e e all right I will call the order of the regular council meeting for Tuesday March 25th stand for the pledge to the the United States of America to the rep One Nation God indivisible Li and jusice for all all right I need a motion second for the agenda I'll make a motion need a second a second okay any changes okay all those in favor say I I I all those opposed say no motion carries by zero consent I want to talk about D but I don't necessarily need to have it pulled out but I do want to talk about d That's the approval of a letter of opposition to Missy middle gos so um okay I need a motion in a second for consent I make the motion a second okay go ahead and discuss okay um so I am absolutely yay go for that letter um I was when ing if we wanted to maybe take a further step and share um a similar letter to like residents um like can we push this out more so it's not just the city so that we can get some residents contacting their representatives do is there a sample letter that we could have I was going to bring this up during discussion but I agree um not only with this but um to get them to start contact acting just to let them know C some of these bigger issues this one's pretty big um but like the the whole frbr business yeah it'd be nice to get a couple of these issues to all the residents cuz they're at least they're all going to be affect affected by this one um and have them contact our reps neighboring reps anybody and their mother that can do something about it yeah um a mayor members of council I think that's a valid point Point let me see if I can work on some sort of draft sample letter that we can put together yeah um and put it on our website if you want to use it fantastic yeah these missing middle bills essentially take all of our zoning Authority away from us so it's not just pretty big it's extremely big yeah and essentially takes us from having the ability to say no to a project or no to a duplex or triplex in a neighborhood to say that you can't say no to them anymore so every neighbor may have a tuplex or a Triplex or an accessory um dwelling unit which would be essentially change the garage into a um dwelling unit on any property without us to say um no or yes on so um these are huge bills and most certainly um they were supposed to be heard today at the um state and local government committee um at the Senate and it was that meeting was canceled today at 12:30 so I don't know if that gives us a little more time to get more letters in there was roughly 22 letters or so that I saw that were under the senate about that specific item so I will certainly do what I can yeah and even just I guess my bigger question is is do we want to just because I know when I've written letters to people it's always easier if someone gives me sample language like here's some sample language to send it's just easier than starting with with a blank page um so whether it's I don't know how much you want to adjust the current language from this letter or if there's enough here like we can just make a few small tweaks to what you have for our letter like but anything that we can get out but we need as many people as possible to contact UM the representatives so like yeah I'm all in favor of it I want to do more and I'm wondering what we as a city can do to to push that further um would you also recomend like and this is kind of more just like order of operations and appropriateness like would it be okay if I took this and like I posted it on my Facebook like on my personal Facebook page for like people in the state and be like hey do you live in Minnesota you should like be aware of this and contact your state representative would it be okay for me to use the letter like as our letter as a template or is there a place you would recommend I go find a template letter like is the league of Minnesota cities are they yeah I can give you the Le of M cities sample letter that you want to use um you can most certainly post our letter once it's been approved by Council that no problem at all but okay if you want the sample letter I can just send you the sample letter and you can put it out there and then you can say it has some you can change city of to whatever you want it to be pop out whatever City but if you live in Minnesota this is really important um so that's my first thing my second thing is like the counter to this so I'm opposed to it the the the state getting their hands involved in it but there's a reason that it came came through last year and it's coming through again this year and that's because there is a problem with the missing middle like there is not firsttime home buyer affordable housing and as long as cities continue to ignore the issue this is going to keep happening right like until we actually make some some actual steps and can say no look this is what we're doing to address the issue it is going to keep coming up so I would like to encourage us as a body and as a city to think about what we're doing and what active steps we're doing cuz it also cuz I take my own personal job from this like I'm an educator and I work um and the state legislator is always trying to tell me how to do my job um every year and we're always pushing back but that push back goes better if we can say look this is what we're doing to address the issue like affordable school and affordable textbooks is like one of the big things that they're always on our butts about um but when we can say no look this is what we're doing so like back off we know it's an issue we're addressing it but I think our argument is stronger if we can point to specific things we as a city or cities are doing to address this issue um I don't have that answer today but I do think it's a conversation that we as a council need to have um so that we can say no this is what we're doing to address this issue so because if we just keep ignoring it these bills are going to keep coming up and we're going to lose at some point unless we do something about it ourselves so I would rather be the ones in the driver's seat than sit and do nothing until we finally lose this this battle and then have the state come in and tell tell us what to do so it's my kind of two cents on that topic so yes to approval yay share it yay we as a council and as a city need to get a little more proactive about handling this on our own that's my two cents I'm done uh anybody else have anything for consent I had just two things quick which is much shorter than my original list so um thank you to everyone who responded to some of my questions uh Marty I just wanted to say thank you to you or whoever um got the uh the correct number of gallons on the Maple Grove water bill so that it doesn't look like we're paying $12 a gallon for for water you're welcome who did that it wasn't me okay you're welome thank you um my other question uh Chief Anga we had a one of the Dodge Chargers in for an engine it looks like and I'm just curious uh on how many of these cars that we still own versus the lease program that we're on now um I believe we still own four Dodge Durangos um Dodge Charger and the Chevy Tahoe will be being shipped off sometime either this week or next week um to be sold at auction which will then be used um to counter the lease payments um we had to have it fixed to get it down to get the lights off otherwise we would had to tow it down to get lights off um and then brought back here to get it brought to Enterprise but we have four dodged Durango um that we still own the rest is UN lease okay and those will cycle out over the next couple of years correct all right thank you that's all I have anybody else okay you got a motion a second all those in favor say I I all those opposed say no consent is 5 open Forum limited to 3 minutes for non-agenda items state your name and address no council action will be taken items will be referred back to staff thank you 1132 flon I'm here to talk about the intersection of 113th and County Road 21 it's a very small intersection you have two two lane roads both with no shoulders intersecting just last month the garbage truck Northbound on 121 waiting for traffic to clear to make a left turn on 113th was stopped on 121 the car behind him was a woman with two children in the back seat and she stopped behind the garbage truck but the person behind her did not stop resulting in a rear- end collision both cars were towed away and appeared to be total also our mailbox is at that intersection and there's a street sign that's there the traffic which includes big semis with long trailers carrying huge Earth moving equipment have a hard time navigating this corner especially if there's a car sitting on 113th waiting to get on to 121 due to Sundance and all the new houses on or near 113th there are cars sitting there a lot of the time waiting to get on to 121 now imagine this scenario a car sitting there in the eastbound Lane of 113th Avenue and a semi with a long trailer and heavy equipment is trying to turn on to 113th the semi on 121 has to come to a full stop and wait for the car on 113th to get on to 121 and get out of the way the car can't go because the semi is blocking his view well you may think the driver should go because the semi is blocking traffic not true people behind the semi will pull out and pass in a no passing zone because they think they're privileged and they don't have to stop and wait so now all Lanes on 121 have traffic going the same direction and if someone pulls off of 13th boom there's an accident I've seen several close calls the same is true if a semi on 113th is waiting to pull out on to 121 the rig needs both lanes to enter so he must wait until he has a big break in the traffic so he can use both lanes of 121 to get out on the road just last week we saw a car pull out from behind the semi pull up alongside the semi in the wrong lane then turn right onto 121 Crossing in front of the stopped semi so he could go South and just yesterday we counted Keith and I counted 79 cars coming off of3 onto 121 at 1:30 in the afternoon the line stretched as far to the West as you could see and it took them 10 minutes to all get through the intersection there must have been something going on on Sundance I don't know but imagine if you had a semi on 121 waiting for 79 cars to get out of the way remember that semi needs both lanes on 113th to make that turn he would have been stopped on County Road 121 for 10 minutes we've had our mailbox knocked down we've seen the street sign get knocked down right now that street sign looks like the Leaning Tower of Pisa and it's been bumped and jostled so many times one more bump and it'll probably come down again I know that eventually this intersection will not be there in the meantime you have to think of an alternative route for the big rigs that are going to be pulling and entering to start the DCM project before you approve it maybe Rush Creek Road maybe an entrance from 117th onto Dean's property both are wider and better intersections than 113th or maybe start the 114th Avenue roundabout first as an Intero for the property at any rate 113th Avenue intersection is not able to handle the traffic that's going to come with Dean's buildout I'm thinking ahead and thinking of alternatives for an obviously bad intersection I'm trying to help you do your job your job may I remind you is not to help the developer make as much money as possible they know the property they know full well the rules and codes the city has mandated your job is to enforce the rules and codes of the city your job is to protect the citizens that are already living in in the area and paying taxes thank you thank you thank you anybody else name and address and then hi John Williams 13620 North Diamond Lake Road my wife and I purchased a house uh 2 years coming March 30th we enjoy it here uh we purchased the house not knowing of the uh project going um on the bike path that's um going to be put in the crossing at Vinewood Lane in North Diamond Lake Road uh we didn't know about it until like two weeks ago we come back from vacation we got this on our door uh we're okay with with City expansion we understand that uh you know expansions happening we've talked to Zach on the phone and uh we understand that uh things are in progress the plans and um we don't really know exactly what these plans consist of and we just want to put a name and a face along with uh the address and uh just let you folks know that uh we're not too thrilled about having our front yard taken away we are the most affected ones uh we're we're just right up against and uh we don't know if uh street lights are viable we want to make sure that we have Eastern access onto North D like road cuz we don't know that's going to be with the double lanes and stuff like that there's a lot of ifs and uh we're not certain where this boundary is going to be we kind of like to know and uh we looked in the constitution of the Minnesota Constitution it was uh section one Article 13 something about the property um property shall not be taken destroyed or uh altered for public use without prior compensation and uh uh Zach had mentioned that there's no monetary compensations available I'm kind of curious what uh what sort of offers were made on that should that event rise uh but again we just wanted to put a name and pH thank you yeah Keith Grover 113th in F Brook I I just have one thing that of all the times I've spoken in front of you guys about the traffic in the area there I think you understand our issue um one of the things that keeps getting brought up to me by one of our neighbors at the farm Floyd Nelson he's like 86 years old he says Keith did you mention that the road at at Fernbrook Lane Rush Creek Parkway or M Creek Road whatever you want to call it there's no street light on that intersection all we have is those one of those goofy little Trail lights that's on the the walkway that comes from the new addition Dennis is favorite lights um but that's all there is and if you're not familiar with that intersection you come up there at night that intersection does not lit up at all in the winter time it's absolutely horrible because you can't figure you I've lived there my whole life practically right you can't figure out where the heck the intersection is the barkings on the road what few there are on 121 they all get covered up with snow and there's nothing to illuminate that intersection so if if we could put something on the works that would help illuminate that intersection would make it a little bit better we all know the traffic on that is not going to get better it's just going to get worse so that's I I keep forgetting to bring that up I promised them I would this week so thank you thank sir anybody else anybody online so if you wanted to speak in the open form if you can use the raise your hand function I'm not seeing any okay we will move on to staff consultant and Council updates that yes good evening mayor members of council um two updates for you tonight I received a request from Carol L on Monday to discuss the council's projections on their 2050 plan along with the advantages and challenges of that growth that we have had and are anticipated to have in terms of population if you have any items that you'd like me to discuss with k 11 please let me know before um it sounds like it's going to be next week on Tuesday is kind of what I kind of put on the calendar for them to have a meeting and interview with me so and then we have also received an update just today from Green espel who's uh about our housing first case said that the hearing was today um then there was um arguments heard on both sides along with the information and the briefs that were given the judge will reach a decision on the last kind of item on that um case left uh before June 23rd and as soon as I hear I will provide an update to the council so thank you very much Amy uh last week I attended the mcfa conference um from Wednesday to Friday and so I was able to catch up on some um classes and get good advice from neighboring communities and have connections there so that was a good experience M uh I have a couple of things uh well for Rehab um has been drilled out to remove the excess grout from in there um test pumping is underway uh the well is showing good water quality at the moment um they're going to be doing another 24-hour pump in to S you to get it to the clear that we need it to be at so it's looking good currently that the sand has been prevented from coming back um well head treatment plant the pressure tanks were place this last week um Masons are going to be on site um first week of April they're going to be moving uh some stockpile stuff onto the site uh this week so that's moving on um DNR boat landing I don't know if you're aware but there's a heave in the actual boat uh launch ramp where the ice is pushed on it and it's made to the planks heave up DNR aware of it they're going to have that um resolved um in time for fishing opener and street sweeping is scheduled for the uh week of April ail 7th Chief good evening mayor members of council um thanks to the efforts of firefighter Payton barell the office of emergency medical services um has licensed the department for emergency medical responder initial classes as well as Refreshers and the EMT Refreshers so that will help with Department