whenever you're ready. Okay. >> Good evening everybody and welcome to the planning commission meeting for October 27th. I'm Mike Kirkwood and we're just checking attendance here. Uh we have Trisha. No. >> Sarah. >> Yes. >> Yes. Zach and uh Lindsay, you're not on this list. >> Yes, you are. Lindsay, you are there. [clears throat] Carissa. >> Chris. Okay. Yeah, this >> Oh, there we go. That's my phone. Okay. Very good. Thank you. All right. So, we have um a public hearing on the agenda this evening. We'll begin the first of all with approving the agenda. We have a motion to approve the agenda as it exists. >> I mo I make a motion to approve the agenda. Okay. >> Second. [clears throat] >> And second. Second by Lindsay. Thank you. And then approving the minutes from the >> make a vote for that. >> All in favor? I'm sorry. We have to vote. >> I >> I and I. >> Then approval of the minutes for the September 22nd meeting. >> A motion to approve the minutes from the December 22nd meeting. >> Thank you. Second. >> A second. >> A second. Okay, Sarah. Thank you. All in favor? >> I opposed. All right. All right. All right. So, let's move into the public hearing then for the comprehensive plan amendment. >> Is that the first one you want to do? >> Yep. That's it. Yep. >> That's the big one. >> That is, I think, why we have people here. Um, so yes, uh, thank you, chair, members of the commission. Um, the public hearing on your agenda this evening is for a comprehensive plan amendment. Um, it is for a group of properties, um, I think four in total located on the south side of State Highway 7. um east of Grim Road and just west of the the roundabout there at Kings Point Road. Um the request uh this evening is to consider uh changing the future land use of that property. Uh currently is in our urban reserve um future land use guidance and the applicant here is requesting a change to the residential low medium. Um the expectation uh with this uh development, we're looking at about 160ish gross acres of land. Um that doesn't include, you know, wetlands and other things like that. That'll all get um this, you know, figured out through the process. Um the the idea is looking at a density of roughly 3 and a half units an acre. That's the Met Council's new system statements. that's what they're going to hold the city of Minrista to um in their their 2050 plan. Um so obviously looking forward that um is something that the city should consider when um looking at this type of request is roughly that that three and a half um units per acre. Um looking at these properties like I mentioned they are in the urban reserve. Um that's areas that are kind of on the the fringe of the current developed areas that the city um may if it wishes um consider for uh possible future urbanization. Um and that's uh what we have here is we have a land owner um that is um pursuing that request. Um so for the uh planning commission here that is the the purpose of your hearing. Um, we did send notices out to uh property doors within 500 ft. Um, I did speak with um an individual um as a result of that notice and then did get a couple of other calls um after the packet was posted. Um I did provide you with one written comment that came in over the weekend that obviously didn't make the packet. Um it looks like we do have plenty of individuals here, so um we'll allow them to speak during the the public hearing. Um, so with that being said, um, taking a look at this, like I said, when the the comprehensive plan for 2040 was adopted and this was moved into the reurban reserve, um, that kind of set the ball, um, if you will, in motion for these land owners to consider the possible future urbanization of their property. Um, so um, you know, when when a request comes in, the city can certainly consider it. Um I think based on kind of where we're at and you know the the need for the growth of the city um it is something that certainly makes sense to consider. Um so the recommended action here would be to u make a motion to the city council to recommend that they approve the comprehensive plan amendment on these properties um based on the uh findings of fact and conditions in your report. So obviously we have a lot of people that um uh are here tonight that would like the opportunity to speak that might impact the decision you have to make. So I think it makes sense um unless the developer or the applicant here wishes to answer any questions. I think we should get to that hearing and see what issues and concerns are out there before you uh make your decision. >> All right. Very good. So [clears throat] we'll begin with a public hearing and that will generally we would invite the applicant to speak first if they'd like to. Are they here? Yeah, >> right there. And then we'll follow up with comments and questions from the rest of the audience. So, I'll open the public hearing at 7:06. And please come on up if you wanted to speak to us. Name and address, please. >> Good evening, planning commission. Uh, I'm staff Griffin with MI Homes, 5354 Parkdale Drive, St. Louis Park. Um I uh Nick did a great job of explaining um the staff report. I think it'd be a great opportunity for us to listen to the public hearing. Just wanted to introduce ourselves. Uh the MI homes and as well Rachel development as you can see in the staff report. Um really the ultimate goal of of of us being here tonight is to talk generally about the planning of the site. Maybe not necessarily project specifics that we're not there yet. This is an early stage part of the process. uh but happy to answer any questions uh on you know that come about from the the comp plan amendment and um our goal here is to present you know