it's snowing as an open park that's desirable that we've decided and prior counil prior councils have decided but also this is kind of a secondary route that if we don't like it I think we should look at potentially changing in the future but I think it meets what there is currently yeah so I'm not disagreeable to this okay um did I don't know how into the trying to remember how into the review of the couple variances I believe and um well this was a decision so we this is a decision yes so there is a summary I put a summary somewhere I can't find it myself but I tried to put a summary at the end of the current staff report about the application with is still remaining to be discussed so that might be a helpful page to refer to so I think topics discussed I don't know where it but so again the just Clarity that the stop was do we do they have to have in that open space accessibility to the public and that is not our intent that was on this correct correct that's doesn't have to be an intent there's that route or doing something that makes it more viable to continue agricultural use so page four of this stff report has the summary of discussion items so I think a couple items include right now there's a recommended condition of approval that they uh see the public right of way with a native planting so that they meet more of the design objectives um uh the applicant was open to discussing a architectural theme for the 10 New Lots uh that could be applied as a deed restriction currently that's not in the resolution that's something we wanted to add to further meter design objectives we would just need to make a slight tweak to that resolution can I ask a question on that one yep can you give an example of like something we could I like the the idea of what I think that means but I'm trying to think of how that looks in practice Pon Farms had one it wasn't like an incredibly detailed I'm trying to see if I can find there was an email to counselor nipples but it talked about having trying to have um agricultural rural themes in the architecture so um they could certainly have something about like the slope of the roof or something so that's something that we would work with the applicant to make it doable and feasible um I don't think it has to be super detailed I don't think it'll be very enforceable if it's super detailed but we can certainly apply in architect okay how does council feel about that as an add condition everything okay um as an added condition to this like the previous I think it makes sense just for the sake of trying to maximize the number of design objectives that we're achieving yeah and I I agree that making it too specific is tough to enforce but also tough to just kind of it makes it more diff I think we get a more General something of agricultural so we could bring it back with the final plat so that you have a chance to see it that I be in paper of that me too I think everyone is so I'll make a motion to make that edit a second second perfect uh any further discussion all those in favor say I I I [Applause] okay then I think one item is the septic sites um right now they're well actually the applicant might have more information now they have someone out there but lot one block five there is a might be a slight conflict with the septic do you have more do you have more information now that' be [Applause] great my name's uh Marcus Lee 22901 tail drive because of the rain we've been getting oh Andy's supposed to come out and do the septic stuff but they just haven't been able to make it out yet so fair enough yeah you want me to stay up here if you'd like to speak on anything or if you have any you know I mean as long as it keeps going smooth I try not to mess it up that was good so uh so yeah lot one block five um engineering the there's the matter of future right of way if that open space Outlaw a were to ever redevelop I trying to make sure that it would be a permittable road way where it's currently shown and so uh when I last spoke with the applicant and working with engineering we think that it needs to move at least 9 ft to the west and it's subject to the city engineer approval once we have that plan to kind of further look at it um the SE which may have a conflict with the critical component of the septic site for lot one block five so if there were to be a critical conflict they either need to find two new sites on that lot or uh to have a portion of an offsite we have to go through a PD process so if we have any feedback from Council as to what option they would prefer if we do encounter that Conflict at this point I'm hopeful that we won't have a conflict but there's is that small chance and just understanding would it be worthwhile for him to go through a PUD or we really want just to get new two new septic studies thoughts on that guys I would imagine the simpler choic is preferred so if they can find it I would rather not go through a p process if they don't need to yeah I don't think keep it simple make them do it that's um okay so then for the then we have the variances is how I frame the discussion uh so the first one is the exemption from the OSP requirement for 100ft perimeter buffer zone for portions of the site abing the public Street um so the this would primarily impact the ex lots and the Practical difficulty being that these are existing structures that would conflict with the 100 foot requirement uh a proposed condition of approval for that variance is that they do make plant that buffer where there isn't a conflict with the existing structure um and then variance two is the exemption for all OSP lots to front an internal paav street again the existing Lots on Oakdale do not meet this requirement and that being the primary reason for practical difficulty um there was a potential condition of approval by staff that the two driveway access on lot one block four be limited down to one however uh even his own neighbors were really opposed to that change because of the farming equipment and uh trucks that access the site they would rather see it be able to do a loop than to have something back out onto Oakdale uh so Planning Commission did not agree with that condition and and staff is is fine with that condition being removed it was just a potential one to add um so it's not in there it's not currently in there it's the Planning Commission recommendation uh and then next variance a 91 foot setep back from the front Sac for one of agricultural structures supposed to be 100 feet if it's an agricultural structure with the new R of way being dedicated it will now become 91 ft again practical difficulty is an existing building that they currently rely on for their operations um and then the proposed condition is basically the same thing as variance one plant a buffer uh where it won't conflict with the structure those are the three variances and then we have a cup but maybe this pause here for the various discussion anything stand out to you guys on those three we say plant the buffer what does that mean so 100 foot buffer the 100 foot buffer required for osmp I don't think it's very clear other than they're supposed to have a planted buffer of 100 ft um so we will need a landscaping plan to show that they're meaning that um let me see if I can pull it up but it's unfortunately not very clear the one for the 91 foot step back I imagine it would be the um I'm imagining it would be the Clause that we have for flexibility for setback um basically that planting and we could certainly apply that same formula to the buffer for um the rest of the site as well for the osmp standard so does this mean like overstory and under story trees and shrubs okay yep okay thank you and they've got them all on site so yeah well they they do have some existing buffer areas I believe so obviously they can count that towards the buffer uh but the areas that would need there would be areas that do need to get some trees for it to be combin for me the two the Horseshoe access and stuff that is part of the variance to keep that correct um it's not really variance to keep it it was more so the intent of that internal rule was in my mind likely because if we're going to have these denser clustered housing we don't want all of them to have access onto a collector Street such as Oakdale and so a way to minimize the impact of granting the variants to allow these two lots to remain was remove one of the driveway accesses for this lot so it's only one driveway that we're granting indefinitely but again the use of this house for or the use of this property for the agricultural use um there was con the applicant had concerns the neighborhood had concerns which I was um good on you guys I was surprised they like no let them keep it yep um and so Planning Commission felt that that was um not necessary for the variance so that's what I want I want to make sure we keep or they are able to keep close to that Loop and those two driveways okay anything else on the variances make a recommendation if there's no no other discussion on all three variances to approve okay um do you want to make that motion or do you want to I will make that motion second all right any further discussion all those in favor say I I okay and then we have is there anything else there's one more so I might be back in the sles J um just we just need to look at um correct um one more SL here use per so lot one um block four is the uh applicants Homestead and they have several existing agricultural structures that are allowed with the size of property that they have but now they're going down to a 4 acre parcel they can have as a cup they can have agricultural structures as long as it's uh a property that is adjacent to an activ Farm property under the same ownership so we can do a cup the applicant has agreed to remove a couple of the buildings uh and that has been identified uh it says shed to be removed shed to be removed but the cup would Grant an accessory structure footprint of 7,428 square ft to remain um and that is including some conditions of approval such as they have to remove the two building things that were identified and then should Outlaw a no longer be farmed and or the accessory structures are no longer used for agricultural purposes only then the footprint must be reduced to The Bu rate limit for 4 ACR parcel uh so essentially we would revoke the cup um when they're no longer meeting the standard for the cup to be issued so tying it to that use the the the agricultural structures as well as the agricultural field of La um and that is what be proposed in the resolution thank you makees sense to me any questions clear clear to me I if there's no discussion I'd recommend approval of the cop as written okay I um hold on I'll make the motion then if that's okay to approve what let's see here variances we already did so uh motion to approve resolution 202 2450 uh approving the preliminary class in 202 2451 approving the cup second second second um sorry any further discussion all those in favor say I thank you congratulations good job you guys okay and then on to item 8D which is is trtic Farms resoning linary plat and peut so this is a request from track real estate and development and Temple real estate doing business as Emerald Rose LLC it is for a 116 family residential subdivision that also includes seven outlots and it's at 7600 Maple Hill Road an off-road Trail will also be provided along the North Boundary of the project in compliance with our 2040 parks and trails map and that eventually uh with the property to the east will connect down to the existing trail system and place that fast L Crossing next slide so the uh first part of the request is rezoning from rsf 2 our one of our standard single family residential districts to apud and staff finder is reasoning to support the rezoning request this is a policy choice where the city has a High degree of discretion next slide and so the standards when we're talking about resoning a pey it must satisfy standards