scheduling for Refreshers of EMT and EMR as well as some Department savings evening mayor members of the Council just let you know I'll be out the next two Council meetings and but we'll have somebody in my place um during the meetings no updates just to let Council know we did get the official notice that the mot state aid Scholars were in fact allocated to the city and ready for use we were told we could be confident initially but now we got the official okay so that came through extra confident extra confident no any uh good evening members of the council um One update on the um office of cannabis management has been issuing some news releases and such there are a little a couple of sort of um administrative things that cities will need to do that I'll talk to staff about um but just sort of for everyone's information um as to timing they are doing all of their um all the rules uh that they have to have in place before um before the office of cannabis management can start issuing issuing licenses for retail businesses um they are in the hands of the administrative law judge and they hope to have everything up and running the words were in the coming weeks but that was a little vague but maybe by the they're hoping by the end of the first quarter of 202 okay so I got nothing I got nothing nothing for me oh those letters we talked about um to Residents MH so so it sounds like it's too late to hit this it no I so the meeting got canceled from today yep so I don't know if it that means it got rescheduled I don't know if that means that it's totally canceled whatsoever so they have another meeting on Thursday that was just to get it out of committee right and that's just got to get it out of committee oh so it's still technically in committee um but that committee meeting was canceled so I don't know when it comes back it has not been rescheduled yet but really the the so I not I'm not aware of well um it has to pass through committee before it gets the full so hearing I I I still think we should get a letter out to the population yep um it's going to cost give a take five grand four the idea would be hope we could put something on the website or something even would be appable to I'm thinking every you want to physically send a letter out I'm okay with that do you agree it's about five grand it's probably five grand that's what we spent for the newsletter I think probably well that's just for postage and yeah printing it too so yeah probably about five grand sounds right I don't know I I it's I think it's worth it personally yes yes so then it's a matter of what we want to send them yeah so the idea would be to send them just kind of a blank you know here's a kind of a blank sheet with your address on it and then it would you know let us know what it is some sort of small blurb on that and then have a actual sheet behind it you can fill out with the contact yes so the contact info or whatever so they can otherwise you're going to no ab and say hey this is what it is then you're not going to give them a copy of the letter you got to give them a copy of the letter to yeah whatever you want to sign or or what y okay is this something that we need to see again or if you guys are good with me putting together I guess said it's going to be a template document and it's going to be sent to all the residents and I'm just going to try to get it off by the end of the week yeah I think it just needs some kind of forward explaining why y'll be what this is about and why we feel it's important right okay I got nothing else nothing okay we will move on to um item e do you like to do anything with this yeah mayor members of council you don't have to do anything with this item um what we do we need to we needed to post that it was actually happening because we did send out a letter that said it was going to happen um s sending out that letter we've you know tried to play the the cautious game by sending out the notice and posting because posted for it we should have it well technically it's canceled because it's not going to happen so you can open and close it right away or you can just say it's canceled and we're moving on so either or it will work what am I supposed to be opening and closing it or can we vote to cancel it or should is there's no need to take any action there's no need to vote to cancel it it's simply canel can good okay item f who's got this one all right good evening Mr Mayor members of the council tonight you're asked to review and uh provide comments and feedbacks to the applicants on an industrial uh concept plan uh near the corner of Dayton Parkway and 117th Avenue North uh the overall site here is uh outlined in white on the comp plan map and red in the zoning map uh it's three roughly 32 and a/4 Acres uh the first phase of development includes uh uh 15 Acre Site on the south portion uh that is proposed a 200,000 squ ft uh warehouseing distribution SPEC Building uh the current guidance of the property is a mix of land uses um between industrial Business Park and Commercial and the current zoning is uh i1 on the Westerly property related to the development of the cubes building to the west of Dayton Parkway and the remaining two Parcels are still currently guided or zoned A1 and this is in the current Musa staging area so as I mentioned before it would be a 200,000 square foot uh warehouse and distribution building that uh includes a portion of office space um there is uh proposed semi uh truck loading docks on the north side of the building here uh 17 dock doors on the elevation shown with 39 knockout panels uh for potential future doors not that those would be um utilized um but mainly based on need uh vehicle parking and office area is oriented in the corner and the parking is outlined here on the south portion of the property uh and then a roughly 38,000 squ ft uh outdoor storage space on the East the southeast end now here's site looking sou uh this is just kind of an overview of the setback requirements for the i1 district which is what this property would be zoned if it were uh approved in terms of uh future applications that the applicants would have to apply for um currently the layout meets all of the building setbacks as uh required for the i1 district uh here's also an overview of the parking set setbacks uh currently the proposed layout meets all of the the uh the setback requirements um in front of you there as well is there is a revised uh site plan or more of an updated site plan that kind of lays out what the uh amount of parking spaces could be provided on that South End of the property as roughly I believe it was 174 um parking spaces um a high level overview is that there that would be consistent or compliant with the parking standards in the i1 district uh really kind of comes down to the amount of proposed office space within the building and then here's just an overview of the site coverage all meting compliance with the i1 district in terms of impervious surface and building footprint as I mentioned about the parking some considerations is that the loading docks and potential uh trailer parking area is uh oriented on the north side of the property um and and uh regardless of what the concept shows uh without the applicants have mentioned that they are not intending to apply for Planned unit development so the expectation was that they'd be able to meet the i1 standards with parking um access and circulation the access is actually provided up of uh the what is the last leg of Dayton Parkway that uh roundabout that hasn't been constructed yet um be one access uh the applicant will have to provide an exhibit that demonstrates uh circulation internal traffic maneuvering through the site via standard uh submitt and then the outdoor storage area would have to be in compliance with uh the zoning ordinance um and screened in accordance with the landscape buffering uh requirements it was noted uh during the public comment at the Planning Commission meeting that uh there is some concern about outdoor storage next to adjacent um Parcels that are residential currently um and through the review of the zoning ordinance the limitation on outdoor storage is uh really set on not allowing it for properties that are adj it can't be adjacent to properties that are guided for residential um there is one property that is on the south portion of that outdoor storage area that is currently guided uh medium density um and that would be reviewed and considered through the conditional use permit process General Landscaping shall comply with the zoning ordinance section um around the storm water ponds parking lot islands and the outdoor storage area as well as a 35t landscape buffer um along Dayton Parkway as that is uh identified as a future collector Road um and that is a standard of the um zoning ordinance uh another topic that was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and a recommendation provided by staff as well was that consideration should be given to the building layout and if the building can be rotated uh so that the vehicle parking for the office and standard vehicle parking is on the north side of the building rather than the South while the truck loading area and the truck parking area is along the sou property line adjacent to the existing Industrial Park um and then uh would Pro existing at uh screening would also assist with that along the self property line the Planning Commission discussed this and they were all in uh um consensus that that consideration should be given to the orientation of the building the Planning Commission also discussed the Dayton Parkway alignment um this uh shown here also in your packet was a uh design that the applicants had provided showing a real potential realignment of Dayton Parkway and uh that essentially if a realignment of Dayton Parkway in this area were to happen it would not uh make this project feasible um um both the applicants and uh staff had recommended that the current alignment for Dayton Parkway remain the same and uh the Planning Commission concurred and said that uh it is essentially too late for anything in this area to change where it is existing uh here's just a snapshot of the uh expected applications that you would see if the applicants chose to move forward with this project after the concept review um including a flat resoning the comprehensive plan Amendment isn't only specific to the commercial area on the North End of the property a comp plan Amendment would not be required for the initial phase of construction as uh warehousing distribution is consistent in the industrial and Business Park comp plan land use designations in the comp plan and uh just to reiterate the role of the city council at this point is to review the concept plan discuss it and offer input in any desired changes or improvements all comments are advisory uh only and non-binding and no action should be taken at this time um and the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing and uh I kind of already went over what their summary was of the discussion more broadly though uh there was a conversation about the Planning Commission and the city council meeting together to focus on the area not only potentially this area currently but also those Parcels to the east along East French Lake Road um and looking into the land use designations on that area as the current land use map in the comp plan reflects a alignment of Dayton Parkway that was not followed um so I'd be staff would be uh interested to get your feedback on whether that would be something you'd want to move forward with uh at this point in time and with that I'll answer any questions I would say yes for me on the on the zoning piece of it that it aligns with the plan for the parkway um you know I know we continue to talk about the the parkway not being in the right place but it seems like U doing something with it is really expensive and we're going to have to find a way to make the best um yeah so we know also because the comp plan was built the the land use was built around the parkway going its original route we will be probably changing quite a bit of that um how are we going to get at it if if that all goes to to to Ian or if it all goes to something other than residential or are we getting access to that thing are you in terms of if it changes from what its current designation is from industrial let me go back to this oh if it isn't residential if it isn't residential um yeah that is a good question there is no proposed uh road with this uh um current layout of the the area on the south portion of this property um in your I think the site plan also that I had mentioned that's in front of you as well shows a conceptual layout of 13 13th being extended and connected to East French Lake Road um and I don't know if it was a consensus at the Planning Commission level but uh there was certainly a lot of discussion on that at this point if the road doesn't get extended with a project like this um they would support medium density or some sort of residential along that East French Lake to kind of eliminate that concern of getting from East French Lake when it's comes to a commercial or Industrial propert over to Dayton Parkway on 94 you're talking about the the west side of East French Lake correct yeah okay be these ones right here yeah Mr Mayor the Planning Commission did direct staff to study this further for this corner okay seems go ahead what you just said I think is is a valid concern that that area to the east of this project you know has the same U guide guidance for future zoning and how do you get to it we don't want to be putting industrial traffic onto I guess it's just French Lake Road there um but it doesn't doesn't seem like that would work and so you know is there a you know is there a way to some sort of overall site plan um I don't know what uh honestly what level of Interest those residents have in um you know in moving on or are they you know are they there you know this is this is their place and they're going to stay or have they you know sort of seen seen the writing on the wall and and have some interest in uh I do have one of the land owners that would like to speak that'd be great not up to me though that's the mayor's call um does anybody have more questions for staff I mean one of the questions I do think we need to explore explore this area more and a question I have is I mean do we really need that much industrial or does it make more sense to make it the east of this current property west of the road um I do we need this much and industrial um and I think I think that is the broader question that came up at Planning Commission I think it's the the broader question to have about this area and I think that goes to one of our goals was the large area um planning and this is I think this is where we need to start CU this this one should have been started well the ship has maybe sailed a little bit but like maybe we can I don't know at least tell it to avoid the iceberg that's dead ahead and Veer left Veer left I don't know but yep I feel like it's worth having that conversation as soon as possible well we will cuz the guidance is all messed up yeah um cuz the road's not there everything's got to change but we got to do that so how quickly can we do that is my question I agree and I think this sooner the better because this is all in current yeah and so we're you know we can either do it or we can have it handed to us Y and certainly with throughout this uh like John advented that the Planning Commission directed us to kind of begin the study of what could be changed I mean obviously with whether it's a workshop with the city council and the Planning Commission together to look at this at a broad scale um that would also include um stakeholder engagement for the property owners get an understanding of what their understanding is of the area what potentially their um interests are and seeing if if they in terms of a future sale or something like that what they would be interested in and that would certainly um come into fact when doing the study so um we'd certainly engage with them okay and you guys are looking at from the standpoint of you know whatever the guidance is kind of is that kind of what you're doing in terms of right now well it it the plan commission asked you to look at this I I'm guessing if we just made the whole shoot and match residential this wouldn't access wouldn't necessarily be an issue that was kind of the tener of the conversation at the Planning Commission meeting and I mean that makes sense too you you're not going to want business traffic going up and down um so is the the intention if it goes to Ian or if it goes to some nonresidential it be more of whether uh from my understanding from the Planning Commission meeting is that whether it is appropriate for it to stay as is or if it should be changed to a residential I don't know if it would change to something anything other than what it currently is uh Beyond residential okay I I thought they had also I maybe I misunderstood but I thought the intent also was to figure out how we would get a road to it yeah and I yeah go ahead John oh yes Is it feasible to how would it be feasible to extend 113th to East French Lake Road and then what what is the lane used north and south of that road