as we go through the process a wellthoughtout well planned uh project similar to to Woodland Cove that that MI did uh alongside um other developers and uh you know happy to be continue to be part of the community and we're we're very grateful to be in Minitrista and would like to to continue to make it a great place to live for for people. So, thank you. >> Thank you. Any others from the applicant? Okay. All right. Then we would welcome any questions or comments we would have from anyone else who would like to speak to this um plan amendment. Tom Houston 7 330 Highway 7 right across the street from this project. Uh really curious on traffic. It's just I've been here four years and seen just an incredible increase. The roundabout is busy as heck. Getting out of my driveway is scary. My son had an accident about a month ago trying to just turn into our driveway and he was just crushed by a car. So I'd like to see something thought about what that is. You mentioned 2040. Is that when things start or what does that date have to do with anything? >> So, our current comprehensive plan guides the city through the year 2040. Um, so we're looking kind of that far out. Um, that doesn't necessarily mean things will develop at that point. It certainly can be before that point. Um, it's a long range planning document is the 2040 comprehensive plan. So, this would obviously because they're making an amendment, this would happen a lot sooner than that. I mean the anticipation would be you know >> and the question is if M&I gets approved in all this what is their fastest track of plan and >> so this is the the first step in the process. So the city has to consider the amendment first um and then if it chooses to approve the amendment um it has to go through the metropolitan council and has to be approved by their board. Um it follows a very similar process um you know can be between 60 and 120 days on that type of application. [snorts] So 2 to 4 months. Um so I mean the comp plan amendment could still be you know 2 to 4 months out and then you got to get to a preliminary plat and [clears throat] that can be you know another two to four month process. So it's it's several months. >> But do you have any thoughts about how the traffic's going to flow? [snorts] >> I'm not a traffic engineer. Um that's not my my trade. >> Does anybody I mean is there anything >> that'll definitely get reviewed as part of the process for sure. And obviously we'll have to partner with the the state because it is Highway 7. Um so we'll have to to partner with them in any way we can to you know see what needs to be done. >> So when we see the preliminary plat once we have a drawing in an actual >> possible access roads and we'll review all of that at a later date. All right. I'm concerned about traffic. All right. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else comments, questions? >> Hi, Taylor Lovely 4530 Grim Road. My concern is what's going to happen to my property because I'm just down the street from this development. Is it going to get torn down? Is it going to go down in value? Is it going to increase? Like that's >> Could you just repeat the question? >> So I live just down just like 500 ft down from 4250 Grim Road. [clears throat] I just want to know how this is going to affect my property. I >> mean obviously once we see a concept we'll know, but I mean there's no plan to make any changes to your property. Your house would not be torn down or anything like that. >> Okay. >> Okay. you I mean obviously the the surroundings are going to change if if things do progress and things happen but to your immediate property there would be no proposed change as part of this um request or anything like that. So you'd be able to keep and maintain your property as you do today. >> Okay. I'd I'd also from the [clears throat] chief seeds over here, but I'd also say that this is a very open process and if you stay engaged in it throughout the whole project, in my experience, the city council is very um open and and and interested in the needs of the existing residents and make are very considerate of those when they're when they're doing the planning. So, you will have I feel like I could assure that you will have a voice in the process. >> Appreciate that. I don't want my view to turn into an apartment complex, you know. Thank you. >> Thank you, Kayla. Anybody else? >> Thank you. >> Hello. My name is Eric Olsen. I'm part of the Seg family farm. Um, question I have going back to what the gentleman back here said related to the 2040 comp plan. Can you kind of dice it up a little bit more as far as like timelines? you said within a couple of months. Can you just give a little bit more insight on, you know, that development plan, you know? >> Yeah, like I said, I mean, the the comprehensive plan is a is a long range document. So, I mean, it's it's giving the city the framework and the structure to make decisions through the year 2040, right? Um, that doesn't mean things will or won't happen before then. Um, by the applicant coming in, they are, I guess, starting the process as it relates to their property. Um, so obviously we're here at the hearing tonight. Um, you know, once we, you know, the they come to a decision here, assuming they do, that gets forwarded to the city council. If the city council then chooses to move forward with this, we have to submit this um application request to the metropolitan council. They're a governing agency just like the agency just like the city. So, they have between 60 and 120 days to make a decision on their end of it. Um, if that all comes to fruition, then the city's long range plan is in place for possible development of this