such as it cannot be in conflict with the comprehensive plan cannot be in conflict with the intent of the underlying zoning district and is compatible with the surrounding uses is not in conflict with other provisions of the city code is of sufficient size composition and Arrangement that it's not um that it isn't uh dependent upon any other subsequent phase or unit does not create an excessive burden on Park Streets or facilities and utilities which serve or proposed to serve the development will not have an undo and adverse impact on the reasonable enjoyment of the neighboring property and the quality of the building and site design shall substantially enhance the Aesthetics of the site um so and create a public benefit that is greater than what would be achieved otherwise next slide so the preliminary PUD development plan it uh has some flexibilities in it as well as proposed public benefits one of the main standards up for discussion is the open space standard uh there they do have to meet a 12% open space rule which is required of lots of 55 ft wide and they there is a 33.5 net Acre Site and so they do need a minimum of 4.03 Acres of open space they did provide an exhibit that shows the area outside of the flood plane uh is about 4.48 Acres which is about 13.3% however some of that open space um is not usable in terms of it won't be accessible but it would be a more of a view than a usable space and the applicant does have some examples of the anticipated View and so the site is taking on a lot a great deal of storm water from the West North East in South as it is the relative low point of the area and the city council can deviate from our open space standards when there are s constraints that justify that and so part of the question is does uh do we have something to justify the open some of the open space not being recreational accessible some of the requested flexibilities include deviations from our rsf threedimensional standards so a minimum lot area of 6,875 Ft F feet minimum lot width of 55 ft a side step back of 7 and 1/2 ft and a rear stepb back of 25 ft but two lots they're requesting would have a 20 foot setback Lots 28 and 87 as currently shown additionally 20 of the Lots would have to have the lot width measured at the minimum required front setback we do allow that in culde saacks but not necessarily we don't allow it on curves uh and so basically this uh they're requesting that some of the lots that are on curves be allowed that flexibility additionally they are requesting a 60% maximum garage Frontage flexibility instead of 55% next slide and so this is a visual of the open space they have taken out the area that is the actual Corridor which is under um it was in flood plane and I've taken out out lot the out lot in the middle south portion of the site because that is entirely under flood plan so the uh calculation that I've provided in the staff report um takes out all flood plane to our knowledge and still is above the 4.03 Acres that are required it's really just a matter of are we the view station areas that are not flood plane or is that open space because we do say in our code that open space should be usable and accessible next slide but there are two view station corridors I'm sorry there two two view station corridors they've created to try to really incorporate that space so one is across the entrance of the development and then one is in the um north east corner of that interior block next Slide the proposed P public benefits from the applicants narrative includes storm water management design that includes offside drainage a variety of home exterior designs uh we when we say that our we require five styles for the Pud and they've provided 12 and an internal private trail sidewalk system that provides view sheds of the hydraulic green Corridor uh improve public streets if necessary depending upon the Maple Hill Road fusibility study that is what it was put in the narrative the applicant's words and a 60ft setback from Maple Hill Road open space area um so they yeah there there's an open space area that is 60 feet in addition to um an additional setback for the houses along that road and then the staff also identified some additional PUD public benefits collaboration with ad joining land owners they did work extensively with the Bon team to the east to have some connections there uh Road connections as well as to um better accommodate drainage and they have extensive internal Landscaping I believe some area there some requirements are tripled in their plan some requirements are doubled and then they are using primarily native plants their landscaping and they are using primarily Landscaping species that are in our Northeast District list next slide for the Landscaping one of the questions that so the buffer yard Ordnance requires a rear setback to be maintained between similar districts and that's the buffer yard that they would be applying to the um East and yeah east and south property lines uh typically rsf3 is what we use for puds when we're applying the buffer standard which has a 30 foot rear setback however bassle Crossing has a 25 foot rear setback Fairway Shores has a 25 foot rear setback and so Planning Commission and staff felt that that was appropriate here uh and that similarly was what was approved for the buffer setback for Fairway Shores when that was reviewed last month and staff also recommends the Pud approvals handle the setback in this area instead of a separate conservation easement since plantings are required so we would handle part of the HOA documents and the approvals for the Pud next slide uh the preliminary sidewalks and trails staff does recommend for the sidewalk to actually wrap around the internal block of homes to provide a continuous path and minimize Street Crossings right now they have um the sidewalk was a little less contiguous there are areas where you would have to cross um and we think it would actually make more sense and require less pavement if there was just the internal sidewalk system around interior block and then the trail there are areas with that Northern Trail that they are within the Wetland buffers and so they do have to make some adjustments to move it at least 5et from the edge of the private Street um as well outside of those buffers and then it all the trail also has to go up to the east property line to provide that connection for the trail easement with Fairway Shores next Slide the applicant would like a fence and verm along the northern boundary of the property to provide screening for residents they wanted it closer to the homes um but staff is very concerned about the maintenance Logistics of that as well as a there's concern that it really would block off that trail um making it look like it's a private trail instead of a public Trail and so staff would encourage the applicant for the screening in this area to be uh Landscaping but if a fence in burm is desired it could make sense as long as it's located on on the property line or as close as possible considering the burm it would have to might be slightly off but moving it as far north as possible so that the trail is viewable and that was the other thing is the fence shouldn't go any further past the West property line of the lot for this West up there so that the trail it does have a a visible connection to the road that's not blocked by the fence um preliminary plat so so uh if all flexibility requests are approved then the preliminary plat does comply with the applicable ordinance and requirements next slide so the applicant would like to discuss the extent of the off-site road improvements required of the project uh staff recommends the council first consider the other merits of the Pud standards and proposed public benefits if the standard for PUD approval feel that has been met then the discussion of the logistics to focus on the road improvements would be most worthwhile at that point staff report identifies a few areas for discussion which I can further outline when we get to that point in the discussion um but at this time the resolution calls for them to comply with the feasibility study um and that would be what prevails at this point if that were to be approved next slide so Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the following it's the ordinance resoning to a PUD which requires a 4 fth majority of the council the the summary ordinance for publication and then we have the resolution with findings of fact for the resoning the resolution for the Pud development plan that is the meat of the zoning District so that's probably if any changes are needed to be made to the approvals that's the one that we need to look at and then resolution approving the prelim preliminary plat if the council finds that the application does not meet the standards for PUD approval then findings a fact to be provided to staff and we'll bring that back as a resolution at the next council meeting okay thank you so I think as Natalie suggested let's look at the Pud uh portions first and then can dive into other I do apologize the the applicant does have um a presentation that includes some visuals of what they thinking for the hydraulic Corridor so that might be helpful for the discussion yeah let's go ahead and do that um Jay he's actually G to go ahead and just run because he did it last time and it worked really well okay yeah yeah he was able to run ear uh good evening Mr Mayor and members of the council I'm Beth hustad with track development and um I'm Ben krisak with hemple real estate this just takes about one minute to load up here could I ask you a question go ahead is Mr lingren from dorsy and Whitney attending tonight no no is there a reason why um I think we wanted to work kind of work through this collaboratively right now okay all right I'm I'm I'm just surprised given the letter that we've received very expensive and I know you um you guys have read the letter and so you understand you know the legality of um everything well I I won't concede to agreeing to your attorney's legal analysis well you did when you sent us the letter we can get to the improvements on the public we will yeah all right so chastic that's funny last time my computer didn't work it's his computer we can certainly pull the slides up on you guys just r I hate when you test it and it works and then you go back in and yeah it's going to take me a hot minute because out so yeah I I think there's a couple items in this presentation but one of the the main um during Planning Commission um council member lanterman um asked about the uh um The Greenway Corridor and where I've gotten that information um and I think this will help a little bit just to give and I think Natalie staff had recommended that we bring some visuals to show some cross-sections to give you a little bit better idea of what that will look like or what we're proposing it to look like um that's not the actual property right there it's no it's not I'm Ros Ros are too straight so just to kind of start from the from the beginning um this is the proposed layout we think it's a really nice layout has a lot of curves to the streets um not creating kind of a Barracks feel to it it has a very nice flow to it obviously um we have a lot of offsite um storm water coming to our site so we do have a number of ponds um that we're accommodating on this site um we do have a sidewalk coming in um both along Maple Hill up to our our um up to U the connection to the entrance and then we have the a sidewalk that's going to run really around this perimeter um block and then wealie did a nice job we have a trail on on the North End of the site as well is that sidewalk that you were talking about is that the same as what staff is recommending if they've changed it to be entirely around the perimeter then yeah that's what we had recommended that's new to the it hasn't actually been changed on this I think that's a good idea makes complete sense and also eliminates additional