and is this a deal where extending and this came up with planning too but extending this road off the roundabout underneath the to the South is just at this point uh to use and overuse phas slight L is the ship is sail we can't do much about that is that correct uh it'd be expensive that that's the six leg legged roundabout that we would build and then still have Dayton Parkway that's May hold on mayor I think what you're asking is could we we extend that roundabout there and extend the road directly east the original plan for that road was that it would run east yeah and at some point that was nixed I don't know if it's been officially nixed but I think that's just been the general idea from the um land owner and maybe even the developer I can't speak for either one of them but is that they would prefer not to have a road there on the sou side of their properties it doesn't mean that it's been nixed it's just that's been their desire if this is something that the council's interested in like this is the time to make that correct well and again assuming that the the zoning is significantly not residential in those lots and those four Lots we got to find a way to get there and I don't I don't know that 113th is the answer and maybe it is but like I said the original route was that off that roundabout it would come down and go D East and then the connection to 113 in the Middle Air would be kind of teed off of that sure yeah at this point that is still possible um based on this being a concept plan this is when the time for the counil to provide the input back to the developer or the land owner of what you'd like to see and if that is you'd like to see a Road Extension from the round about directly east along the South Boundary of that property then it needs to be known by by the developer and the land owner well I guess I'm asking you guys is that something we want cuz I don't know how we're going to get the properties unless you we know that the 113th connection is going to be fine we believe it it will it can be expended across the white lands okay um okay yeah I think the answer to your question is it can go either way may or and I know you may not like to hear that answer but you go either way 113th is possible to be extended um is it super cheap probably not close through a wetland but you also it's not going to be super cheap to go across the south side of that property either um from the current application you have in front of you so um I don't know if it's the right answer I don't know if there is a right answer but that's possible both ways okay um but I think you're the question that you're asking is um is it able to get access to the west from those four properties around the corner there of East fren the answer is yes it can it just may not come directly from um this site to me if you okay I personally don't have a problem with the industrial piece of this now if you want to cut it off at some point the property's on the east side you could bring if if you went residential there you know whether it was a Apartments kind whatever I mean you can bring that in off the east french like grow that yeah that you can and then not even extend the 113 I mean to me you you'd cut off your get your industrial away from the residential PL that way you're not going to have any trucks otherwise if you extend that across to 1003 you're going to have trucks going on the residential area I mean you're not going to stop it yep that was really the tener of the conversation at the Planning Commission meeting too so um really if the road doesn't get extended uh where on the south end of this property where it was originally discussed um then it would seem from the planning commission's perspective Maybe a look into residential on that west side of East French Lake uh was more appropriate yeah and I suspect when we look at it we will conclude that based on where we're at today that that will have to be all medium high density residential does the council have a desire for more industrial east of this property I don't know we haven't looked at it I I personally don't have a problem with it with with which with more with the industrial side of it that's what this area is I don't either it's just that we don't we just we have we know we got to replan this area yep and we don't know what the answer is going to be because we haven't looked at it yet I just wanted to make sure that we didn't shut off a possibility of it being non-residential but I mean if we're we're stuck we're stuck but there's also that pocket of residential and we're going to have to have right now they're buffered with Farmland between the residential and the industrial but that Farmland is going to go somewhere and so that's where the high density residential comes into play right is the buffer and so I do think I would be fine with having that that but then at a certain point you have to say okay here's where here's where it stops and we have to do this switch over but we already have residential coming in darn close like low density residential um so we don't have a whole lot of wiggle room before we have to put that line on like and this is it um so I I think I would like to have I personally would like to have a conversation with Planning Commission a session as soon as possible to talk about um this little chunk and the big to to me the big two questions are are we continuing 113th or not and then if we are which which option and if the question is now we're just not going to continue 113th well then we're done with that conversation yeah if we are then we have to pick which one and then that also goes to the okay so do we change that little swath to be the high density residential or medium density residential because we already have low density pushing up mighty close as it is um and they clearly based on how they have the roads they're anticipating this being low density I mean they have the roads right there ready to go in and that's that property so I don't really see it making sense for this to be industrial just based on where that's located but I think this needs to be a conversation as soon as possible y okay noted anybody else have any questions for sta on the concept plan um refresh me if you could on how we're getting um utilities sewer and water to this site and is that part of the project uh separate project the water is readily available under Dayton Parkway with multiple stubs um provided for it so the water is an easy one that's off a large diameter line under the park quick this sewer currently exists at the southeast corner of the I'll call it the the business park that exists along 113 today uh that sewer will need to be extended North to this property and then ultimately extended uh to and north of 117th as part of this project so likely a separate City contracted project to get the sewer up to this development um financing for that still to be determined um and then with the development it would be extended through the site and then credits would be offered for the upsizing of that that trunk line for the work through the site for the work through the site correct and these were coming up through those two properties on the on the very south of that uh 113 that utilities are coming up kind of through we we need to explore that um there was a feasibility study proposed to look at those options that was not um authorized so we we don't know as of today okay so we need to figure out if it needs to go west in the North or straight North is the two options we're thinking of so given that stuff what what is the timeline on this project may we can I think that would be a question best answer do we have any more questions for sta I have not can uh we at the developers come up thank you just name and name and address good evening mayor and Council I'm Mark Anderson civil engineer with sitech and we're working with opin here on the industrial project uh mayor members of the council my name is Jore with opet Investment company uh 400 Water Street excels here Minnesota um what is your timeline well the ultimate goal was to get um hopefully some support tonight out of this body and Planning Commission uh we've been working with staff for the past several months on getting to the point where we are and those materials that you have in front of you to view and uh after tonight the goal would be to engage further and and do the full design and come through the process that Hayden laid out and go through uh site plan application cup the other applications zoning uh through the summer months and potentially start in the fall of this year if we're supported and we would run utilities up when for the for the sewer um the sooner we can look at it the better um we're in process of putting together a proposal for that project to start the surveying and the um preliminary analysis for the alignment um if we were to go to the east we'd be substantially going through Wetland along the east side if we were to go straight North rather um that being said it might be advantageous to construct this during winter time um under Frozen conditions U just to allow restricted trench an easier path through there so maybe a uh December construction might be targeted which I think is probably realistic depending on the financing methods that are selected assessment slow things down so if there are to be special assessments considered there might be a longer timeline associated with that otherwise West and North would be when um similar timeline um I think we could be ready that one certainly less critical maybe even detrimental to con to consider that one during Frozen conditions but maybe we could do it early enough to beat those conditions or we do it right away in the following spring why would the East path be beneficial um less pipe um oh okay yeah so straighter shot um less properties involved we would just have two there are some existing easements in there so the easements would be a little more limited on what we would need but there was I thought the cost concern was there that it's a it is a bunch of wetland there's a there's wet land and and to be honest uh our early review of it we suspected pretty substantial impacts to the business operating on that property but we have spoke with them um and it seems that it would be less detrimental than we anticipated they seemed agreeable to the to the Improvement so it could be accommodated okay more questions um so the the feedback from Planning Commission was to rotate well there was lots of feedback obviously but one of them was to rotate and from the staff to rotate at 180 so that um basically your the pretty part is by the Wetland and the commercial and the truck parking is you know facted up to other truck parking um are you guys I didn't hear from I didn't hear your response are you okay with that or not I don't know if it was head shaking I was watching online so I could not see any nonverbals all right well thanks uh for raising the question it certainly is one of the topics that we want to get a little bit more feedback on tonight so I I believe u John or Hayden does council have the updated exhibits that we send yes okay great so what we wanted to point out here is just a couple of things so with respect to the building orientation um our preference is to build the building in the truck Court as shown with truck hord on the North side and that's really driven by a couple of factors and the first and probably the most important is the terrain of the site is is relatively flat and it's sloping toward the large Central pond so it it definitely works best to have the storm sewer on the North side and the low side the truck Court which is 4T below the finished floor of the building on the North side where it's lowest by the pond uh we did look at extending and flipping that building and what it requires is a storm sewer that goes all the way around the building probably from each Direction it's about 00 ft of pipe uh to go around the building uh the pipe itself is not so much a concern but the slope on the pipe raises the building up uh about 3 feet from what it would be with the truck court on the North and so uh the site is already short of material and so this would be another 3 ft that we'd have to actually raise this building so what we'd like to do is comply with code uh provide the landscape uh buffer along Dayton Parkway with birming and also provide screening on the site itself and so um mohagen Hansen prepared some renderings of what that would look like from datton Parkway both initially with smaller trees and then over time uh larger trees as as well so it it definitely breaks up uh the sight lines um and and meets code from a screening perspective so um that's really uh what we determined with our review of the site grades and the screening opportunities for this site so again our preference is um to keep the orientation the way it is um I think as noted previously the i1 code we could meet all the code requirements with that orientation and that's really how we we need to move forward on this site that answers the question of why these two packets were different so it's now or very soon after build versus how long do you think was the prediction for how long it would take those trees to yeah I think the first image with the smaller trees you know is 10 years or less it's and then essentially 10 years or more okay um is a projection in in those images and you know in the first five to maybe even as much as 10 years the truck cord is visible but it's definitely broke up because you essentially have two re rows of screening one at Dayton Parkway and another one at the truck Court um so it's certainly going to limit the sight lines to the truck court itself any other questions um no I was going to ask about the building orientation too and I don't I don't have a strong feeling about you know the Aesthetics of it being one way or the other you're going to see trucks yeah and as the I know this isn't part of the the current project but building out on on the rest of the property I think also obscures that side of the building right um from uh French Lake Road West French Lake Road uh so that that's not a big concern of mine I and I think your reasons for wanting to have it the way you have it are valid thank you any other questions comments I guess maybe one other comment that we' like to make if we could mayor that person's still online Okay um just pointing to the exhibit again we we updated this one um in the packet of information and so it does show an alignment for 113th which would be an extension of the existing roadway and the alignment is such that it does project Northeast and for the most part we should be able to go around that uh Wetland that exists there um and and again this is just a potential future Road alignment but if there is traffic that needs to get from East French Lake Road to the roundabout this is a potential route and as we understand it um City staff is already working on the alignment um and RightWay acquisition headed south of the roundabout so we believe it's a viable route regardless of whether it's Industrial Development over here or residential okay any more all right I think we are good do you want to hear from that oh yes yeah go ahead and let him um so I'm not even going to try to pronounce the name but if the land owner that's M my name is Madu col uh I'm the land owner uh I just would like to say uh we based on the current plan we provided some land for access on day1 Parkway and I support the opan concept plan uh a is basically okay thank you thank you mhm is anybody else want to speak to this all right I I think we're we're we're done with questions for you guys thank you thank you J J do you have anything more you want well I I guess yeah I do have just one more question I mean the the the goal I think for all of us here is to to see if there's enough support for us to take the next next step which you know involves investing uh a lot of design dollars in a a very you know simple manner that's what we're trying to do and we're trying to get some guidance here so Planning Commission you know there was a lot of questions and I didn't come out of that thinking yeah there's there's some answers here there's a clear Direction I think with this new exhibit and Jason feel free to chime in you know I think the the parcel to the South or the roadway connection of the South is in process with City staff and that the road going to the east with 113th probably alleviates any concern in the future if there's going to be a connection over there so we were just trying to get you know Direction and I don't know if that comes tonight or in a future timeline but um you know we're sitting here on the clock's ticking you are we going to we're going to go forward or not we got medu on the phone saying you know you're going to make this happen or not so um we're just looking for for some sort of Direction and that would be great if we could get yeah typically with these we'll if we have problems area problem areas objections we'll let staff know okay um I didn't hear a lot I don't have a problem with this so I think as far as Council goes here if I could I can just chime in on 13th a little bit go um so my takeaway from the Planning Commission was more or less yes let's look to the east of