site. And they would then have to start uh what's called a preliminary plat process. Um, that can be, you know, depending on how things go, between 60 and 120 days, so 2 to 4 months. Um, if it makes it through that process, then there is a a final plat. Um, that's typically another 60-day process, so another couple months. Um, so yeah, I mean it it is still probably, you know, like I said, two to four months for me counsel, two to four months on um a preliminary plat, two months on a final plat, so six to 10 months. Um, so I mean it's it's probably at best end of next year is probably what you're looking at. And that might be optimistic. >> Tell them end of next year about a year >> possibly. >> Kind of have those numbers kind of already wrapped up. I mean, you're laying them out pretty quick. So I would imagine within a year. >> I mean, yeah, within a year. It's going to depend on how fast they want to move, right? I mean, that's obviously thinking expeditiously, if that's, you know, how development sometimes works, but if they want to take time and be engaged through the process, they could >> could move that on. >> Yeah. I mean, we understand, I mean, the development of the farm has been around. I mean, that's sixth generation right there. You know, all seven, you look through all these major roadways, they're riddled with old farm homes that have been taken over. You know, it's really sad. But, you know, when you look at um we're I think we're just hoping that as far as we've already been approached just from this early stages of people hitting us up and and what we're trying to avoid is, you know, being pushed out, you know, again, six generations, you don't see that too often, you know, and what we're trying to do is avoid, you know, just just keep it going. That's what uh I think uh steer these kids right, keep them off the iPads, the phones, and uh but another question. Uh we're talking about the the uh congestion. So the 14 to 16,000 cars that go through that daily. So again, what is going to happen in that in your one-year plan? Where does the MDOT come into play as far as determining what they're going to do with the roadway? Yeah, I mean obviously I think a big component of it is is having a a conceptual layout right of understanding what where you know what is the axis going to look like. Um and then I think um the developers understand I mean it's going to be more important to have an early conversation because you know it's not just that you know this development's impact on it. I mean, it's the corridor as it sits, right? I mean, I think a lot of people recognize the the issues that Highway 7 present themselves independent of what we have in front of us tonight and what might come in the future, right? Um, and I know the the state is looking at that. I don't know what their implementation plan is. Um, but that's something that, you know, I think in this case, keeping them a breast as early and as often in the process is going to be important here. >> So, are they aware of this already? >> Um, I I believe they there has been a those flavors already. Okay. Yeah. >> The the develop I mean obviously when we switched it from it used to be um the rural designation which is um you know more akin to to to farming and stuff like that. You put it in the urban reserve and that's kind of an in between of possible urbanization. It doesn't guarantee it. Obviously it um in part comes with the willing land owner if they're interested doing it. It kind of opens the door a little bit um for that. So once that started, I'm I'm sure it was on people's radar, but I know the developer here has had early conversations with Mandot about, you know, what it might look like. So there it's certainly on their radar. Um yeah, we I mean there's no doubt when you look at the property when he bought it, we always talked about this. He's going to do something with it. You know, it's just it's it's just it you see it just coming all west. You know, people come west because they want to see open spaces and then what happens? They build those open spaces into homes and now you lose it. So, but it's just curious of the timeline. That's what we were talking about the 240 plan. So, really you're probably talking about a year that we'd see probably equipment in or earlier. >> I mean that that I think that's a a fair estimate. Yes. Okay. >> A fair estimate. >> So, is there an estimate as far as uh development into say two years we'd see homes. >> Um maybe the the developer could speak more closely to that. I mean, like I said, I mean, you know, depends on how fast construction moves. >> I can I'll get up and answer. Okay. Yeah, >> I hear you. >> Okay. Sorry. No, I just that you know when you look at a comp plan, you're looking at 20 240. Everybody [snorts] thinks 2040. It's not going to happen in 20 240. We're going to happen in two years, right? Okay. All right. >> Um and maybe just to add in clarification, so there's the big project going on from Hopkins to past St. Bonnie for Highway 7. Um can you maybe answer where where does that end in proximity to this project which is just past St. Bonnie as well? [clears throat] >> Um well, St. bounties further west. So I mean this would be in more in the middle of the c or not middle necessarily but >> so it should be part of that big highway 7 project as as a whole >> now and that's corridor study they're working on. Yes, it's definitely within that. >> Okay. >> So what I think that's so what typically happens with like our value and our tax rate and I hear this one I mean it's not our first rodeo but you know what do what do you what do you what do you foresee? >> I wish I I wish I could answer that. Um, you