sidewalk and hard surface and more storm water issues so I think it's a good idea um we also are are providing storm water storage or proposing to do that for the adjacent property development to the east of us so we are helping um with some of their storage issues too so we're taking on um storm water from the East we're taking on a significant amount of stormm water from the south it comes literally from the golf course so it comes CR crosses underneath um cassad 10 and and comes through the system that um that Mi has in in here and then runs through um through our hydraulic system we also are taking a significant amount currently uh from the West so we are having to handle those existing conditions and I think that it's possible I've discussed this with the engineers it's possible that um in the future when property to the South develops and property to the West develops that they'll have storm water management systems that will help alleviate some of that but and when you say South like more like South Southwest well it's actually the golf course South coming from the golf course yeah yeah okay go to the next page so um know why are we time PUD um really it's the h a lot of the kind of conflicting code components we do need to hit a certain density on the site and it get really challenging storm water ponding Etc we're doing so we had to we had to get some 55t Lots in here it's not it's not a ton have1 101 55 and um no we're 53% 65 foot Lots um actually set okay right or more it's we're 53% or 56% of SE over 7500 foot Lots so um we may have 55t lots but some of them may be 7500 square feet yeah so our average lot size um far exceeds the minimum lot size so we're at 8200 square feet on our average lot so it's not a small lot development all good Lots fill in tiny homes here um there are a couple lots that need a um you know a little lesser set back on the rear and that's because they're they're on a corner or on a curve and made a challenging Lay It Up um and then we talk about the minimum garage Frontage um or maximum we want to be able to do three car garages keeps fewer cars on the you know on the street and and then um provides additional storage for the residents provides us ability to um provide some you know nicer homes um and then when we talk about the um sidey yard setbacks um I think the code is five and 10 and we just would like to go to 7 and a half and 7 and a half allows us center of the house you don't have any of this right hand leftand um situation with the garage doors all having to be on the same side so you can hit that um 15 foot with a five and a 10 every every every spot so you can go to the next slide this just another look at the the so I just want to point out goes uh basically these two lots we need 20 foot because of that curve in the street which two this 20 tick was like 26 87 yeah 87 um right so show you on the next page to talk about the city benefits um obviously you know there's still a lot of offsite construction that we're proposing to do um carrying Maple Hill down to County Road 10 um at least 75% of it the got double and triple handing certain places obviously a lot of third party storm water um the different sidewalks and trails that we're providing um there was there's a back from Maple Hill Road so provides a nice green Corridor there and um we work really closely with the birg group to help help them manage their storm water um we provided a couple different connections so they'll have emergency um egress go ahead can I ask a couple questions about this slide yep the public viewing stations what does that entail is that just a okay that's where we're going to go yeah yeah sorry thank you okay Beth you go oh and just yeah we we were um we're down to 116 Lots we lost a lot in order to provide an additional access to the property and the development to the east so we do and we are providing two separate access points for that project um and I do think that this is just my um that that the people that are living in this community will use Maple Hill Road but they will also use furlane so I would say there's going to be a portion of of the neighbors that don't go out onto Maple Hill Road but go out furlane and that's just a reality and we have met with the neighbors about that and discussed that so it's also assuming that that proceeds ass right and I think they I think my only knowledge of it is is that they got preliminary flat approval yep and we're not there so and then we we did propose that if that doesn't go forward for some reason we try to work out a deal to just at least get our road through to make that connection because it's just a very small sliver the South West corner of the the we call the lure parcel um Bart brid Ron's proposed development so we can make that connection you know at our expense then we would have a couple different access points next so this is just a little bit of an explanation of the open space hydraulic Corridor and these are just yeah that's okay so we've got a I've got a crosssection excuse me uh a cross section this is a which is this cross-section here that you're looking at with one Pond and then the hydraulic Corridor and you can see the back property lines of each house and then the distance between that's this particular section and then this is um section B which shows we actually have two coupons we have a Hy hydraulic green Corridor uh and the second Pond um and then more green space um this um this area here is is where we've got the one of the view corridors so we're proposing that people that are walking in through our subdivision and people offsite that are coming through and and are on the trail system whether it's internal or or or proposing to go here or coming from here there is a view station that we're proposing here and another view station here where there will be like a a a a place to sit down and and eat a rest and look at the open space but we really preferred not to have the trail we did have a trail that ran through the middle of it but uh we were trying to at least um give a little bit more privacy to the homeowners that live there but also allowing people to come and enjoy the the view in the open space so that was our um the hydraulic green Corridor is um has been designed uh by Minnesota state um storm water best practices and the uh Minnesota has a um storm water manual um I can that they actually speak specifically about the making an effort as a developer to minimize infrastructure and to try to integrate natural resources and create a natural Corridor as opposed to always having such hard structure and infrastructure um it it does a lot more uh pollution control and um siment and and it cleans the water as it flows and and they they ask you as a developer to to make an effort to work with the natural and original uh and existing drainage and so this is this drainage coming from the south there's some Mi has had has done some storm water ponding here and um but it still overflows and and comes through here and then we've got we're we're again catching from the West so and then we're catching from the East so I think we're accomplishing a lot in this open space and and this Corridor and we're providing what we feel is um you know an aesthetic for the people that live there but also people that are walking can enjoy it so that that just that was from it's not showing up you're doing clicking it but okay these are just ideas these are showing how ponds uh adjacent to a hydraulic Corridor and that it would be hopefully you know prairie grasses or native grasses and native plants and that's just the ponds IDE the pacent that's Stu also what it could look like and these are just these are factors that I took from um the states um best practices manual and um these are some of the things that consider all factors as the water moves from the land surface to reing um there's a treatment train and it actually does treat the water as it moves through and that is um why they like the natural landscape of it uh and then it improves function and performance and it integrates into the site supporting the function and performance so um the other comments that they make and statements that they make in their manuals that they want to create attractive landscape features that are visible within the site and also visible to others um as an as a as an open space so they ask you to creatively use vegetation that's what we thank you is that the last one I think yeah that's the last one any questions for the applicants on this in particular I have questions but not on the slide deck okay um if there's nothing else on that relevant on that topic that Mak that good good evening um I have a couple of questions about a letter that uh that I received and when I when I say uh your letter can we agree that I'm referring to the letter of May 16th that was written by your attorney I assume at your direction can we agree so can I just call that letter your letter that's correct okay so um one thing that I want to point out here is that in your letter uh you wrote quote the city appears to be seeking to shift the cost of improving the Maple Hill Road onto chasc Farm to benefit the city's plans for the downtown core let me just start by saying I don't buy into your conspiracy theory okay I I just don't uh especially since uh the city and this council is comprised of elected officials with term limits you are asking for a planned unit development of PUD correct that's correct okay and you'll agree with me that part of a PUD or as part of a PUD the city is permitted to and expects that there are benefits conferred to the public in exchanged for what you have requested are you asking if we agree you said you will agree is we don't agree that they are prop to I didn't ask if it was proportionate what I am saying is you'll agree that a PUD is a negotiation you want something from the city and in return the city expects you to give the citizens the residents of corkran a benefit in return can we agree on that we can agree that there are PE benefits yes that are required as a part of a PE application and as a part of the approval however if to go straight zoning with this plan we can't that's I'm not I'm not done so we I'll I'll I'll hear from you in a second I heard what you had to say uh I I have a few more questions if that's okay so um requiring that these kinds of improvements are within uh the city's Powers as confirmed by Statute which I uh notably noticed uh your uh your letter did not site uh on on that note uh the case is excuse me oh okay uh on that note um you cited uh you cited four cases in your letter the first was Country Joe Inc versus city of Egan what was that case about let's clarify we did not write the letter we hired our attorney to write the letter but your attorney is your representative and I assume that you read the letter and I assume that you read the letter before you had it shipped to the city correct correct okay so I I mean is it fair to say you don't know what that case was about right that's correct country Jo but I do not know what that particular case is about okay is it is it is it fair to say you don't know what any of those four cases are no it's not fair to say that okay well then what is what is can you tell me what Anderson versus cyia buiji was about this I think that's irrelevant what we want to talk about well hold on hold on a second it's not irrelevant it's not irrelevant talkity about about lawsuits then and and excessive let's just talk about what the issue is well let me okay this is my time no this is my time point of order I'm not I I have additional comments okay okay let me just say this I I reviewed all four of the cases none of the cases had to do with puds they had to do with taxes and charges for building permits and special assessments they had none of four cases had anything to do with puds the second part of my response uh is that uh you are bringing this application not the city you have the choice to decide