this property and what that should be if it's to be residential we don't necessarily need a Road Extension East because we don't want to intermingle those uses if you will however if it was to be industrial how do they get back to Dayton Parkway is the question without sending them out to East French Lake Road or 117th um that's where the 113th extension comes in yeah so if that's extended to the East and access points to the north that's where that additional industrial could funnel down and to the west to back to the roundabout on Dayton Parkway and ultimately presumably out to I94 without entering any of the residential areas there probably would not be any condition connections of that to the South and then south of that roadway would kind of be the delineation that the road of the North and the wetlands to the West that would be the buffer if you will between the residential and the industrial okay thank you than you go ahead oh I'm sorry uh is there a consensus from the council to support the layout of the building as the developer is proposing versus requiring it to flip to flip it I don't see the reason to flip it personally May mayor members of council I'm going to I'll voice my opinion here because I think it's pretty important that we do flip the building and the reason for that is because of the commercial area across across the Wetland if I'm a commercial District area and I want to be a commercial area Commercial Business in this city I want I don't want to look at truck parking I want to look at a nice building and if I'm going to put a commercial business across the Wetland and maybe make we maybe we can make a trailer around that Wetland to really make it a nice area for commercial businesses to go there and take a walk around you don't want to look at truck parking or have anything to do with truck parking typically you want to look at another business um I know that it costs a little more money for the developer in my position here I think it's important that we look at the city overall and not just what the developer can make and what the landowner can make it's important for those things too but it's also important what the city looks like in 50 years from now when this building still standing here not not um so I think it's really important that we look at what that layout looks like cuz just putting truck parking wherever isn't going to isn't the answer for this one specifically um we did that with Opus and I think we may or may not think that that could be a good idea could not be a good idea but now now has truck parking that backs up to our main road that every time you drive down that roadway what do you see you see truck parking you don't see any cars you don't see any business you see truck parking and that's extremely critical whether there's landscaping or not landscape can come down trees can fall over and now it's back to the same spot where we're looking at a building with 75 truck stalls on the back side of it and a commercial District across the way when we want to have a you know we want to have some restaurants in town or we want to have a um you know some sort of business in town that's commercial I think it is important that we look at that more than just yep sounds good because the developer wants it but that's my opinion well my can you guys come back up sure I thought well so to to rotate this it's not a matter of rotating it right it's a matter of there's some fill there's needed rebuilding yeah it's it's a very large cost and likely the project won't be feasible if we flip it that's that's where it's at do we have a picture of the Cub building parking lot there's parking lot all the way around that building yeah so I don't see um no there's truck parking going on the north side on the um side that faces dayon Parkway is just um residential or what do you want to call it a worker parking parking so what you're saying is you have truck parking on the north side of the cubes building but truck parking on the north side of this building is not okay no the truck parking on the north side of the cubes building is hidden by a 30 foot Hill there's birming there's a birming on the side of the we would also do on our side long Parkway I mean I think what I'm hearing is it's not so much it's not so much if it was just this building and and the north just stayed agricultural land we didn't it wouldn't matter it's if that North Area is going to be commercial and I think then to me the bigger question is um and I think this is and I don't know where the appropriate conversation for this is but commercial can mean so many different things um and so are we talking commercial like restaurants coffee shops um you know like places with a lot of like your regular resident like a neighborhood commercial or we talking commercial kind of almost more business Parky right so because depending on which way you go yes if I was a coffee shop I am not going to want to open my cute coffee shop where I want outdoor seating where the big view is a bunch of semis like that's not going to do it but if I am you know uh a tax account you know if I'm an accountant and I just have people coming in for tax prep like like that's like what I want to see is going to be very different and so and and really ultimately how this building gets laid out is probably going to dictate what kind of commercial that becomes um and so I do I I I appreciate that and to me that's part of that bigger zoom out of this area so that commercial I think we have to decide what kind of like I think we need to be able to like to put we need to have more categories than just commercial we just have such our categories are so Broad and it can mean so many things and I'm totally okay with it if we mean one thing and I'm not okay if if we mean a different kind of commercial um and that to me is that larger zoom out conversation about this area and about like are we having apartment buildings because if we're having apartment buildings then things like coffee shops make more sense right like restaurants coffee shops make more sense next to apartment buildings and then no they don't want to look at trucks but and that's going to be more industrial and most commercial are more just not and again I don't have the vocabulary for it which is why I'm kind of struggling but um if it's not like you're everyday kind of just coming in to to enjoy yourself kind of commercial or then it doesn't matter so much but like that's why we have to zoom out and make this conversation because that would totally change my answer to this whether or not it has to flip or not yeah again gets back to this this area is unplanned essentially yes and if we don't do anything it's going to plan itself without our say yep um and that's where we're at right now yeah so that's so that's why I have a hard time like we need to figure this out so we need to sit down and like today so you guys can make your plans because we need to have an answer so you can have an answer they need an answer yeah yeah they need an answer uh to me the to me the the more the Exquisite commercial you're talking yeah is more of a mile less than a mile away from here is the so-called City Center in 2080 well did we killed that well that sort of died so that might happen though I mean we just don't know um I don't see the I don't see the need for it are you going to say something oh I thought no I I guess I wait in I I don't have that big a problem with the building as it's as it's planned um because of the neighborhood that it's in uh you know the cubes is trucks next to that is trucks next to that is trucks um we've kind of established what's going to be in that part of this this area this Industrial Area um I think it I think those are valid points about what kind of commercial goes in those other spots is it more you know resident oriented or is it more serving the the population of people that are in business around it and I don't think we know those answers yeah I can see I can see a fire station in the corner the the North West Corner that to me that's the ideal spot for it but yeah I'll just add you know our firm also worked with M the land owner and we prepared the eaw and so at that time and of course it could change but they were more interested in gas station fast food and so on um I would also point out this this Pond is it's kind of deceiving it's like 500 feet across there it's almost a small Lake it's a long ways away and and quite a separation of between whatever the commercial becomes and and what the industrial use is so I think there is an opportunity uh for trail around the pond and and some walkability as well as screening and and you know it remains to be seen what type of commercial that is but because it's a long Parkway um is likely going to uh track businesses that want the trips and the visibility of what's going to be a busy road and so it it may not be high amen High amenity it might be more service oriented like we say here the gas station or fast food or something that relies on those trips and we we tried to include some renderings here in your packet just to kind of what that would be with the BM and I think the truck at least the loading docks are for sure going to be screen and what you'll see is maybe the windows and the the building up high in the future so think it is that um Landscaping along the north side of where the the truck docks would be is that a a burm or is that more or less just vegetation yeah it will be a slope up in the Basin uh to the truck Court elevation so it's it's it's elevated um along the truck court and also burned along Dayton Parkway um the other vegetation and trees will be on Pond BMS and so on so there there's actually a lot of U opportunities for that screening uh and in a number of ways on this site so anybody want to talk about about the building orientation are we still good okay um take from that that we're still good with it thank you thank you um yeah mar Just a note on Sarah's point about the orientation of the building and the broader conversation with the Planning Commission that area to the north of these properties can certainly be a part of that conversation on whether that remains commercial based on the alignment or not so just know so I'm looking at the plans and I know they said the commercial part was going to be delayed but they didn't say for how long and guess what there's a gas station and it's right next to a holding Pond and right across the street there's not there's a comment about a gas station it's it's not a gas station it's on the plan and it even says the has the canopy there but anyways it's right next to a holding Pond and right across the street guess what houses with Wells it's the same situation that we're facing now so that makes four gas stations proposed already we already have four how many gas stations does this city need and I know that liners on those ponds don't work I know that for a fact those ponds are going to leak and the gas the it washes out with every rain and every snow goes right into that pond and then right into people's Wells it's going to happen so you guys got to think about how many gas stations does this city really need thank you okay all right looks like we can M item cheese very thank you [Applause] thank you uh so this is the final plat for the parkway neighborhood and I'm just going to refer to this as the first edition there there will be at least three that are planned um this project that the council has looked at for I'll say the better part of two years uh the first edition is specific to the final plant for the 180 unit apartment building um in November 2024 the council did approve the prelimary plan as along with the comprehensive plan Amendment the resoning um in eaw and the site plan for the Department building so tonight it's not so much about the building or the layout it's more about the final PL itself at the development agreement um so I don't have a whole lot of detail details on the plat this other than this is what it looks like and in all of its black and whiteness um are there questions specific about the plat otherwise I'm assuming that there's going to be some questions about the development agreement I don't no I don't okay okay all Z you want yep I can hand this one y so the um the development agreement for the parkway neighborhood includes 180 unit apartment building project two which is not being discussed tonight but it will be in the future is a 273 unit apartment in town homes when the developer secures and to build 150 units as part of either project one or project two within the um d8 is noted that the city will build the highlighted road which is the road from Dayton Parkway down to the edge of the robberg parcel or the parcel that the developer is developing on um for a cost of roughly $3 million that isn't a guesstimate we have no idea if that's right wrong or different we've done some very very preliminary engineering on it but that is it is that including the stop light that does not include the stop light so the stop light would be additional to that 3 million um and the developer pays the full development loc escr fees and charges for project one so they are going to assist us with completing that project by putting some money toward the project overall with those fees and charges that we are using for development you have you know is there any slides or are we Jason are we pretty confident of that 3 million number um we went through to check it at a high level and we did kind of a distribution of what the developer had for cost across the entire project so um I would not say we have high confidence in it it does seem like a reasonable estimate though okay is the um the Shany group property listed in this development agreement because of the piece that oh yes that corner that is correct it is listed in there only because it's um clipped by the public roadway otherwise it would not be listed um it has not no part of this development agreement besides being listed I think it's in page one I believe um just because it's noted that the roadway does go through their parcel and they knew that was coming right yes they arew whoever buil B does this I know this isn't a significant piece of it but does the sheny group own that property do y so we've had preliminary conversations with them of if we built the road would you give us the right of way that's been the essential agreement for them is that they would give us the right of way if we were able to build the road okay and they have the ability to say that yes it is their property after everything was said and done we we it still looks um not much different than the original not no tax yeah no yeah so there's no tax batement with this project it was originally talked about to have a tax payment which is what you heard the hearing on earlier that was canceled um there was no longer a need for tax payment with us constructing the roadway um to the radb parcel so that is why the kind of the flip flop there um this does get a total cash flow for the city and a more positive light quicker um which is why it was proposed by City staff to go this direction um with some help from city council obviously as I was going through the process so I appreciate the feedback and funding for that 3 million was is um yeah so ish yeah yeah it'll be ish 3 million we'll use the word is um that'll be used as a bond so you see the bond forward the reason why the bond is being used is because then we can utilize it for tax abatement essentially what that means is that we'll just capture the taxes within this area that's south of the roadway to pay for that road so whether that's from the Shany group from this project um in front of you or a different project that comes on the south side of the of the parcel in this area would pay for that roadway okay and uh ERS is cool everything ERS has run the numbers on as much as we possibly can 150 units um I think is our kind of our minimum percentage wise of um how much the bond would be able to be funded for and how much we could fund um if it if it is more than that obviously then we are cash flow positive on the process we are technically Clash flow negative if it's only 150 units um we felt that it was important that we had some sort of number in there for the developer um we worked back and forth with the developer I think he'd argue back and forth that maybe I didn't use a high enough or I didn't a low enough number but I said 150 seems like a good number for us it covers roughly 80% if you build it's exactly 150 it's 80% of the bond payment every year for taxes so the difference is like $20,000 we know we're going to get if there's anything else on the south side of Park doesn't matter if it's this project or in the Shany group or anywhere else um it would be put towards this project and is there they know are not approving anything for project two tonight but is is there any commitment on timing as to when that one would would go you will see that in April okay no no full commitment but is going to Planning Commission in April April yep any other questions for staff okay I need a motion in a second I'll make a motion to approve it second second any more discussion all those in favor say I I all those oppos say no I'm glad nobody's mentioned any gas station anymore 5 to zero