know, Henipin County is the the city's assessor, so they would be more in tune with how it impacts property values. I'm sure it's, you know, depends on who you ask, right? Um, >> but there's got to be someone that has numbers on pulling off all these farms up at seven and five and, you know, I mean, there's got to be some >> that would be the Henipin County assessor that would probably Yeah, >> he he would have that >> information pretty readily available, I would think. >> Right. Right. Anything else? Lawrence Segner 4705 Grim Road. I want to know urban reserve. It used to be 10 acres for a home. What happened to that? [clears throat] >> Um, so yes, I mean as part of this process, they will have to reszone to allow for a different land you or a different uh lot size. Um but yes, the the stage development urban reserve um is a 10acre minimum. >> It is. >> Yes. So, but as part of this process, when they go to that preliminary plat, they will be um likely requesting a reszoning of some sort that will allow for a lot size conducive to the to the density they'll need. >> Reduce all these homes coming in. >> What's that? >> If it was 10 10 acres per home instead of >> you certainly Yeah, you wouldn't get three and a half units an acre at at that. No. >> So, okay. That's one. >> But I mean, that's part of the process. And again, that requires a notice and a hearing. So, you will certainly be informed and and invited to participate in that process when they do make that >> change my land to anything I want. And if this goes through, right, I could put a golf course in my farm. >> If you're going to do that with urban reserve, put it residential. >> Um, >> I could go for that, too. Right. Right. >> I'd have to look. Exactly. Are you're at the end of Grim Road? >> Yes. >> Yes. I mean, so yeah, you're in the urban >> born there. urban reserve and the stage development. Yeah. Yeah. >> So yeah, I mean any use with consistent >> was that 1881 we started there. >> Yeah. So you don't have to I mean any use that the city code allows you could operate on your property. If you wanted to change that you'd either could amend the code to consider a different use, change your zoning to consider a different zoning. But um to do what you're doing, you wouldn't have to change anything. >> But I want to keep what we got. >> Yeah. Again, it's not this change doesn't directly impact your specific property. It'll stay the same zoning, say the future land use, obviously the surroundings again will change. Um, and that's where you're being invited to this process to continue to make sure to what extent um your voice is heard, you can in terms of what gets done there. But your own specific property, unless you make a change, nothing will change with your property. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm. >> [clears throat and cough] >> Park Segar 4705 Drim Road. Um, yes, it would change. The view of our land would change. >> Yes. I I I didn't mean it in that. I meant in terms of how you operate your property, that won't change. Yes. Obviously, views and and things around you will change. >> When Mr. acquired that property, his reasoning was when he leaves, he doesn't want to look at homes every day. And [clears throat] I shared that same view back then. And I share that now today and we'll share that probably forever. But um and everybody has the right to change their mind. But that's just a thing. We've been there that long. >> I don't want to look out and see Kings Point Road. >> I got to drive by that every day going to work. >> And that ain't what I like. I remember what it used to look like, you know? So I'd like it to stay the same. You know, we we'd enjoy the land. We've worked the land and for the last working farm that side of the city. >> Mhm. >> You know, and we're not we're not giving up yet. So, thank you. Understood. >> Marking 7365 Equestrian Way Upland Farm, a horse farm across the street from the proposed development. What is the planning commission's uh 2040 plan for uh growth? You mentioned you you're looking at this plan because the city needs to grow. >> Uh why does the city need to grow? Uh I I have not read the 2040 plan. What is the city's >> Well, um part of the component I mean there there's fiscal decisions that come in with with the city and and budgeting that that occurs. Um they just approved a $23 million water treatment plan. Um >> because there's more homes going in, so they need more water treatment. Yeah. I [snorts] mean it it you know it is a chicken and egg situation at times. Yes. >> But is there an overall plan that the the 2040 plan lays out? Is there desired end density or population? >> I don't know if there I mean I don't know if we're that far out. I mean obviously the the 2040 plan doesn't include the full development of Minatrista. I mean there's still areas that remain rural and will for quite some time, right? Um, so I mean obviously to sit there and find an endgame is very tough because I don't know if or you know when the city will fully develop, right? I mean that's it's beyond 2040. It's probably beyond 2050. Um, so to have a complete endgame is probably not in in the plan right now. I mean the 2040 comprehensive plan is online. You're welcome to review it. I I don't have it memorized. U maybe I should, but you know it's it's a long long document. Um but yeah, so I mean, you know, that's out there. So you could see the framework of the decisions that uh this commission is tasked with. Um but yeah, I don't think it would have an endgame for the city at this point just because I don't think that's within that range of of timeline. >> Thanks. Yep. >> Real [clears throat] quick, it mentioned in the U I think the information that I saw on the website that there was a prelim subdivision plan. There wasn't any. It supposed to be done by mid-occtober. >> I can speak to that. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> My name is Jamie KDson. We live on 7350 Highway 7. Um, so our property along with Tom's property and bar the Misa's property were zoned for commercial. So we're totally across the street from all the 2040 plan. So where does that lay for us? Like has anything developed? We haven't heard anything since the last meeting >> from that. Are we the 2030 plan? >> No, that's the 20 the changes made for the 2040 plan. >> Okay. Um so yeah I mean you know just again that's a long range planning document is you know yours was actually also reszoned to commercial so it's zoned and guided for commercial so um based on that plan that would be the expectation at some point I mean obviously it's there's many components into actually developing property right but so I mean that's where your property has there's no change >> has been said or done or talked about or >> No we were just checking Sure. >> Hi, I'm Michelle Damro. I live at 4,400 Oak Road right across from this development. Excuse me. Um, you mentioned that the the 3.5 density um requirement is a 2050. >> Why are we doing that in in 2040? Why can't we start lower than that? Well, because the the Met Council is going to start implementing it very soon here. Um the expectation was at the beginning maybe in the beginning of next year starting to to hold cities to that that level. Um again, those are those are planning documents for for long range. Um so I mean that's the the goal there. you know, when we moved out here 23 years ago when we were buying our property, I called the city and I said, "I don't understand this 2040 plan um and your pred predecessor said that you wouldn't have to worry about that. It's going to remain zoned 10 acres and here we are. You know, >> I Yeah, >> it's very sad to see this happening." >> And I understand. Yeah. >> I also want to address the um the traffic on Highway 7. The state, of course, we all know that Highway 7 is one of the most dangerous highways in the state. And this the state just came out with a plan for Highway 7. I think anybody could access it. It's online. >> Um, basically from the city of Minnotonka all the way out to I'm not going to get the name of the street correctly. Um, Wild >> Wild >> Willist. >> No, Will. No. [laughter] from high from Minnotonka all the way out past St. Bunny, the major intersection um past 92 Wildwood. >> Wildwood. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Basically, every major intersection is now going to be either an overpass or a roundabout, which means that from Minnotonka all the way out past St. Bonnie, including 92, there will be no stop lights. It is going to be a constant stream of traffic. Now, I don't know if you know where Oak Road is, but we can't get out as is right now. >> This plan is going to call from anywhere between 400 and I believe I read 475 homes. If you figure two cars per home, that's an incredible amount of traffic. And the only thing between Kings Point, which is a roundabout, and 92, which is going to be a roundabout, there is no way for us to get out on Highway 7. We can't in the wintertime, we can't get out because traffic coming from the west, we can't see due to the snow banks. In the summertime, the grass on the sides of the roads is so high, we can't see until we're almost out in the middle of the intersection. >> So, traffic is going to be a huge concern. Um, and the construction on Highway 7 is going to start in 2029. I can't imagine what that's going to be like with when you've got this huge development going in across the street from us, plus all these major intersections being closed, rerouted. I have no idea how they're going to do that. >> Thank you. [clears throat and cough] [snorts] Come on back if you want. you have some follow >> open [clears throat] >> I thought it might be helpful just to address a few of the items um I'll start with traffic because I think that was the first one that came up and absolutely understood as we mentioned we we have reached out to um Mindot to already talking about seven that's absolutely a big part of the planning of this taking a step back when we talk about just planning of the project I mean this as we mentioned is a very early stage part of the process and our goal is to I think as you mentioned really engage throughout the process and I think the city is very committed to that we are committed to that this is the first step in that process there will absolutely be continue to be uh outreach from us and then through the public process so that's just kind of from a high level um when we talk about traffic there's a lot of stakeholders mind being a very big one with highway We've started those conversations. We are absolutely aware of the study that MINDOT has been doing. We would like, we're going to be part of the conversation. That's a huge part of our site planning here. It's important and critical to us that there is safe access to and from seven, not only from this, but for all of the traffic along the corridor there, as you know, similar to Woodland Cove. So um part of the process going forward would be with the size of this site an environmental assessment. Part of the environmental assessment would involve traffic study and that traffic study would absolutely look at highway 7 and we would be you know part of that as we look at all the access points potential for this site. Um so absolutely hear those comments. It will be a a large part of our planning and and engagement as