when to bring your application for consideration it you happen to choose a time before Maple Hill Road was in a condition to support your plans so for that I will also point out that another option is to Simply withdraw your application until the road has been improved for some other reason or by some other party the city isn't asking uh you to front money for this to be done after for example the downtown Corp is completed it's not some Advance on future work we're asking for it to be done simultaneously with the development of the lot so that it can be adequately supported and safe for everyone and uh but and this this question is for staff can you explain to me the reasons for the policy for roadway improvements to cover a property's entire Frontage uh that and because my my read of the packet is well this is just this is our our practice um is there some other reason or is it just well this is how we've always done it so it has been past practice staff has re-evaluated um that feel free to jump in I can try to but my understanding is it is a little different than past practice in that it is a dead end Road um so anything north of their required accesses arguably there isn't an access so staff is willing to concede that point but they do need to provide improvements of Maple Hill Road up to whatever their Northern access ends up being thank you that's all I have um Beth you want to I just I just want to clarify um please thank you um I just want to clarify where we're coming from and we feel that the offsite infrastructure structure that we're being asked via the feasibility study is excessive and I would I would argue that there are cases that that this is excessive for 116 unit subdivision we're being asked to improve the in the intersection fully improve the intersection on casat 10 provide two turn lanes and we're also being asked to to improve as a connector that part of Maple Hill that doesn't adjoin our property so it's not adjacent to our property so it's therefore off-site infrastructure for whatever reason Mi homes was able to develop and have an ex exit and Ingress eess onto Maple Hill and not provide any of that so we do feel that it is excessive and we and and I have been doing this a long time Land Development and it it it just I've never experiened this kind of a requirement so we really wanted to work with staff and I think they have come to the table and and and sat down with us and and considered some of these ex some of these concerns of ours and so I think that we together have been able to discuss options and still appropriately and and maybe even you know as a pretty big PUD benefit do some of these offsite improvements it's just um we're not here's the here's the 116 units cannot absorb that kind of infrastructure cost it just is what happens is you deem this property undevelopable and that is a legal issue and so we just want every it's an educational process I can see how it comes to this point where the city says well this has to get done you've got you're going to be you're going to be adding 116 lots to what is already over 200 units so the existing Road nobody studied what the existing conditions need right now today and are they me is the existing situation and are the is the existing infrastructure actually sufficient for what's already there and I question that so and the condition in this in the staff report they do or in the feasibility study they do acknowledge Maple Hill Road is in poor condition and there are 200 single or 205 single family homes that are driving on that today and there's no turn Lanes Ingress egress on Maple Hill Road or on Pat 10 so I it it's just about being educated on this and the in the in the situation and understanding where we're coming from and understanding where you're coming from and I think that's just I think we just need to do this very respectfully and I appreciate your comments and I appreciate your perspective I just want you to understand that we can't develop this property with those kind of infrastructure demands and so that is is kind of the bottom line and we want to develop it and we want want to buy it we want to follow through with what we've committed to and we think it's a really great project and we have some difficult situations we have difficult storm water design issues and I think we've stepped up on that and I think I think it's going to be a lovely project and I think it will as rooftops it will support your downtown but to ask us to build that road to to the extent that originally was asked was was too much and that's all I can say I I think that staff said that what the ask is is that you build the road to your entrance that's what our new conversation has been okay so we've met and we've talked about it and we've tried to come to some sort of a agreement that makes sense and that won't bur overburden that project and and I think see um that's one where area where we do probably disagree with our attorney I think we're we've said well let's be more collaborative let's let's um provide a lot more improvements than you know Mill and overlay so we are building a 30t road um with a parking Lane on what yeah well 60t yeah it's like 1,00 ft of roadway yeah so the the only part we're proposing to not build is the parking Lane on the farm side on the non-developed side um which there's no yeah I think I think Kevin can probably speak best to act what what it's going to what what you've said is the flexibility potential flexibility your attorney might be too uh expensive for the quality of his work personal opinion I don't yeah I don't think you need to take an attack on well we did get a letter from him which attacked us he did attack you let's not get too much into the back I said we we wanted we didn't bring factually incorrect on a bunch of stuff we didn't bring here because we didn't want to get into you know kind of that said we we're we're very open to going to a um a 30 foot road all the way to to um our entrance which is what is legally allowed you know that is that is the Nexus of benefit for our project we're also going to make that intersection safer we will turn that that road um right now it comes in at a y we're going to take that and make it perpendicular so that um you know have a better View Corridor both left and right so I think we're saving lives you know potentially on that um side and then we're also adding a turn lane which for some reason once again when Mi went in they should have put a turn lane in at Maple Hill and they did not they and we're proposing to to provide that coming from the East um into the site and you know those alone are $250,000 per per turn lane I do want to get back to a couple couple additional questions on that but first I think I'd like to tackle some questions related to the P itself yeah um I have a question for Staff first regarding the flexibility that was requested on a couple of those lots uh 20 Lot Number 27 and I have it here somewhere um 87 and 28 that sounds right 87 and 28 Natalie you had mentioned we've done that before on a CU toac but not necessarily on a so those two lots they're asking for a so the two lots that you just talked about are um asking for a 20 foot rear setback everything else would have a 25 foot rear setback so they're just asking for just some slight additional flexibility for them instead of asking for a 20 foot yard set back for the development overall so it's a little different than the other request which is to have 20 of the lots that are on curves to have the um lot width measured at the minimum required ired front setback we do allow that for CU to sets currently by right we just we haven't allowed that on curves um but that could be a p flexibility concession and it is 20 watts and it's just needed due to the spacing or yeah and if you look at the Lots like they are large Lots it's just the curve makes it a bit harder for it to measure 55 ft at the lot line if but when you measure it at the front set back it would be 55t wide requirement okay Mr Mayor yeah we are bumping up against a density issue and this was this the reason I really wanted to come in with straight zoning on this I didn't want to do a ped because I felt like we could do it but we're bumping up against the reason we had to do 55 foot Lots or you know and have some of these concessions um is because um we don't we're at 3.45 units per acre now we've lost lot so we your code says anywhere from three to five units per acre so we're bumping up we've recently adopted a new level of residential that goes down to is it two or two and a half yes but they're trying to do it with what their property's already guided so we want to be careful about saying that they're required to regu their property so anyway so that's that is yeah we're we're not trying to do anything crazy here this is a pretty straightforward development there's not a lot of it's It's not small lot it's not you there's lots of open space lots of trails and sidewalks and connection and I'm glad it seems like we are more on the same page than I thought we were regarding the the sidewalks um aspect the open space I have I'm a little confused I feel like I've seen between staff reports presentation and discussion seen or heard 12.2% open space 15% open space 13% open space okay so let me pull it up yeah so they are required 12% open space and that is based on their net their preet acreage or their net acreage so it's not the gross acreage it's taking out but we preliminarily know at this stage so with that they are required to have 4.03 acres to meet that 12% open space but our code specifically says that it it should be accessible and so I think that's the area of interpretation are we saying that the view corridor is accessible they have tried to incorporate view corridors so that it is an accessible view um you do as the council also have the ability to deviate somewhat from our straight 12% if we feel that there's constraints of the site that justify that deviation in addition to the public benefits being proposed so umie have a question so you didn't stay at home what our percentag is at you said yeah so sorry I'll get there so then um so the they provided a document showing 4.65 n Acres of open space but that included Outlaw G which is primarily under the 100e ordinary high water level so I deducting that they're at 4478 3 so that is um let me do the percentage I think it's about 13% 335 that's without the hydraulic Corridor it's without the hydraulic Corridor but it is including the space that's really that is more of a view um but that's 13.3% open space with that current calculation so they uh they [Music] are they are meeting it as long as the city says that that uh yes they are meeting it as long as the area that isn't um going to be accessible uh then that Corridor uh is acceptable as a view SP got thank you um and Council this not the hydraulic Corridor so the gray is our open space correct right so this is is actually um high and and it's it's could be used so it could be um Park and you know it it could be something usable if you wanted people to be able to access it and um and be a field or where people can play or you know I I don't want to speak for a builder and say that a place place because I just don't know that that's going to be the demographic here so um you know maybe people are going to be walking and and I don't know how they would use that but it's it's usable will The Outlaws be responsibility of the HOA to maintain in some well-kept fashion okay can I ask staff a question yeah absolutely is it factual that this could not come in code we do know that it's very difficult to come in by right under our rsf2 standards so with it currently zone no matter what they were probably looking at some kind of rezoning um and so I don't I haven't done the exercise I get they to their argument they have a lot of storm water they're taking on so there are a lot of challenges to the site that it could very well be difficult but I haven't