IEM h oh yeah yep just went so fast seriously it's a a pleasure a pleasure look at these nails clean a whistle we don't have to [Laughter] wonder look at my to I do have a daughter thank you braid the hair ponytails Clips yep all stuff if that is what stands between you and your masculin then you have some other issues y all right go ahead all right thank you Mr Mayor members of the council from previous conversations with the Planning Commission and city council there was expressed interest to expand the public hearing notification requirements for uh the mailing procedure uh when the Planning Commission has public hearings for development uh so essentially that is what is uh the ordinance amendment is in front of you today uh would uh be a change to expand the area from the 500 ft uh as defined in the ordinance currently to 1320 ft or a/4 mile um with that I'll answer any questions so I have I have a couple of things bouncing in my head one um when I was at the league of Minnesota City's training um was talking to people about this kind of issue they were talking about putting signs up on properties in question just to help notify people who are cuz there's no matter where we stop it there's going to be that person's like how come my neighbor got it and I didn't so I think are we in progress on doing something like that as well we do do that yeah May mayor members counil we have those already secured and ready to go so um we just didn't do it for a while with Public Works um I've talked with Marty and he's able to bring those out when we have conversations so planning and Public Works work together to get those out awesome um and then my second question is the issue is ultimately around development right when we have these large swast of land um and that was one of the things we brought up is like the the the state statute about the size limit is really thinking about like when you're in a subdivision and someone wants to put in an ex no an accessory structure and do we really need to notify out a quarter mile and I would say no you do not but when you're developing over 100 acres then then it makes more sense um and I believe and again I um I believe there was a question like we can't distinguish but could we not do something as a percentage of the land involved so like we will send like I know it would involve a little bit of math every time but um like so the the footage out would be a percent of the acreage involved so if you have a quarter acre little lot your little house in your subdivision and you're going to Planning Commission to get you know an approval to build an extra shed then x% of that is just really your immediate neighbors that's how that this impacts but if you're doing a 100 acres right x% of that is much bigger because it is bigger and it's going to affect a lot more people um I if this is doable for the city I'm fine with it but I just I want to recognize that it is ridiculous for some projects right like this is absolutely asinine to send it a quarter mile out for some of the things that come through Planning Commission it is not when you're talking about developing 100 acres absolutely I'm F I'm fine with that or can we or can or is it possible to separate out development specifically gets this and like some of the other things that come that necessarily get notifications don't necessarily need to have this quarter mile radius yeah I think that that conversation was had a little bit at the Planning Commission meeting but it was more specific to can we pick and choose between what types of variances and conditional use permits get uh the expanded area yeah but conditional use permits and variances cover a lot of different topics but um I can't give you a confident answer tonight um but I can certainly look into whether this can be limited to preliminary plat applications or or something along the lines of that cuz that's really going to cover um the these large developments um I don't know if that's possible off the top of my head but I can certainly look into that if that would be something if you'd want to bring back the scale of this a little bit this item can certainly be tabled and brought back to you um after I take a look at it further well like I said for development I absolutely like this size right like this is appropriate when you were developing 100 acres it's just I'm thinking about some other things that come to Planning Commission that we really don't need to notify an an entire like quarter mile away that someone you know wants to put up a c for an accessory something or like I want to have four chickens instead of three chickens do we really need to tell everyone a quarter mile from you that you want to have four chickens instead of three chickens like good council member van and I think staff would concur with that sentiment yeah so if there is a way whether it is you know platting like if they're specific or like I said a percentage of the property involved that would immediately like smaller properties would be smaller 100 acres or like you're just going to get makers that that was a way cuz I did hear I did hear that conversation that you weren't sure if you could distinguish and I thought maybe if we tied it to the size of the acreage that's a way we could in some way because you know you're not developing a quarter acre so that's just doesn't require that level of communication so just to add a little bit of context it's difficult for us and probably not fair for us to predict what people care about so we have true you know the parkway neighborhood which now I don't remember how many acres it was under 100 acres um no one showed up at the last public hearing we have um the most popular public hearing or highly intended public hearing we had was for a single family lot in the last year that's true that's true yeah which we couldn't didn't predict no so then building or the extended business dogs or the dogs the dogs that was that was a packed room yeah um so that's valid to the Sarah's point though we the language in here is is a little bit inconsistent to my eyes on who's what we require for which kind of permit so I think that should be looked at again to be a little more consistent you know in the uh in the one section it talks about a a certified list and set of mailing labels and names and addresses all Property Owners within this distance in the in the preliminary concept it's names and addresses on mailing labels and then uh what was I think I know what you're getting at with I think uh the section of the administrative subdivision is still limited to that 500 ft as those uh lot splits that are consistent with the zoning ordinance don't require a public hearing and can be reviewed and approved administratively so um I think that was why that I I had uh left that one as is okay I it just seems to me that we're a little and and maybe there's good reason for that right but when I read them they're it's a different set of requirements somewhat from for each kind of uh application and you know I think that there is a a place for what Sarah is saying is you know how do we how do we sort of remove the the minor changes and I guess to John's point you know how do we know what people are going to get revved up about um on and some of these are unexpected what and just because of our lack of vision or whatever we don't know what the local um concern is going to be until we hear it I I feel like we've been under notifying people for a long time and so I very much in favor of this 1320 square foot or foot radius around the project uh and how do we make it not painful for somebody that wants to you know do an accessory building that hardly anybody cares about um I don't know how you decide that yeah I don't know either mayor m c one thing I did want to mention if we did track the cost difference between the 500t and the 1,320 um I think it was fourfold more expensive to do the 1320 then it was 500 because of the bigger Circle you touch way more properties now that doesn't mean much when you're looking at fourfold but if it's $500 worth of postage for each one of these things to go out we're going to have a ton of money in Postage and that budget is going to go skyrocketing um to the cost so just want to make sure everyone's aware that there is costs involved with them some of them can be attributed back the development but not all of them can be so so do we know we average for public hearings any here I would guess it's like 20ish I would guess I think I guess you're probably pretty close so three say three a month three a month yeah yes that makes sense yeah okay so question 36 a year then so looking at the ordinance it seems like for me the ones where we need more communication are for the puds right um plann unit developments um for condition uh conditional use permits is a question mark for me um so that that's that's to me the big question mark the big one um but puds absolutely um I would say the um zoning ordinance and map amendments that's kind of another question mark but I tend to lean to bigger on that one cuz it has more impact on more people um again someone wanting five chickens instead of three doesn't really have a giant impact but like changing the zoning that has a big impact on how I can sell my property um so if we can and then preliminary concept plan obviously so if it is possible since we already have those Broken Out In Their Own subsections to distinguish those like let's do that and then maybe maybe leave the cups alone because back to the dog one most of those people did not get a letter from us right I mean we had people coming from literally across the country that one lady came in from Denver um we did not mail a letter to Denver right so she found out about it in some other process so yes some things really get a lot of people up and and will have a lot of attendance but um and that's to my point also about having the signage in the yard like that's the that's where I think the other ways of communication come into play for like the cups but I do think the puds the developments zoning um and plats those I think need to be this bigger one but I think maybe if we can pull back and just not and do a slightly smaller for the cups um would you suggest leaving it as it is at uh 3 or 500 500 yeah because that's already higher than State Statute ofs and iups yeah that would be my if we can I think I think that seems like a reasonable compromise yeah it does I think it does yeah when you're saying PUD are you meaning iup no the planned unit development so when you're looking at this there's like the different subsections so subsection four is procedure for processing a planned unit development right that's a development of some sort that's like that's not going to be a small little quarter acre so that needs to be I want that to have the bigger Circle um that's what I meant by PUD yeah I'm just when you say that then I'm not getting the distinction between now if somebody comes in with an R3 development why is that less important I'll just note that if it is an R3 development um a lot of these applications come concurrently so if a rezoning application is uh concurrent with the subdivision application the strictor would apply for the zoning ordinance so they would be notified that larger scale because of the preliminary plat if that's essentially what you're getting at yeah and like I said we can certainly take a look at that and bring this back um and see if there's an opportunity to make distinction sure so to that point then PUD R3 whatever because they're all coming with a ponary platform that's where this would capture yeah they would get them there all right but I'm I'm also thinking because the dog KN was also the chicken KN right like we don't need to tell quarter miter radius that that the person with three chickens was asking for six chickens last year we you considered resoning a property on Elm Creek Road because of the it was A1 but it was a two acre property or less and R1 yeah and that wouldn't because it wasn't a preliminary plat it would have just fell under that 500 square foot and not have to but would that have been a zoning zoning ordinance one it would be the map Amendment so that would where the distinction would come in where if it's just a specific map Amendment maybe that can stay at 500 ft but if it's preliminary plat and resoning then that larger area would be notified that makes sense to me well and to the to the point about the city at a certain point there's going to be less and less large area you know what I mean like we're going to as time goes on we're going to get more to the I would like an accessory building I would like extra chickens like that's what it's going to be and it will bring the cost down right like we're only going to have so many big things that have the large ticket for the mailings and at a certain point we're just not going to have that many anymore so so it's not like this will be on a huge budget thing for the rest of time so cuz there's just not going to be you know as many once we get build out so are we they're going to re re rewrite it staff would entertain a motion table table well I'm going to push is there do you want to study this more or or do you I don't think we need to just a matter of how re yeah if you're I mean we can rewrite it you're not going to see it before signing it so what do you mean you're just say we could we could pass it on what you wanted change so I guess we can do that for my clarity uh the three yes the 350 ft would be for conditional use permits 500t 500 5 500t I'm sorry conditional use permits interm use permits resoning and I'm also no resoning would be a quarter mile um how about site plane reviews so this is for a commercial property you know I'm going you can use Quick Drip as an example that was a site plan view Quick Drip was a site plan that high I like that high that's quarter mile higher okay everything other than CS IEPs and zoning map Amendment no cups and iups would be 500 everything else is a quarter mile yeah basically we can just make that change yeah yep okay so with that Amendment and need motion a second I'll make the motion second okay any more discussion on that just as long as Mara gets to notice if there's a gas station uh okay all those in favor say I I all those opposed say no that motion carries 5 noed for the record called Sonic it's motored for the record okay on to item I thank you Mr Mayor so this is a comprehensive plan Amendment and a city code textt amendment to add the A3 District or A3 agricultural District um with the comprehensive plan Amendment what this is showing to try to simplify it uh on the image on the left is the existing 20 240 future land use plan what we're proposing to do is to take this shaded area and rename it or call it unsued low density residential interim use it's kind of a a long description um because this is a change on the map it does require well it's a change on the comprehensive plan map it does require a comprehensive plan Amendment uh which was once the council approves it would have to be reviewed by the Met Council and can you go over that again what what are you say is the is the reason this area currently is kind of a mix of uh low density residential uh rural estate as well as master planned uh Community right this whole area would be changed from whatever it is shown over here to unsued low density residential interum use so the intent here is that uh the city would allow uh unsed residential development at a density of four units per 40 acres um and then otherwise any development would have to comply with the city code and then that gets into the city code Amendment so why are we doing this yeah um it's a change well we talked about so what's the change sword so this is still guided as it is right as sewer development what we're changing it to is allowing an interm use as unsued okay we always have interm use anybody could split an 80 into 40 right yes but we don't have too many 80s that can be split so we're talking about splitting it into acre and a half you get that um why is it any different than what we do today other than the numbers um because it's unwed that's not how we talked about we talked about setting it up so that theoretically mhm draw it out so that I mean we told this individual to draw it out so that 100 years from now it might be sewered yes doesn't mean it'll ever happen but it might it might happen so we're still guiding it as sewer yes so why so what I'm getting at is we can do an 80 to a 40 today without a comp plan Amendment why would we want to do a comp plan Amendment if we were all to go to a 40 to a 20 or a 20 to a 10 so an 80 could be split into 40 without having to go through the subdivision process it can be an administrative slit um yes but like if you do 40 into four 10 you can't do that today why um because the minimum lot size is 4 ACR well we're okay but we're changing that changing that right I I don't know how else I can explain this so can I can I ask a question why aren't we just changing A1 so the minimum lot size is 10 acres um that was the direction of the council so I know but like if would that get a would that would that make you feel that you had to do all these things if we just said okay A1 minimum lot size 10 acres done it would make the city code