting on Thursday I I simply don't I'm doing the work of like four people right now sure so uh the the reality is we hear it I've gotten calls it's very important I just haven't been able to and I don't have anyone else to action on it right I've called oh Republic I have too and I've been extremely clear from a council member's position that they're wrong for what's written in the law in whatever that as long as we have a centralized area nobody they can't charge the whole group if somebody asked for containers they can charge and the person was not the person I wanted to talk to they gave me the administrative phone number and our administrator has to make the call they won't talk to anybody else so I tried as far as far as a council member goes and uh if yall want to know I'll say it I told them straight up um curbside will not charge you Republic does and and that's the stance right now so that's probably the only way it's going to change yeah before we adjourn I have oh she had a question and I interrupted her I'm sorry um I'm not sure if this is the Forum actually so I'm going to pass oh come on I am okay fine let's do it um I I'm interested in in thoughts because I feel like I beat a dead horse on this every meeting and I'm sorry maybe it's why I'm here um we're at such a crucial time right now as our mayor said over the next 12 months of decisions we make I'm Gravely concerned about precedents and the whole Community Church passed okay um referenced in that you know the Precedence of Prior puds I'm curious what the council's perspective is or maybe it's yours and if this is a controversial question you don't have to answer it but what's the stance on you know what precedence how how we revert from setting some sort of Precedence of accepting setbacks and variances without significant reasoning or like what what's the perspective on PUD applications going forward and how are we going to work with precedents that's going to be continually building either one of us can I I need more specifics Lindsay what precedents have we set or you feel well I'm just talking about setbacks I'll give you a general answer okay could could we adjourn yeah that's that's why maybe I paused yeah we can adjourn I this is I'll give you my personal opinion because I can't speak for the council sure but puds are negot NE iated instruments so there really is no precedence they're all different everyone is different everyone is negotiated and we've had discussions on variances in the past variances don't set precedences either so okay I wouldn't worry about precedences as much we don't think there's legal risk no very so there's very limited window where a variance might set precedence of a similarly situated application and time location and conditions so if it's very similar then arguably there might be some precedence um but the city is allowed to learn from previous decisions um say that we did at that time it didn't work we don't want to do it anymore um but like for example if one house came in and got a setback variance uh to put on a deck and then another house that had the same conditions comes in two months later you would probably be a little a little difficult to deny that but PUD is specifically no there no we're able to negotiate public benefits and the and then the flexibilities on a Case by case basis but even a deck variance they have to prove a hardship right and there has to be a similar hardship to consider precedent exactly so it's just very important that the findings of fact and our variances are unique um So to avoid setting a precedent or having something look like a precedent could be set so thank you April 25th I am currently scheduled to be the uh city council liaison I will be in Delaware that day and unavailable is there anyone willing to swap D with me I think I can just let me check or maybe not swap I think I owe you oh do you okay I think I owe you well let's see Natalie can you speak to April's meeting at all in terms of of uh uh light lightness or heaviness I the public hearing noce is going out this week a PUD um chastic property uh which is off of Maple Hill and New York and then um a cup for a a garage okay sidewall I think this right it's like the third this year we'll put that one first and we love her success on that meeting okay thank you appreciate it lanterman I'll take it thank you yep and let's see commissioner Kaz Kazi am I pronouncing Kiki is so I see that you're um your scheduled for the April uh 11th uh city council meeting I'll be in attendance as well commissioner BR do you intend uh assuming all works yes I intend okay well with that can I get a motion to adjourn I will make that motion second all in favor say I I all oppose thank you we're done okay