done a plat myself to try to show that it can meet it um I do know that so far we've only had one property that has come in successfully on by right plat for rsf3 yeah and they had to regu their property for two units an acre because they were about 2.3 units an acre yeah so it is difficult with our current zoning districts to come in at three so far that has there's the difference between difficult and impossible impossible right it very I don't like to say impossible I don't like to say never I I haven't run the exercise myself we're trying to get a little bit a little bit tighter on or higher expectations of um what we see for developments and so it I'll just wait to can it be my turn to respond to I I feel like um when I think about puds and flexibility and we somehow somehow uh we were told that a benefit to the city is we have more houses um which I don't see uh storm water management system uh is something that would have to happen no matter what uh variety of Home Designs probably would happen no matter what um I do like that that hydraulic Corridor we've never I don't think we've had anything like that before like I I just don't seem I'm I'm kind of uninspired by the city's um benefits for the Pud and there's there is a standard in here that it would that or my my assumptions that um we'd get a better use than zoning if we allowed the Pud and then General generally the inflexibility on uh some of the it sounds like we're working towards some maybe a little bit more flexibility um so I'm I'm just generally uninspired by the project can can I talk with you yeah okay um so one of the one of the largest um PUD benefits would be improving that intersection and improving that roadway to the level that we're being asked to do it and I think that's getting missed in this so that was that's in a very very expensive uh Endeavor for us and so that is that and that benefits the rest of the community it benefits adjacent Property Owners yeah isn't that something you didn't want to pay for is that what the letter said we no we didn't want to pay for the excessive there it was too much it was millions of dollars that we just this property alone could not bear so like you said we're not saying we're not going to do any of it we're saying we want to do measured portion includes did you I I I get it guys the tone of the letter is let's talk about let's talk about the letter for a second if that's okay can I yeah so the the person we hired Jay Linderman um he is not a litigator right so this is not like a threat to sue you know um he is a lot of his time he spends representing cities he represents city of AD and Redevelopment projects He represents wetta he worked for the Met councel as their General administrative officer he was the General councel on US Bank Stadium on the light rail and so he has a lot of experience working on the public side and so he his his um reputation in the City attorney Community as you might call it is is stellar and well respected and collaborative and so um from the letter but I'm just saying like his that's his reputation and so that that's really what we that's fair enough so we can only we have one interaction with them um but um it it really doesn't it doesn't matter that was our that was the first thing that I heard I didn't from was a letter about that you didn't want to pay for that stuff but I just am really sick of the three three car garages and giving a pass on I know everybody likes them I think they look since I know in a code we don't get to our opinion doesn't matter but I I'm just sick of the same old Dopey uh same old same old and this looks a lot like same old same old and in puds we get to give our opinion and uh I think we already have other projects that look just like this um so um that's why you know I'm I'm not I'm not too keen on giv pey flexibility here but I'm only one vote anything else you want to that no de or John or Jeremy if I can what are we getting on Maple Hill Road what has been agreed to and I'm trying to put that paperwork aside and everything else if Kevin can jump in and then another question Kevin while you're forming all of that if you put the map back up the hydraulic Corridor if that weren't in place how much infrastructure is needed to handle that water and the cost of that instead of just putting it in a hydraulic Corridor if you can answer that question I'll try to do that now Steve's here also who's a little more I saw I saw I saw the expertise sitting against the wall so correct me if I'm wrong I'll try to simplify it as I Vision what's going on and I might actually have to back up a little bit to maybe clarify this whole conversation the kind of council member lanterman's initial question about the statement or the verbage in the feasibility study that says generally it's policy to go from the full RightWay that's because that policy we haven't had a development where 98% of the traffic will go south so in in that specific in most cases there is some spread and some usage of both directions so we don't we're not designing the road there there's other considerations like how do you tie in grades how do you manage drainage so we try to give them the ex best extend possible so that an early point in the stage they can develop a as best case performa there's been nothing done in terms of design in this road in terms of refining of the design we've worked with them more than any other developer to kind of help them predict that at this stage in the process because it is important to them because they have asked the question so we're doing a lot to help them evaluate what they're getting into as they keep proceeding so uh so I just wanted to kind of set that table um we also have to look at this development as if nothing else is happening around it right this is the plan they put in front of us this is the situation we have there are a lot of moving pieces especially in this part of corkrin so we have to react to the PS that are in front of us and the situation that's in front of us um if nothing if everything else falls apart the the private call the second and the North End serves that emergency access connection if if everything fell fell around it and this project had to go forward more than likely the improvements would H the recommendation would be they have to go all the way North right in in terms of Meet the Nexus in terms of meeting what we're what we should accomplish when we look at the development impacts uh now if they are to work out something with the neighbor to the east between what we have in front of us today and when they come in and sign the final contract that is certainly something we've talked to them about saying is if you find another solution uh your traffic then primarily goes sell so that's something that we can consider receding uh that is not in the documents here we have talked with staff about that or we've talked to the applicant about that we can't make that recommendation until we know there's a second access whether it's the development to leas moves forward and we have shity to make sure that roog gets built that would be one way to do it or they can work with them and acquire a different solution that would then potentially minimize their cost that's fully in their control in my opinion um so we've worked with them on that uh we've talked to them now the vision of The Collector or the Connector Road so one of the things when when a property comes in we look at the planning documents the southeast District uh planning documents show Maple Road as a connector there's a detail in in in our code correct me from wrong that identifies that road that road in that detail is to uh it's basically an urban section it shows I believe sidewalk on both sides uh 8ft parking and 11t Lanes so we early on WE presented that because asked what is the connect what is the connector would help us Define it that's what we had we've since worked with them to dial that in the most current anticipated design would be to basically peel off the Western uh Boulevard improvements on that detail and that turnning because the road's about 30 ft wide now approximately and if you do 11 11 and 8 that gets you to 30 ft their traffic is using both sides of the road to access the site so you know and I think it lays out well I mean we wouldn't we we're not asking them to do anything on the west side on anyone else's property we're just asking them to get to the through Lanes um now they in their I think in their comments they're saying they would like to keep that rural on the west side if it works out to be rural when we go to the design that that hasn't been decided at this point whether it's rural or or or curb on that side that's a detail that for our development contract is an actual cost paid by the developer when we get into that design we can refine that and bring that back in the limited review that we've done it it looks like we can set ourselves up well and still maintain the existing Ro condition so whether it's it falls off to a ditch or whether they do a curb I I think that's to be determined I can make the argument in some cases you might not need easement from an adjacent property owner if you tighten it up with the Curve you might not have to relocate small utilities so that I don't know if it's cheaper which route to go I don't know that it matters we would work with them on what works for the roadway what works for the drainage and what minimizes cost so again these are all details that are never worked out at this point we're doing our best to Fig to give them some guidance and projections on cost we we don't control when they're going to come in with the final plat we don't prices could change in nine months so we we do our best to educate them on here's the design that we're looking at um uh so you know that's a little bit of context of what it would look like so what what I would what it would look like is curbing gutter likely on the east side some some segment of sidewalk and that's a little bit up for discussion depending on what happens between tonight or when they come back in but I Envision a two lane 11 11 foot Lanes North and South with an 8ot turn lane on the east side with Kutter some some conversation about the connection of the side walk and then obviously on the western edge it could be ditch it could be curb whatever is most feasible we would work with them on whatever works so that's the vision uh we have our engineering team uh use best practices it's all outlined in the feasibility study um we believe that what we're asking for is important for this development and you know with that I'll kind of pause and if you got any other questions just just real quick Mr Mayor on the hydraulic what's it called y yes green cor green whatever we're calling it um if that wasn't there no excuse me the rest of the the rest of the details in the storm water management and everything else on the streets and stuff standard curb gutter drains and that water is draining into the ponds on site so generally speaking the new ponds that they're making correct me if I'm wrong part they're impervious from their site a lot of the pass through stuff is what you're going to see in this hydraulic Corridor now they mesh together a little bit cuz the ponds go into that so it's it's a little bit blurry it's not simple to say this storm that storm run it's all part of the system there is a lot of passor in the system that's just the responsibility of the property to some degree too but it is it is maybe more you know in terms of considering it for pey there is a lot of it's passing through over to the Western theast responsible to take drainage pass drainage you can do what you want on your site um you could do other ways to get it through there you could pipe it through there um you know that there's pros and cons to each so they're there and I don't know if this is a final design either we haven't final designed it but I mean they're Ste they're close to accomplishing some