Amendment much easier it would still require a complaint Amendment I I'm going to say it's for the same reasons of of I haven't heard a reason reason and and you know what this is this is starting to get old um there's a problem here I think you don't like where we want to go with this I don't disagree with where you want to go I'm I'm following the direction I have the interpretation I have from the Met Council that this does require a comprehensive plan Amendment okay and if they told you that it required you approval by them would you agree with that you wouldn't the complant amendment will why on Earth would we add a complim Amendment something we don't need to do this is when I'm not understanding what's going on here why are we doing this complt amendment instead of again all I got to look at is we can take an 80 to a 40 today or a 120 to 340s MH we don't have to change the comp plan we don't have to um do anything special why is it that suddenly if we go down to 10 or below that we we need to do this okay I I'm stretching my memory a little bit um so if my remember correctly so the Met council is supportive of 10 acre lots if we go less than 10 acre lots that's inconsistent with how the the Met council is is written for our designated Comm Community type of community but if we take a 10 acre lot and and guide it for sewer land mhm we don't need no change that's what we're getting at you say that again if we take a a 40 acre lot y make 4 T out of it but someday it might be 50 Lots we don't need to make any kind of a change sure but we're not going the direction 10 acre lots we're going the direction less than 10 acres and I and again I hate to beat this dead horse but for for five years I've been bringing this up tell me the statute or the rule or something that says we can't go below 10 and I've never gotten that when my Council was here they couldn't give us that we keep getting this 10 number thrown up so I did ask the Met Council so I think the for the reason it so it stems from a a 1988 plan which I'm going to guess nobody probably no one at the M counil very few people were working there in 1988 so I think part of it is just the lack of institutional memory it stems from a 1988 plan it's just been carried on since then of uh the 10 acre uh lot Rule and and if our compl here's here's where I'm going with this you do this you you set this in stone and and I would argue that that well I'm not going over there this gets the med counsil into our business I don't know that we're in violation of didley and in fact I know we're not in violation of our comp plant so why do we want to do this I I I need some yeah I'll try to chime in and um I probably I'll probably be between you two of where we're at with things here so I'm going to try to do my best um so the problem that we have is mech's already in our business so answer the first question they are more in our business than we ever want to be because they treat our business as it goes out the city so they have to be in our business um but the biggest that we have is that we can't develop the property anything other than what it sits today to get what we want to have without having some sort of inner Muse and that was what has been guided I don't know what that means that's just kind of been the term that they used when we talked with them was the interim use yes um and so we had to come up with a way of what does interim use mean and so what we what was derived from it is we have in the current comp we have 160 Acres that we can derive to be what I'm going to call Rural estate even though it's not technically rural estate anymore we have 160 160 Acres we can designate for that the problem is that this is 2,000 acres 2,800 2,800 Acres so we we're designated 2,800 acres to say it can develop something now but it will be something else in the future and so because we are changing That 160 to 2800 that's the problem we have if we want to make it only 160 which is what we currently have designated today we don't have to do any of this we could just but that was a different designation That 160 was for sewered large Lots um yeah it was for I thought it was for un sewered large Lots maybe it was SE SE large Lots we can still do that we can yep I don't know a lot of the answers here back and forth but I know that we have to do something with the Met Council because if we approve a development is just in general approve a development that's less than 10 acres as a lot that's less than 10 acres and it's not sewered I can guarantee you that my council's going to be down our throat yeah and I want to know what the mechanism is that there would be and I don't know I'm going to look at our try and go I I don't know that answer I'm going to look at her and go hopefully you know what lake ELO did so I mean I don't know you can CH in here but I've been asking everybody y Under the Sun and nobody can tell me what that is all they will do is say well met Council doesn't like you going under tent okay it's very special you're not going to like this but I don't know the answer to the T I'd expected that because I think the deal is there is asked me this question before um and so I mean part of I think part of what we get stuck on is what the is the just general authority of the Met Council and I mean and and and see in the packet that John included the Le Elmo case yep um which is completely not applicable they threw out the whole thing well the way gilmo case was they just said M Cil you have no Authority here at all and that's not what we're saying okay so but I'm just that's I mentioned it just because it's that's where the the tension comes of you know where does the Met Council have its Authority it's in the statutes it as the Supreme Court has has concluded that you know the Met Council has the authority to get in a city's business they do because of because of the the um the structure of the statutes when it comes to managing yep the outflow so to speak they they they certainly do I just don't understand why we would invite it so I have a question if we change A1 and just made A1 so the minimum lot size was smaller would we have to do a comprehensive plan Amendment I'd have to think about more it would affect the master plan area right blue um we would not require a master plan for any development if you're taking 40 acre and splitting in in 10 the intent right now is that it has to be master planned we wouldn't do that for 10 acre lots that's a minor change but why would I guess my question is if we changed our current A1 District so that the minimum lot size was 10 acres instead of 40 acres would that require a comprehensive plan Amendment it wouldn't require if we made an A3 district and the minimum lot size be 10 acres the problem is that we're trying to go less than 10 acres which is what the guided number from council's been used and I know the mayor and I go back and forth about 10 acres not 10 acres 10 acres not 10 acres just the reason why is because whatever 10 acres is it's a you call a magic number yeah you can call whatever you want um the reason for that is if we make the A3 District a minimum lot size of 10 acres it's no problem that we don't need this it's because we're trying to go less than 10 acres is the problem okay so now that you've said that if we go if we get to 10 acres he saying we don't need this overlay if we get a 9.9 we need this why I don't know that's the magic nobody better know because we're doing this this is the same difference of 1320 or 500 Nobody Knows the number or we just pick a number for public hearing notices you just you just pick up what one 501 there's only downside for doing this I'm not disagreeing with you I'm just saying that I just want to ride the other side of thing and the the whole business with this is the guidance we're not asking to reide this property any of these properties no we're saying keep them low density or or what whatever they are currently guided but instead of being 40 there's something else whatever that right now it's guided for sewer development and yes two acres a lot and what we're saying is we're going to allow UNS development at 10 acre density but that's not the final use um but that's not what it says in the comp plan currently we don't have interm in the comp plan no right again we can take an 80 and go to 40 right yes but we're going less than I understand that so I think your opposition there no guarantee for it to be sewered that and so that's what the there's no guarantee now there's no guarantee I live on 18 acres in that and I will be over my cold dead body before I put sewer on there and I will probably be the person calling you be like hey you want to put a park here and if not I'll sell it to UMC Park Reserve there will not be subdivisions on my land period it doesn't matter we can't promise any of this will be sewered I and I don't disagree it's going to be harder to sewer in the future I don't think any of us would disagree with that but in the meantime it gets used instead of somebody having to sit on their land MH it's just that you know this is not the only problem I have with this thing um but I just don't understand the need for this and to me it it there's is it is it specific the comp plan Amendment it's not the zoning thing correct the zoning thing we can get into but we do not need to have a comprehensive plan Amendment for this I don't believe we need Amendment for this and I don't understand what I haven't heard a reason why I keep hearing the 10 brought up and I don't see the 10 anywhere in any statute anything because we are not changing the comprehensive plan we can if you'd like we can table this we can have the Met Council come in and explain we don't want to fight trouble that's the that's the whole point is we don't want their involvement and they will say yes we need it and I don't really care what they have even though they won't tell us why yeah we we had this meeting John you were there yep right did she talk in a circle or not I feel like we're talking in a circle you can deny the comprehensive plan Amendment that's what yeah that's what my suggestion is as staff would be deny the comprehensive plan Amendment and adopt anything else you're looking for else want to speak on this and specifically to the complain Amendment let's talk about that first I don't feel we need a complaint Amendment okay I don't either I don't think we should ever bring it up again any compl ever well no if it's okay A Reason a very clear reasoned reason well I think it makes sense to me to not bring it to them if we're not changing the final use if we looked at current land use this is practically all A1 right the majority of it and so that's and so what we're talking about is what we're doing with agricultural and whether we call it a changed A1 or an A3 to make it more clear we're not we're not changing the future land use piece of it at all and that's really where the Met Council weighs in you know I guess what my question would be because I I get stuck on the 10 acre piece to I can't find it written anywhere and the statute that's referenced is is really vague the state statute is really vague about what you know it says have a plan the the statue requires the Met Council to have a plan and they can do what they want right what they want is the goes back to the 10 acres so you're not going to find the 10 acres in Statue no but make up what they want no yeah so well I I guess my question really is then we we do this without the comp plan Amendment we change the zoning we add a A3 District you know what's our risk is that how you want to do the motion because that's how I word it so we're going to give you a direction on which direction to go and then we'll expect you to go with that direction yep yeah that'll be all goes okay well have a hard time seeing that sometimes sure Stephanie yes sir you on the fence here I'd like clearcut borders and lines and I feel like there are none yep um all right well I don't want to go to I don't want to go to them and ask the question no cuz then you're asking for trouble well in they're goingon to they've already been here they've already just but with no reasoning but right yeah that's my hangup now when the 2050 comp plan gets submitted they will require an iup at this point which which is an inter Muse plan that and then we'll have to do something in it that so that they can stamp it off uh but we're not in 2050 right now and we didn't have an IOP required we don't have an IEP in there and this sticks one in there so unnecessarily my opinion unnecessarily all right so I I have a question about um procedure here what is the procedure if we want to say no to the comprehensive plan Amendment but we want to create a new zoning District you would just make the a motion to approve the A3 well A3 District without making a comprehensive plan adjustment well to yes yep so that's the motion only that's the motion well as written no we still no we still need to talk about it but I just want to make sure we can do that tonight okay so now we have to talk about the actual plan of the Zone Okay who wants to go first I have to bring it up we're talking about the A3 District yeah The Zing John if you wanted if you were going to give a spiel I want you go ahead okay so the A3 District the intent going back to the comp plan amendment is it identifies the area where the A3 district is applicable so that's roughly 2,800 Acres that's bounded by you know well I won't generally it's north of um South Diamond Lake Road and East of the eventual qu Zanzibar uh Dayton Parkway Corridor so that that's the general intent here uh subdivisions would be able to um happen for uh Parcels that are 20 acres or more so again the intent is to have a a gross density of one home per 10 acres or four homes per 40 acres so you have to have 20 acres in order to split into two homes um as far as the minimum lot size it would be one and a half acres that's of high grounds and the intention here is it's large enough um that you can f a house and two septic systems a well and an out building um if you have 20 acres then you would have one acre and a half lot and one 18 and 1 12 acre lot you can mix it up and you know mix and match however whatever works for the situation um realistically it's going to be every project is going to be different um so we have the parcel which um the council has seen a a concept plan for uh that was 105 Acres uh the Lots vary between you say about four acres and and 20 some Acres so large Lots um we'll have another project that will come in where it will be acre and a half lot and then a lot of Farmland that's going to be preserved as Farmland um so two kind of extreme examples uh what else so I guess a question if if the council is opposed to the comprehensive plan Amendment there's a few different design guidelines that are included in the A3 District um that may not be applicable if you're not going to do the comp plan Amendment so and that relates to um items a through e as far as reserving land resources for efficient Urban Development uh B is to identify land characteristics required to support future urbanizations C is to allow no more than 25% of the developable area I'm not going to read through this cuz yeah you all gone fall asleep uh I'm sorry uh when all ABCDE e why are any of them there okay I'm asking why cuz none of the other ones have that the intention here is if we're allowing interim subdivisions as unsur is that we're providing we're picking the developer is going to pick a31 or or more of these um to demonstrate how that development can be um sub re subdivide in the future once sewer is available so this is a that a through e it's not a all it's a pick one yeah and it doesn't have to be one or more okay so C is the one I'm struggling with the most I guess is around the 25% but that's not a requirement it could be one of these other things it be up to the council so it's kind of like a PUD but it's not there's some flexibility but it's not a PUD okay you R3 district has flexibility but that also is not a PUD so specific to each project we would decide which one of those the project aligns with or yes develop it to align with one of a through it it's you're going to treat a acre and a half lot much differently than you would a 2 acre lot okay I can't read I guess my question is more about it's location here like CU none of the other districts have this a through e in this part of their ordinance right it's all just so why does this one uh because this is a unsu development as an interim use intending to be sewered in the future but yeah see you think it long for example ghost planning yeah I mean this text itself comes from the Metropolitan Council yeah this is almost like the Met council's assurance that we're actually planning for it to some day B SW it's like the we're doing this in the middle but we are doing one of these a through e to show that we will eventually or the ideas that it would get to that point correct so it's that that's the purpose of this we're showing the intent of what the future is going to be thank you that was a more eloquent way of saying it and and we're I don't remember which one that the ghost plotting felt under um is that a I guess doesn't matter it it yeah it doesn't say G guess I was kind of confused by this too you're saying only one of these conditions need to be met that's not clear from this language one no it's it doesn't say it could be one or more well who gets to to decide if it's one or more the council the council uh so I think we need to be clear that that's this is an option list much like the Pud requirements you need to show evidence of one or more of these or sometimes it specifies how many of this list sure you need to pick so in our our three district for for example it says pick one of five one of these five items right or one or more of these five it showing public benefit that should justify a pu or sure we can clarify that in code but I guess a question for the Council of these five items are you comfortable with these five or or do you want to change any of them or remove any of them I'd like to take out C allow no more than 25% of the developable land in the project to be developed I appreciate that it might be a pick one of but the way that's worded it is not a pick one of yeah I think that's the part that's is key is and how we're presenting this this list yes because when I read it I I thought you have to meet all of these that's how it's worded that's how it's written and if it's if it's not that then I have less trouble with with any of them including C which is the most problematic for me um because it could be because of top topography that you know that there is a that they're able to meet this uh because of the project they're presenting so I wouldn't want to take that away as they're saying we're we're meeting C on this one um because of how the how the space leads out yeah you could change the language to say the intent would be the gross density of four units per 40 acres meeting one of the one or more of the following guidelines instead of saying with the following guidelines you'd say meeting one one or more of the following guidelines that works better better I could be okay with that yeah okay the four units per 40 now I I'm forgetting where it was but I've seen the word cluster and I started to oscillate so walk me through that uh so we're not talking about cluster septic system we're talking about no that's not clustering clustering Lots together yep so if you have a 40 you put all four houses and clustered in one corner and then you take the rest of the land and just sit it as an outlaw or it's a non-buildable residentially buildable lot and that's clustering and which one does that fall under or is it a separate um it looked to me like a separate deal it it is it you can interpret under different so I mean that could be a it could be why would we what would be the point of that that's why we cost this thing out a year and a half ago clustering solves nothing I don't think you could do clustering with this development because of the minimum lot Frontage and minimum lot width and such I think I don't think you could do clustering look what your like you could do smaller Lots but you couldn't do what you're looking at is like three half acre lots and one 37 and a half acre lot or whatever you're talking about you wouldn't be able to do that with this one and and who would own the out lot it it's going to it'll be different every project but it would be the original landowner right I mean more than likely likely and and so they have been solv yeah I I don't like clustering whatsoever and again I'm not quite sure what what it was what it was meant or what it really and just forar we're talking about clustering Lots not clustered septic I get yep clustered Lots yep um yeah the whole point of the large Lots is people get to use large Lots that's the point because if you're clustering now you got this 36 acre chunk that nobody gets to deal anything with yeah I think the idea would be to have three smaller lots and one bigger lot or something like that you know three 1 acre lots and 137 acre lots you want to increase the minimum lot size well we could get to that I don't like the average e of 10 either I I don't know I'm anybody else speak to do this I don't like I don't like the averaging of 10 um but that goes the averaging of 10 but I think one and a half is two like it's too small it's too small if you're going to do that if you're yeah so like if it's averaging of 10 then the 1.5 I can live with I don't love but I'd rather um in my perfect in the world where I want everything and I don't have to ask anyone else's opinion it's 5 Acres like that would be my my minimum um I could get down as low as five why yeah why five um if I'm thinking about like having a hobby farm and horses and other animals and chickens and being able to do what I want with also not impacting my neighbors right like um I can I can pretty much you can do almost all the farming all like the hobby farming you want and yet not really impact a neighbor like 5 Acres just seems ideal in my like I said in my world I don't have to talk to any else um backing off a little bit I think I can definitely get by with three like I'd be three was my magic yes and I I'm I'm fine with that like I tost the argument I have friends and family members who have three and have told me like three is great for all the things they need I'm like okay so um five is five is my personal but I can see three so I'd be okay with three um I I think one and a half is too small personally but yeah when we had the 10 or if we're talking about an averaging of 10 we have you know little little big big giant giant then maybe the one and a half might make sense but yeah I I think of we're depending on where we go with this averaging if we're going to average 10 maybe we stick with the one and a half but if we're going to remove that I think bigger number is more appropriate so you're talking about the on that on that grid the minimum lot size of 1.5 net Acres having that be three just ac. yeah not net just 3 acres I wouldn't require the net anymore at that point I would right personally yeah I'm not saying you have to have three acres of like high usable ground right quity is there a consensus for three gross Acres right now just I kind of want to break this down into each well is there a consensus to deal with the 10 averaging a 10 I don't I don't want to average 10 I don't think we I think that kind of tosses the the whole point of this thing my understanding is that if we average at 10 that is current met counsil guideline so we can totally not apparently but that would make everybody happy so to speak and we could just move on with our lives and then maybe come back to it at a future date um and if we push it lower than 10 that might get some people upset enough to go tattle basically and then we're going to have people bring I'm not worried about them I mean they're they'll they'll know what we're doing I'm not concerned about that my my concern is is that so what is your average then I not sure I have a average I'm not sure I just A3 is the minimum lot size is 3 acres period end of story that's I yeah and then was think to hear from other people so I'm tired of the whole conversation well we keep yep it never needed to be this complicating nope but here we are Mr Mayor if I could interject it's a little off topic it's taking you backwards a little bit I I understand but in the time that you all have been talking I've been researching um is as I say no one's ever asked me this question before yep um and even when I saw it on the agenda I didn't know this was going to be the question um so in my quick re SE Arch which admittedly is not completely thorough at this point I believe that the 10 acres is the guideline it's not a statutory requirement as you all been talking about but it's a guideline that is sourced from the the 2030 Regional development framework plan that was published in 2007 by the Metropol and Council so yes again quick research I mean I think we have a copy of it you probably do this so This the the the legislature gives met Council the authority to make plans and then they make their plans and they set their guidelines and they say cities and municipalities in the met in the 7even county Metro Area this is what you have to live with just like you all adopt your your comprehensive plans so it isn't specifically a statutory requirement as you've been talking about as you've been as you already know um but I just that's my my quick research on where the 10 acres comes from it's just their guideline that you know they make a plan that requires you to make a plan and it all kind of trickles downhill from there so if that helps at all so a subset of that was their guidance on how to use property in meantime and they did talk about ghose planting that was one of the things um they gave many examples of different different types of usage you could do some clustering they were also showing how you would um if you got really regimented it would just be a house on 2 and a half acres 2 and a half acres but it's all ghost ploted um and we have that I know we've seen that before so we're out with the 10 well you might not like this but I kind of like the 10 and it's not yes and it's not because of the Met council at all it's in my mind that we you know one of the things that I felt like we set out to do with this is to allow uh large larger Lots yep and you know I guess a large lot is is a different thing to everybody but I think that the averaging 10 and I'll point back to the the concept plan that we saw the Shany one where they were able to make that work very varying sizes of lots right because of the the way the land laid out but they they were able to average 10 it um in many ways would mimic the neighborhood that is next to and I think that to the extent that we can we should be allow allowing those larger Lots right but you still want the averaging of 10 that that's what feels right to me but I think having the minimum lot size be three I'm good with that well I'm not sure i' care I'm not I'm thinking I'd leave it at one and a half if we're going to average 10 cu then I don't know I I then it seems like we're still aaging 10 so more more restrictions isn't beneficial I don't I don't know where would you go with one and A2 if we're averaging 10 if it's 1 and A2 net I'm okay if we're averaging 10 if you weren't averaging 10 then three would be my minimum let's stick with the three well okay what about the 10 I'm with 10 and then wait a minute okay fine with 10 okay so you want to average 10 and bumped up to three yeah please tell me you can get us out of this quick I feel like it's one or the other like you can't have both right you need to go down to the one and a half if you're going to average 10 for the flexibility of you might have a lot that in order to average it all out it has to be substantially smaller than the other ones and now your one and a half can be net that might be a 2 and 1/2 acre par parcel but one and A2 is buildable is what you're saying y sure yeah yeah that's that's fine I can live with that what do you want to do with the average it got to be 10 or not cuz you are going to swing this so oh goodness um I think I like the idea of averaging 10 okay um all right so what about the one and a half you want to leave that then I think you need two at that point like if you go with three I don't think it gives you enough like flexibility okay and how the lots are laid out okay so it looks like what we can get through is averaging 10 and one and a half leaving the one and a half it as it's written as it's written yes that way if it's a 2 and half acre lot one acre of it is in a wetland still one and half right Acres corre okay so no changes as it's written um lot sizes and dimensions I think that yeah that I was fine with yeah now I get to make a motion now I got to make a motion well what about this other unless you want to adjust anything else Yeah well yeah I'm still confused about like the the clustering the outl where was it clustering up sorry um I don't have a page reference but I've seen it in there is it as a not is it like an example of one maybe yes not necessarily like this is what it has to be but more or less here's a find it here pretty quick and the critical issu the clustering it's not requiring clustering that gives the developer an option of putting the smaller Lots in one area and larger Lots in another area oh was this under the 25% of developable land that's where it is that's where I'm seeing it probably just a general idea of maybe a possibility not not a requirement is more of an example yeah those still bother me but as long as we're absolutely crystal clear that it's one of the above um we would change that wording in the intent yeah like I noted yeah four units per 40 acres um so meeting one of the following guidelines yes as long as it says meeting one of the following um why is it four units per four and not say two units per 20 or or one units per 10 I I I never understood that from when even when they when when we presented at the meeting for the four units per 40 or the two un average 10 yeah um so I think it's just more or less trying to put it into numerical terms so that's why it's 4 for 40 versus saying averaging of 10 but I don't know if that's just a it has the same meaning you can use either one you can use two per 20 you can use averaging of 10 the problem is in their documentation when you look at their clustering it's four out of 40 that's what I'm a little bit worried that somehow they think we're going to Cluster done oh sure so I guess my question is though this implies that you have to have 40 acres to do A3 and if it says one unit per 10 acres does that not open up someone with say 20 acres to apply for you can say two per 20 well or you could say an average of 10 it doesn't matter but um they're all the same technical terms just how you write them well no it changes who can apply for this not not necessarily cuz you could be four 4 per 40 and say I have 20 acres I want to do a 4 per 40 development we'd say okay sounds good you get two units which are the ones that there but if you have 19.9 you can't do it right I know I can't do this I have 18 something I have actually 17.85% but okay what every lot in dayon is short anyway but I'm just saying if it says one unit per 10 acres then I think this gives even more flexibility in my so I'd rather it say one unit per 10 acres what you my concern with running a one one per 10 is now is it a strict 10 or are you going to say that you could put cuz if you say one and 10 is it now we'll go back to the 10 acre r at the mayates that's why I asked the question question cuz it would you know like it would then be a strict 10 you have to make a 10 acre thing now if you said two per 20 now you could say could be any one of those we need a minimum lot size if we say it you're whatever you're doing has to average 10 yes CU you have to have a minimum lot size for the house the well two no I mean a minimum size tap to apply for this is that what you were getting at yeah that's what I'm getting at why does it H with 40 acres why can a 30 acre apply you could so you have to have 20 acres what you see in the 40 look 4 units for 40 so so like that the implication is I got to have 40 acres sure that's how I mean that's you could say two units per 20 that probably be the two units per 20 cuz you have to have 20 acres in order to make two units whether you make it 17 and 1 half or 112 and A2 or one I would accept so so I would okay so are we ready to make a motion we want to talk more um I was going to some audience wanted to come up and press this thing so are we at least to a point where we can move on I think so half an hour Sor no go ahead name and address and um Zack Brown 13311 Arrowwood Lane um with BK Land Development were the applicants for the Shanny parcel um all the the setbacks and lot sizes and everything look great I think some of the issues that I had thought about was just with the list of one or more of the items um you know obviously I totally agree that you got to preserve open space for future development and if you have a piece that's in on a nice flat field in the path of growth I get that um and a lot of those are probably good ideas some parcels just aren't going to be able to accommodate it and I think you know set my deal aside there's land owners that want to sell that are going to be really encumbered by this um the this meaning the a through e yeah if you have to do one or more I think that some of those could be challenging if not all of them but doesn't the ghost plan a satisfy at least one of those yes the one that we submitted I don't remember I'm not specifically talking about you I'm answering them sorry does ghost pling does satisfy that I can't remember which one of meets I think it meets one a Reserve Land Resources yeah I I think it meets a yep so as long as there's no deed restrictions I know one of the items mentioned maybe it's not on there right now but it was like placing on one side or the other for future development stuff like that um Dennis I think you mentioned it earlier people are paying a premium for oversized loss because they want to do what they want with it and you start telling them like hey you know building this little envelope of a corner and that's that they're not going to buy the lots and it kind of defeats the purpose of those types of plats so I think if we're going to Plat them we want to