of their goals at least internally I believe at a at a high level there there's some detail there's a a lot of conditions in there in the storm water memo but I mean they're basically using in my opinion they're using that hydraulic Corridor to pass through the existing water primarily and it will bounce it will be really dry when there's no rain so it'll be it'll be like a grass area and then when it rains it will Spike so there there's a fair amount of Bounce in that Corridor so I just want you guys to have the the vision of what it looks like it it will it will bounce it's almost like a dry Swale so it will that's what they need to do to to help mitigate their their you know permitting requirements but that's the visual it will bounce and then drive back down I'd rather keep going if I could please um the m& homes in the property why would there not have been a turn lane added and why would there not have been an improvement from that road that jumps on the Maple Hill at least to the intersection that was before that could approved before I was at the city but they did make the the the fur Lane turn lane that you see um at the fur Lane connection to 10 were part of that project that con and that was enough for that yeah I have I have to review that feasibility study and and that was I believe a PUD as well so I don't know I don't know the details that's all right I just didn't know if we dug deep or anything into that so again what try to look at the site and each site individually with what we can control so really Mr Mayor we're we're talking of the resoning and a plinary Steve to add oh please add one as Kevin was talking about the roadway improvements one thing I don't want to miss is a feasibility study had also recommended on County Road 10 both right and left turn Lanes just from getting it's a safety Improvement to get people out of the County Road safely onto the road so just wanted to highlight that as well just so itn't miss yeah takes uh and Beth did you have something you'd like to follow up on yeah thanks and Kevin and St maybe you can help me with this but I do believe that we've also solve some drainage issues onto the Maple Hill States and we're able to capture so much problem there's some flooding there that's of course coming across this site currently that we're hoping to resolve with this system and that's the plan so that they don't have um any more problems there I would just just for the public knowledge it we can never really resolve storm water problems we can only improve them yeah I don't want to set the standard that there isn't going to be a problem but yeah I believe that's why they included the storm water management design PS because there was attempt to try to improve uh what's happening in map Hill because that was during the neighborhood meeting uh Barry the owner of Maple Hill states did speak with me um about concerns of an existing condition and the applicant tried to solve for that as part of the Pud negotiation or again at least improve it Jeremy did you have anything I saw you typing away or look Stu my biggest concern with this one is how the open space is scattered across the whole site rather than Consolidated into one area and I I know this was in process with when we made the policy we were not applying policy requirements to this project uh in in future I would have much preferred to see Outlaw F and E area centralized into the corridor and try to really make that a more broad green Corridor it's more usable um I understand the site is constrained and there's limits to what we can ask for given the timing of the project uh but I would hope in future that we wouldn't see this number of outlots spread out as much as they're spread I'd rather see those Open Spaces Consolidated and more usable um I I feel like the safety Improvement to the intersection with County Road 10 is the major public benefit uh the open space I think is important as well but it's I feel like it's compromised by the site design but I I do see considerable value in the Improvement in that intersection adding the turn turn Lanes I know I've struggled when I've visited uh Maple Hill Estates a few times it is a challenging place to get an out especially if it's busy so having those turn Lanes in place I think is a significant benefit to all residents you're talking about the turn Lanes from 10 onto yeah and I guess that's one area I would ask applicants I know you mentioned a turn lane that you're talking about it seems like that's where there still is a significant gap between what feasibility study is saying and what you're saying is that accurate we're if you find that to be an important benef negotiation yeah I think that that's probably say um obviously we prefer not to fully approve that but I think it's I understand what you're saying to me it's a safety issue and and getting rid of it as the benefit right yeah right um any other topics on the Pud itself that you guys would like to go over there's the uh kind of covered some of the setback items is 25 if were to be voted uh for approval 25 the appropriate setback for the uh for the buffer yard yeah and we did approve that for Fairway shortes we do we did find that um acceptable to apply the same setback as the surrounding Comm question council member bota real quick me you yeah you brought up the about the garages three yeah yeah three stall garages and stuff You' rather see a combination of Threes twos and such or what are you talking about everybody asked for um 60% garage Frontage instead of 55 and uh it's always the same argument about yeah you can't fit uh and then you know I just think that either we have standard if we don't if you want a p if you want seven cars then you need to go live in a neighborhood that has bigger houses an appropriate yeah okay oh I that was that just stuck P thank you for clarifying very much so to clarify that you you would like if it were to be voted for approval to just keep it at 55 yeah I mean it's just a general statement yep so many of them asked for the garage to be most of the house front and it just it keeps looking like stuff we already have we get to have opinions about we don't get to have opinions when it's a Zone straight zoning in a PUD we get to have opinions and I just don't think that um three car garages that occupy the front of your house um they might be appropriate some places but not for corporate the other way around that is having wider Home Design on a wider lot that's true your ways around it um fencing item uh that Natalie had mentioned earlier I think was in the presentation as well it's con on that uh regarding applicants uh proposed fence versus staff's recommendation about the Landscaping do we have any thoughts on that I I had asked for that before I knew staff was asking for it to move to the back so yeah I I think it should be at the property line versus hugging the Contours of the home it should encapsulate the trail and not separate the trail from the neighborhood um one point of clarification in the Pud resolution is I just said fence and I think the verbiage should change to fence and burm should be moved as far north to the boundary as possible um because I the fact that they had asked for burm for some reason um I knew about it at the beginning of the staff report by the end of it I Forten that there was a burn so um I would just say that um the current PUD resolution that just be SL change in that brage okay um do you know where that actually is in the um resolution uh paragraph 12 a fence on the North property line of outw a is allowed but must be placed as close to the northern property line as possible so I would just change that to offense and burm on the North property line of Outlaw a is allow of but must be placed as close to the property line as possible I'll make that motion may do we have a second on that sorry any discussion can I just make one I think it's probably covered in the report but that's all D andu eement we have sewer there so I would we would need an encroachment agreement so it's probably covered in our general notes but just for clarity purposes can we add the language that would require an encouragement agreement yep okay so I'll just 12a an encroachment agreement for these improvements will be required any other discuss all those in favor say I I I oppos abstain three John clarify what we're voting on uh it was the fencing the term in the resolution I think it's paragraph 12 uh where the fencing SL bming would be along the property line or along yeah I'm just trying to think of when we have um different zoning if we have fences in between zoning and any other place in the town we do allow fences up to the property line and in most or in every District it's sometimes it's the um um the front property line there's typically limitations on the height but we do allow fences up to the property line we and our buffer orance does allow for that's what I'm asking the I don't care if a private person doesn't but the buffer allows a fence yep as one of the ways to meet the buffer ordinance and and they're trying to buffer themselves from Maple Hill estate yeah I understand that I just want to make sure that it um fits within the buffer or uh buffer more than my own personal preference but so long as it meets the buffer ordinance I think that that's fine so I'll vote Yes since you asked thank you so that's 401 uh lman okay um and then also based on the conversation so far paragraph four of the Pud resolution I would recommend adding two Clauses um it's it starts say the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the city Engineers Nemo for oh no that's not the right one I'm sorry it was supposed to be the feasibility study I'm sorry paragraph five the applicant shall comply with all requirements of the infrastructure infrastructure feasibility study um and then adding paragraph a the applicant shall improve Maple Hill Road up to and through the most northern access into the development including any emergency access and paragraph B final design of the road improvements to be approved by the city engineer that provides us with some flexibility to continue those discussions okay and what can you clarify what paragraph that is paragraph five five give me one second I'd like to take a look at that so that would mean if berson goes through and they get their second access to the South East just just go to the main entrance there is a condition in there too that says they must have two accesses but again we're trying to provide that flexibility uh with the assumption that Bon could go through on a similar timeline or they could get an easement uh working with that property owner correct there's multiple ways they can achieve that if they want y that [Music] one no here what's the resolution number so this one is resolution 2024 73 and that was paragraph five just saying that they must comply with the infrastructure feasibility study and we're just adding a couple of caveats um um did you have I would just like to yeah it's we're finding that all of our interested parties Builders really need that third a demand in the market whether it's a senior uh that's living there or it's a family living there so there there's a strong demand for that and I I would ask you I I don't even know the answer to this but I'm truly asking you did you because Fairway Shores adjacent has 55t and 65t lots very similar to ours were they did they ask for the variance on the garage they did they they tailored it to specific Lots so it didn't reach a certain percentage um and then another application we recently reviewed we granted some flexibility but it was required to have a second floor to offset it so that could be part of the discuss too are we open to 60% as long as there's a second floor to take away some of or there's a percentage or there's a certain percentage of lots that could have that help us because I think it really it really hinges remember Beth we we don't have to design our town for