make sure that yeah we're not just doing them for the exercise of doing them but they're meeting the need and goal of the people that are looking to purchase them John item D is where the glost plating is that says temporary development agreements easements or deed restrictions M that's the kind of the part what ghost plant fall where would a ghost plant fall under there uh I'm thinking it would be a is Reserve Land Resources I mean it ghost planting can fit multiple items on here I mean ghost planing is just showing that uh you can meet the three units per acre and and here's how Okay and then you can take it a step further and say okay you're going to require uh deed restrictions on certain ghost Lots that's up to the council you don't have to do that okay so I'm going to go back why do we need them to meet any a through e why are we requiring that why are we saying that they have to meet one of those I don't care if they meet any of those well I to me I think the ghost planting makes sense because it's it's pretty straightforward you don't have to put a lot of thought into it it's just it's a check mark But it at least gets the city something that um says that there's some yeah that you're planning so then can we just add an F which is Ghost plaing just leave like would that be fine like if it just says ghost pling essentially in my mind it it gives us a path to say that we're you know we're still honoring our future land use so then I then I would want to add an F that says ghost that explicitly just says ghost planning and not the you have to read our minds and that know that ghost plating is secretly hidden in one of these I'm say ghost ghost plaing for future sewer development yes yes thank you guys thank you we have another comment oh jack up uh Jack Fon uh 14770 ticket Lane I I agree with everything you guys have been discussing I think going back to your a through e or whatever yeah I would just put the ghost platting and get rid of the rest of them and leave it at that that would be I mean I think it gets to where you want to be as far as showing intent to the Met Council if they were to question you but uh it makes it flexible for the applicants yeah so I'm I was just wondering if there was one or more in here that they would rather do if I mean for example for you if you've already decided that you're just going to do this 20 acres and this 80 over here is going to be just wine or just grapes you don't need a ghost PL because you're showing yeah he yeah for your you could use a and say reserve land use resources and you can say this is all going to be on Greenway overlay on this whole other area so you can't put anything over it so you don't the ghost PL okay I why was of the assumption that one of those would that the requirement would be ghost platting it is okay if that's not the case that's even better yeah in Jack's case so he's going to he's got a lot of land so his lots are going to be clustered into acre and a half lots and those are going to be G supplied for sewer development they not all acre and a half but the way the road would go in they would be on that 20 and then the rest of the 120 Acres other than my son's house where he's at 4 and a half acres or four acres I think so that would be one of the lots and and the farm line is just going to be Farm line that wouldn't be ghost PL there's so many options to how to subdivide that it doesn't need to be shown yeah or his yeah I wouldn't G plat that I mean my intent when I file the iup would be to you know leave that in a Vineyard for my lifetime and my son's lifetime yeah uh so that you know you you're going to have uh 100 acres roughly of land that won't be developed right so but then you're meeting C and you don't have to bother ghost pting see that's what I'm yeah that's what it seems so if we left all the op as long as it's only one right like we're not saying you have to meet all of these but if you only have to meet one my only concern is the one or more my only concern is when you guys are gone yeah oh yeah somebody else is going to say you need to meet all of these or you got meet three of these or four of these or whatever maybe that won't be an issue because I've already done what I'm doing oh true once you once you record it it's done but I I guess my thought was which I had that exact thought about 30 30 30 minutes ago and that was that yeah a future council could come in and say we're going to make you do all of them all or whatever be or three then ask four of the six or whatever they could just as easily re they can make a change to the zoning and yeah so yeah anyway those are my thoughts thank you I mean I think the the the lower the density the more flexibility you got to have like on roads and stuff can they be gravel versus pavement that kind of stuff they make it makes it more economical yeah yeah I get that yeah I mean you can put larger Lots if you don't have to spend you know 3/4 of a million dollars put in a paved road is an example now I mean people may not like the gravel as much as the paved but yeah well and we have that whole area you know on the other side of bra tree that's all it's two three ACR lot so yeah okay okay thank you any other comments do we have anybody online that wants to speak to this so if you want to to speak to this item you can use the raise your hand function in the meantime anybody else want I speak to this I just have a question M what is the difference between a and e gotta go over the mic sorry thank you I'm just wondering what is the question between a I mean what is the difference between a and e um e if I get to answer that e the intention is that we're whatever the council is doing we're the intention is we're going to allow it to be rezoned at some point in the future when sewer becomes available like we're not creating a roadblock for eventual sewer expansion a also future Urban Development yes it's just another way of saying it so you're saying it two different ways yes so why do we need it language the text is from the net count so again if if there's something you want to change you can do that this is the time to do it looks like we're changing e to ghost pling yeah actually we can do that to ghost I just wanted to explicit right I just I don't want the ghost plighting this hidden assumption I want it explicitly stated and just that ghost plighting what that's saying e e is ghost ghost pling just change e to ghost plating that'ss great all right change remove and these are I don't don't didn't catch it in here but these are all puds and there's no no um if we decide that the pipe needs to go through here we will deal with it we can deal with it this is not a deal where they can just split it by right so it is not a PE I thought we were going to do I we discussed it but it's simpler to there's enough flexibility R3 is not a PUD you know so if you say you know pick one of these items I get that how do we deal with where I mean we've got a kind of a final build out on where the trunk lines are going what happens if this is going to block that trunk line um that has to be considered when you review the plat except it's going to be different every project yep but how do we fix it if we don't have a p maybe I'm missing something how do you say no well how do we say okay I I'm going to I'm lead on Jason you could protect it by having item e as a condition that's essentially saying you will not build a roadblock with the sewer so so that's what these conditions do but that would be your grounds you're using this as a guideline for approval but if we say they only need a one of a through e right these are guidelines you should be following all of them would be the recommendation with with guidelines it says to follow these guidelines to be honest they're all if if you're ghost plating you're addressing all of these um You probably need a 25% maximum impervious requirement as well to identify consistent but okay so somebody comes in here with a 48 here thing and our final buildout shows a trunk line going right under there mhm um I it seems like so as seems like that's going to be a problem it could so if they're proposing a roadblock if they weren't proposing in any corridors or ways to get the sewer through the development in the future they would not be complying with item e that would be your they ghost plat they are see that that's and that addresses it so ghost ghost plat in would address it because then you would have them ghost plat in how does this SE get through once available so so it could be like what you know say in the short term a drainage utility eement or an outlaw that would go to the city and this is reserved for that trunk line you know 30 40 years from now as use the the Shany parcel for an example they are proposing a corridor through the site that could be used for the corridor for the sewer in the future so they're accomplishing that they're complying with e for and that means okay yeah they can also ghost plat show the splits complies with a 25% maximum impervious would comply with it's taking that potential obstruction into account when you're that's the point of the guidelines is to make sure you're not building too many Ro blocks yeah you're going to have the ability to say no you can't do that because you're going to block it and these so okay but then do we have to have it so it's not just one of the following like it's ghost plat or or like because right now if someone picked C allow no more than 25% of the developable land in a project to be developed then they don't need to ghost plat and that might not like that could be a problem so that's the only rigid measurement that I see on that list is the 25% because it's a not to exceed number yeah you could say these are to be considered you don't necessarily have to enforce them they are guidelines maybe you have good reason to allow 30% on your Lots so with our develop I mean the way our development works you start out with a concept plan and that would be the point where you know the council is looking at these five or six items and saying okay you know the code only says you have to meet one of the the five but we want you or we're going to require you to meet three out of the five can we do that you can do what you want as a council how if they're following the zoning yeah if the zoning says they only have to meet one and they're like well I'm doing C and they're like yeah but you put everything right in the way of the future pipe and they're like well I at C so if you say no I'm gonna sue you that's more of an attorney well I mean that's kind of a standard thing right if there if somebody comes in and they're meeting zoning code we can't uh yeah I don't know if you could say well you picked the wrong one out of the five we want a different one well then so then my thing is if we so then do we require ghost platting and or just or just get rid of a through e and just say ghost platting go ghost planning for future sewer development me I think that meets the General intent it it's just it's a very it's very generalized and we're probably I don't know if we're we're getting too much in the weeds that that we don't need to be in are there guidelines for ghost planting because I would it it never would have done to me that somebody should go back and look at the ghost plating to check to see if a trunk line was under it we we would have to do that as staff the developer is not going to to think of it okay I mean so do we just take out a through D and leave e and just the intent of the district is to allow residential to devel velopment with a gross density of two units per 20 acres um and provide for the rezoning of the future urbanization Parcels to the residential zoning classification at density is consistent whatever and then leave it at that like would that would that make everybody happy I don't know um because if we require ghost planting yeah and and there are there are no other options and you know just pick on Jack's example so he's got a 100 acres he's going to leave alone for as as long as he's ability to control that right um but that would mean then he's ghost planting land that he has no intention of doing anything which a waste of time a waste of money to ghost plat areas that are not being touched at this point yeah okay is it possible does he what um allow no more than 25% for C cuz that's the that's the issue right is the c one um that the 20 that the developed land um this is the hardest one to meet so if you have say you have 20 acres yeah okay you're only going to develop five of those and the other 12 and a half is going to be left as Farmland so then Woodland would it I mean at that point then is it possible to get the trunk like depends on the project it is every Project's going to be different can we just make this a PUD in color today well sound like that causes you some rting walk me through that um we have puds that allows flexibility we don't necessarily sometimes we use it sometimes we don't so there there not consistency with it and we can keep doing that um the intention of the R3 District was to replace pews and it hasn't worked y but puds provides the most flexibility and the least guidance for the developer on how to design the plant well the only reason we would make it a PD is if there was something not that we didn't foresee that we're looking at it going well this the problem and you know is there any other way we can handle this really is I think trunk line is the only thing I can think of that and even then like Jason said we you know those are I fat lines fat lines yeah so just put a CLA in there then it can't block a this development any development can't block a trunk line that's what e says H that's what he says yeah that's how I think you have it in there yeah the problem is we don't have to meet e we don't have to meet it can be considered as a guideline I mean it would be a discretion review of the pl I mean no different than any today we have trunk lines going through the developments we looked at one tonight we have to get the trunk line ddl to 117 they're going to account for it so you guys don't see this as is that kind of what I'm hearing um no I mean it's only issue if we have it on the map and the developer doesn't want to comply with it and Council doesn't either and now it becomes a road block okay I don't foresee that happening okay all right any any other discussion so what changes have we we added an F we added an F for ghost planning for future sewer development um e has been removed and added I don't know what the council wants to do with e same with seed 25% well I mean I'm okay leaving all I'm okay with leaving them leave them all and just add the F ghost pad okay for fure serin um and then the the first sentence is um with a gross density of two units per 20 acres meeing one or more of the following guidelines okay and and we added a guideline mhm anything else okay is that your motion that's my motion do with no comp plan Amendment make sure it's noted no comprehensive plan Amendment all right so we got all right Sarah made a motion yeah so no comprehensive plan Amendment but approve the city code text Amendment give me a second I'll second it any more discussion absolutely not it was this gu you had a question no I just was you have to say you're approving it with those changes yes yes yep Sor motion is that's how they did it yeah I can't believe me if for falling asleep I'm here she was just clarifying nothing El clarifying okay no more discussion no all those on paper say I all those opposed Say No 5 to Z sweet all right item J mayor members of council I'm here to approve the 2020 strategic plan let me know if you have any changes I'll make a motion to approve you guys want to beat it to death for a couple hours that wasn't a couple of hours it was just like 1 hour I want to know for the record that I was right on time until that not that I get a second I didn't get a second yeah well I knew that one would you should have known that all right I need a second oh actually I have a well discussion um I'm sorry there's just one and I just I think establishing and maintaining a 90% favorable rating from residents on police and fire for a long-term plan is unrealistic I know you're doing amazing right now but we're going to grow and people are crabby I just I just think 90% red it'll be reviewed okay in the short term I think it's exact but you're you're right in two years it'll be R re reviewed okay as long as like that everyone's on that same page that that is not a realistic number for long term okay and it's not any say it's not about you guys like you guys are going to continue to do the amazing work you're doing we're just going to have a lot more people and they're just going to be a lot we're going to have more crabby people aren sorry what was that on the 400 people you get to that's true that's true so um but I just I want to make sure it's realistic and not we're not I don't want to set you guys up to fail um when you're doing amazing work so well it's a Target okay yeah it as long as we're on the same page I'm fine with everything else okay I need a second second you need more discussion all those in favor say I I I all those opposed say no motion carries 5 to Z and if there are no objections we will be adjourned okay all right we're Jed e e