the interest of the builders right so we're we're running into um capacity as a town and one of the biggest things people don't want us to do is turn into Maple Grove which is sort of like what we're doing but I and I've heard you say that and I understand that and here's my thought on that and my response to it is that I don't think it's the builders decide I think it's the market fair enough then we don't need as many houses in corkran if they have to be all looking the same we can make that decision as a council you you you can ABS I guess so we could have our population go from 5,000 to 30,000 in five years and have all the houses look the same and the builders are happy and maybe a bunch of people live here I agree the way all the houses look I that's what I'm saying like I can't do anything about that we can't always people people tend to buy them and say I want I want that house I like that house I want that house because they don't they can go to Rogers they can go to Rogers or oigo or somewhere else where they let they G have four stall garages in the front yard yeah that's and here's the other thing we would have made more 65 foot Lots right yeah but we we have a density issue yes so we actually are work we're working on that issue and a Val I know but we do we are bumping up against that and and so I ask you please to reconsider that on us or give us at least a percentage um as you've treated other people you know in in the community you can talk to Natalie how we work around that I guess um she just gave you I think it's more about it would what would make a difference for your V would it would yeah I know I mean yeah I hear you it what about I know in the past we've seen some requirements around the quality of the door and Architectural features on it in combination with the Second Story maybe it doesn't look like it's just a make it look like a wall instead of a door I have seen that I have seen Doo yeah where all of a sudden the wall opens up and it's a garage door that make you happy yeah those are those are pretty cool you can't tell yeah I do know that's so that's when I talk about we're getting late so we're getting a little silly but that's okay and and we are trying to you know we are designing this with all du respect we are designing according to the guide plan so I'm not and this is a is a that is but it's a PUD now so I what I would like to get clarification from staff about um is if if we absolutely are hamstringing you with if there's no way it could be done by code then I can understand your problem but if there's a way to be done by code then then um then it's a different if there it's then it's a different way I have to look at it so if you were to do just think about this not very difficult is 80 foot LS is I I don't want to we could table this and maybe we do it a different time um because I I'm I'm stuck I'm stuck on this so if we do table it it would be really helpful to understand um be really helpful to understand what it like besides the um exercise of doing a byright plat ifs up to what other items could um get us to a yes what items need to get addressed we only need four so all you need is for other people besides me to vote Yes on this that's a solution so I guess the question is is there a way to get to a yes with the remaining votes or is it a 32 vote and and we need to do we need to table it for that so that is the question does a turn lane conversation matter for the other I believe right now the way we have it worded if it meets the approval for a PUD and they are then they are required to meet the feasibility report findings except for the concessions we we actually did not make the amendment yet to right so we with the with the Amendments that I provided provide some flexibility to continue some of those conversations but the turn Lanes would still be required and if it meets the other standards of the Pud then then those turn lanes are required it's just as simple as that because we have a feasibility that supports that that is needed for that intersection to operate properly with the added homes safely safely so the question is does do we have are there additional P benefits that would strengthen the application are there some flexibilities we're not willing to concede um is there a way to get to yes because if there is then we can certainly table it if the answer is no then I don't think we need to continue the conversation I'm going to go ahead and make a motion to uh amend that paragraph five just so we don't for as Natalie had laid out so we don't forget to do that whether or not then we get to the next question on I'll second that that was related that was what could you restate it it's the feasibility study so it's uh paragraph 5 the applicant should comply with all requirements of the infrastructure feasibility study dated December 2023 adding paragraph sub paragraph a the applicant shall improve Maple Hill Road up to and through the most northern access into the development including any emergency access sub paragraph B final design of the road improvements to be approved by the city engineer we i' second does that include the turn Lanes on that includes that they would still used to do the turn Lan second the discussion anything else all those in favor say I I post abstain 401 was the other one okay uh then kind of to Natalie's point where do we think we are overall is there other aspects of it that need to be discussed that like to discuss uh where are we leaning this does require a 4 fth majority so I feel like the safety benefit is enough for me even though I don't love the open space plan I feel like it checks the boxes I need to have checked okay well we can vote on 5B for the publication I'll make a motion that we well well we don't need to do that though I mean the public if if we haven't approved the ordinance then there's no need to do the publication oh I'm sorry I jumped the gun on that I appreciate it but um Mr Mayor yes I while I have some reservations and stuff I already I'm grossly aware this is a challenging parcel I'd like to stop hearing that going forward um the drainage and all of the hardships and stuff I'm I don't need that reviewed every time we sit on and talk going forward I'd like it to be more straightforward and deal with um our Administration and stuff and resolve these issues as much as possible instead of coming to us we don't need to hear the challenges of we when I first came here I experienced quick Lake Highlands and the changes and all of the things we jumped on to help make that all go through and it's still a pretty huge empty spot we were we were told the same kind of thing tonight that's what the Market's driving well the market drove a co-op and then it drove a 55 an older community then I don't want to hear those changes anymore here's the plan this is the direction we're going and move on I don't want to hear about any more hardships or anything else PUD would be written and it would be done so that's where I'm at um a no across the board okay so we have the option of I'm trying to read exactly where that lands you Dean on more up than down okay if we've got more discussion and John you're kind of on there's some some aspects you definitely do not like if I was Voting tonight I would vote no okay that's important to know um so we have the but I don't know how I get to a yes fair enough there's no like land like you're asking how do I get there I don't know so really the discussion at this point is do we think that there's value in tabling to a 11th or 25th go really close up against the deadline I'd be a little nervous about that yeah I would recommend July 11th is there value in tabling to the 11th or if the votes aren't there and we don't think that they will be there with whatever is thought of or potentially added at the 11 can I throw an idea out sure can you put the map back up please so I Echo John's sentiment about trying to find ways to be better than our more developed neighbors um and I don't know if this is practical or not but I'll throw it out as an idea if it were possible to broaden the green Corridor in the center and make it more usable space maybe with a trail through it maybe we produce and consolidate some of the other outlots to make that possible so now you got a neighborhood that's a little bit like a miniature wild Meadows potentially would you see that as a PUD benefit sufficient to match the flexibility they're asking for talking to me about if if we made it bigger in the middle yeah I think it's worth thinking I mean I don't know it's worth thinking about and tabling I guess until the 11th but so how would you do that Jeremy you would move the 60 put buffer inside and the houses closer to Maple Hill what are your thoughts there's probably several ways I I I don't want to negotiate on somebody else's behalf if that's possible can I propose another idea um we've thought about maybe we take out these five Lots at the north um there's a lot of roadway being constructed for that anyways we can probably pick up one lot basically where that street sits we'll work with the neighbors to get you know emergency access points and then this could be you know some sort of amenity like pickle ball or you know um my concern with that would be if that density and if that's also dependent on that there is not that density requirement is not if you're 3.4 I think you could lose five I let me so let me let me do the M off the predevelopment because sometimes the predevelopment two is the lower one that we see we do see it go up a little bit Tech usually when you take the unbuildable and the wetlands out they have the Wetland buffers is like the big one when you take the Wetland buffers out cuz we're already taking out Wetlands so here let me just pull up density and again that would lot or you would get one lot get maybe one back maybe fours four but that would not be a city responsible type deal that would be a homeowners asso deal does that address your your concern that you're talking about though I I'd like to see usable open space maybe not pickle ball maybe it's noisy yeah it's noisy for all the people who dog run or something yeah dog or open or open just neighborh I think it does lower the I think you'd still be above three for the pre-estimate so was about 3.3 if if you were to lose those four Lots if that would be something as an advantage well they would still fit so yeah I'm just saying in a PUD it's not factual that in a PUD situation they have to be between three and five they can drop lower well but you're basically mandating a comprehensive plan Amendment and so that so they're working within what we even with a PUD correct yeah correct so I so I would say they do want to hit three if they want to avoid a complant Amendment which is a significant process in C yeah yeah I get it um so then basically what I'm hearing is if they were to um if there could maybe they're hoping that we can at least give them maybe some percentage of three car garages but if maybe there could be some compromise there um what was the percentage we gave to uh I think we approved about 10 Lots I'd have to look it up but percentage wise just because they have only yeah yeah so we G so I yeah so if we gave them like 10% um Lots could have three car garages uh that um have a 60% maximum um and we could also require a second level on those lots so that uh potentially so that the um we're offsetting that requirement and then if they were to give the additional open space is that would that get us closer to a yes we can certainly table it to work through some of the logistics um but we just need some direction on how to strengthen the application um for that to be worthwhile I think if if there's the thought is that it might shift some people that maybe we should I'd like more clarity like that more table it because I think there's a couple things that would need to be figured out it be very spec just debating on you know it I wish we could have a a little go at preliminary application type process where we throw ideas out and oh yeah that one makes sense but we we're up against the final final here it it is that they did come forward with a concept plan and they did actually take a lot of that feedback in place originally they were coming in with lots about 44 feet wide or as small as that would you say 55 they got it to 55 they did ask for I believe garage flexibility as part of that concept plan and there wasn't a hesitation at that point it's fair that we're seeing it a lot we want to I don't think I was I'm pretty sure in the on the front end I was not that enthusiastic and that's very possible I don't remember exactly what you said on it but I I don't usually when I hear like a hard no that's what gets communicated as the application moves forward um well we what we could do is uh I suppose I think that would get me closer honestly okay um but I don't know Mark is here too we have to have four we still have to four Dean doesn't know either and I and I don't want to put a bunch of work into it right for you guys well there's there going to be a bunch they have to start over from scratch it's going to be a lot of work anyways so I would say if we don't want to put a lot of work in it what can we do to strengthen this plan um that will be drastically less work and starting over with a completely different development yes there has to I mean one of the things that we like is things that are different I guess and unique and like they that I kind of like your system about you know the getting bonus points for being unique and they're just the uniqueness is that that peer through Hydro open Corridor area I don't know why that seems interesting but it is so good job on that um so we just need something else to make it not look like all the other ones we have to have these not look like all the other ones so I would recommend we table it to the July 11th meeting with the direction to staff to work with the applicant on at least the two things that were discussed the potential of rearranging some of those northwest corner Lots or removing them we we do run into the problem of if we approve something where they have to put turn Lanes in and they're not want if they're just flat out not going to do that then we don't have to table it to the 11th they could let us know that that's a noo for them and then we could well I think that was the language we put in yeah I think yeah I think it at this stage um if we believe it meets the standards or if there's some changes we can make to make at the standards we require the road improvements and then that's their decision whether or not they want to move forward sure and that would be reviewed at uh between preliminary and final plat yeah I get it okay all right so I'm hearing work with the applicant on U identifying a more constrained garage limit yep um work on potentially adding some uh uniqueness in open space in that northwest corner or well potentially with the the green Corridor opening that up or the applicants suggestion of the and then bring that back July 11th for further discussion they could put a silo in there what about a Gazo that's siloes yeah Ood Ood right there or a community garden the Agra Hood idea yeah all you need is a silo and and you'll get his vote most likely I Tred to put we that was a don't I did not say no to that don't want to un bury or bury something and stuff Mark is there a way to resend that letter erase that null and void it to us or anything to change any of your thoughts or or or mindset just ask you no okay okay I will make the motion to table it to with that direction uh to the July 11th meeting second any further discussion all those in favor say I iOS abstain 41 thank you okay and then we will move on we have no unfinished business we will go to new business we technically have a public comment opportunity if anyone would like to speak on 10A which is 2025 budget goals and priorities this is the first discussion first crack big picture stuff of that I don't think I've seen anyone so we'll go into 10 uh so mayor and Council uh what staff has asked for uh with this report is some feedback in order for us to do our due diligence and preparation the 2025 budget and so in in my time here the first point uh it's it's my understanding that historically Council has established the budget with a baseline starting from the previous year adding any increase in tax capacity Plus the rate of inflation and so one of the first things we're ask no no that's not true population increase plus inflation not increase in tax capacity the goal is we want to use less of our tax capacity over time and that's why we're having this conversation like I said first crack is this your first budget you've done with us yeah I've only been here six months we them in December 2024 is one of those years feels like it it does does feel like I've been here six years I agree it's not his first not his first dealing with our budget it's his first setting so so so that's that's why I'm I'm seeking clarification so so with that I I presume that's the direction that you want to continue to go um and and it's important to note that population is actually increased above projections so we got the 2023 numbers and I think the number projected was 505 and we were closer just shy of 600 I think is where we landed uh so that that's just important to note I think we're about total population 8,000 643 roughly unless you know a better way to do what we're wanting to do uh so I think that's a longer discussion yep uh I I I I think as far as best practice um we're going to have to think about a different way to do it uh or at least have dialogue about that uh because we have some services that are coming online and some future requirements that uh we're going to have to make some hard choices because I'm not sure that this calculus is going to be able to deliver the expectations that the community has in so so that that's a future discussion but for 20 2025 we do need to move forward because we're we're in the season of it so uh that calculus is something that Council would like to continue I believe as a so that would put us what at ballpark 11% increase between inflation and population uh depends what numbers yeah it depends on the numbers so so we're going to come back and have those conversations uh and and we'll narrow that down I I I I don't want to it be conjecture right now for me to throw something out I I think Jay just may I speak yeah to budget concerns um it's going to be hard um we've we all we understand that um and it's and I'll just say this because it's worth saying but um we H we always have to represent the taxpayer and make sure they're getting a good Shake on this and and we're the understanding of that people expect us to do our jobs um and we love the work the people from the city does so our budget is a reflection of what we have to hold as our responsibility to taxpayers and also get good Services we're in this together the priority I think we've said previously is that people matter first and then um then I think it goes stuff than services I don't know what the order after people is but I'd rather keep good people than have us buy a new dump truck or buy us have then have us get a k9 or have us whatever I don't know how we do thread that needle but we've always said that we understand that your job is challenging and really really tough and people in our town watch our budget and we got to do the best we can to get it working but we want to be good to the people that work here so so I will say that's that's heartening because that gets to the second point is uh in terms of uh priorities the deliverable priorities uh I'm happy to hear you say people first uh because um I've worked in organizations where when you're having budget cuts that's not always the decision Point uh and so we work really hard to get the right people on the bus and we want to ensure that we keep them on the bus uh and that even applies to pans yes I reive you down there I know you we might we might change him up to a minivan and take the bus away and I and I had said this last budget cycle the next two times are going to be extremely difficult we until we start seeing this and what John just said the people are first the people that are doing the job are first and we've got to figure out everything after that but I still find it very hard that we're going to be able to hold the line tight without one or 2% I don't know how we slow the roll on the stuff yeah like we get you guys have so much stuff on your plate all the time and I've talked I don't know who I talked to but I I said I wish there was a way to like stop everything until we catch up I don't know if there's a way to do it I'd be totally open to saying our city is way behind on we're buried and we you know we just can't hire 12 people and and it's hard to hire two and how do we is there anything we can as city council do to say our people are underwater um how can we help that with you know I don't know that there's a broad like perfect answer to stop to kind of Hit the pause button which would be nice but I know we are you know with nelisha coming on board and we have a couple jobs that are coming out or that are in the process of being hired or going out soon we're not overwhelmed Alicia we're just there's lots of example of having someone in there that can help the the workload on yeah I don't know it's hard so if I can speak to that with a couple things one one I I want to say that I think Council has done a good job just doing that so uh in my first week here I made a hard ask for an audacious ask for a lot of money to solve a complex problem and and I just told you earlier this evening that we didn't solve it to the degree that I wanted to but also if we look at it we've accomplished some remarkable results in a relatively short timeline the team is incredible so one of the things I want to say about that is if it didn't have this pace some of our teammates might not be here because they'd be bored I I I say that in all truthfulness like part of what brings this unique team together is the fact that this is a is a very hard job not everybody can do it and they can take a lot of pride in the fact that they can step up to the plate and knock it out of the park week after week uh but also I want to follow that up with we don't want to burn them out uh and and so in in the pace that we keep uh it's important for us to create the space so like when Council approved uh the recruitment and and retention plan some really cool things have been used for that everything from fish finders to ebikes Tunas the if if that's what it takes to make somebody find the space to take care of themselves a little bit better uh maybe it's a trip to Disney World however they're using that but but it's also kind of cool to point out that as I'm connecting with my peers nobody else is doing that and they're talking about the fact that Quirk is and so I just want to identify some of those those Creative Solutions others is uh the support that you've given us tonight we had some some uh pivot decisions in terms of it's time to make these it was not in the 2024 budget to have a Community Development Department it wasn't there but we absolutely need it and you supported it and we're figuring out how to build it and uh we have that department now and we have a director as of tonight uh th those were not things that were planned yeah so I do want to say and we have a finance manager as of tonight who's also so so those sorts of decisions that you're making are communicating your support to staff I that's not lost on me and it's not lost on them uh and the the another other thing that we need to keep in mind is we need to continue investing not just with retention recruitment strategies like that but the professional development component uh we we we have not everybody hasn't been getting what they need to be their best selves that's