we go forward. Um then just wanted to touch a little bit on the process of the comp. This is a you know just reiterating this is our comp plan amendment application. This is not a preliminary plot or you know this is just the very beginning stages of of as we move forward. Um and the the 2040 plan is what's been in place previously. the 2050 plan why that's being Nick correct me if I'm wrong here at all but part of that that conversation and um is that what Met Council the comp plan is required by Met Council >> and [clears throat] and the cities have to enact the you know go forth with their planning based on their comprehensive plan 2050 from my understanding the reason why Met Council is is requiring the three and a half units to the acre is because of growth requirements that they're putting across the metropolitan council um area. So, it's not just Minatrista alone. >> No, >> it's the whole metropolitan area. Um, and I think, >> you know, that that's part of our planning process is we want to bring forth a project that's going to to be a part of Minitrista for a long time and and we really are going to take the time. Uh, and I know the property owner uh is that's very important, too, that we're we're building something that that is going to be a sustainable um project for years to come. So, it's certainly something we're we're very sensitive to as well. Uh, I just want to make sure if there's any other questions that I maybe needed to answer as well. Um, I think that that kind of covers it a bit, but happy to answer stand for any questions as you guys have your discussion, too. Thank you. So just to just [clears throat] to reconfirm and clarify the the process going forward from this point what we're deciding this evening is >> in [snorts] a nutshell >> I mean it's the the the possible framework for future development of the property and we're not approving an actual development here. um we're I guess giving the city, you know, the ability to to consider then that preliminary plat that would conform to the to the um re or um the requested um change here by the applicant. So this is just the ability another step in the ability to develop it. when you do the preliminary plan, that's when, you know, you have a an actual plan laid out in front of you how things are going to look and, you know, that's when things, you know, would would get laid out and and become more even more real, I guess, if you uh want to put it that way. So, I mean, there's still more uh public engagement involvement that will take place in this process um that it'll just go through through the motions, >> right? Do you want to close the public hearing or we >> we're still in the public hearing, aren't we? >> I I didn't know. I thought we were you were moving to discussion. I was confused. Okay. [laughter] >> So, so I was, you know, I think when you look at the cone, the the road, I mean, the traffic and I think she was talking about the >> possible updates. To me, I mean, I see that we we pull out a grim road. I tell my kids, you better buckle up because we're gonna get smashed. >> You go left, it's nasty. I mean, you It's just It's incredible. Like I said, the research I did, so 14 to 16,000 cars a day. >> Just five years ago was like 10,000 or something. >> I think that there should be some really some due diligence on really what's going on in that that road >> before you decide you're going to open up a plan that can handle that kind of traffic because it is, you know, the person was talking about it. It is just terrible to get out of that road. You're going to go east or west. You're really taking your life in your hands. So, I think maybe go to MINDOT, maybe spend some time looking at that and doing some data, doing some due diligence. What is it going to look like with 400 homes at two cars per home and then back it down because it looks like you're going, let's go with the development and let's worry about lives later, right? >> I don't think that that's the the intent. Um um like I said, this is the comprehensive plan amendment, the beginning stages. um as alluded to by the applicant, I mean there is a level of environmental um studies that have to be done and that's before the the Met Council will even consider the amendment. So even if the city approves it, remember that the Met Council has to approve it as well. So um through that process, there will be uh an environmental study done which will include traffic and and the understanding of what that might look like will become more clear um before that is even approved. One more. >> Apologize. I realized I forgot to answer your question on the the concept plan. So, I knew I was missing something. Um, part of the narrative did say we would have a a concept plan to review by mid-occtober. The simple reason why we don't have it yet was part of kind of goes back to my comment on the time we want to take to make sure the site plan is done right. We had an ALTA survey being done and we're working through the wetland delineation that that was approved. There was a notice of decision done on that. So, it's just we're taking our time to make sure we're really looking at at all of that before we put that in front of um in front of with this application. So, staff has has been aware of that and and we absolutely are working on that and it will be something that's you know comes forward fairly shortly. [clears throat and snorts] >> Apologize. I saw in that information too that there was additional properties that were needed. We look at the bottom of your >> proposal on the very bottom of the conclusion item number two or three additional elements or additional additional prop. >> Yeah, I see it. I'm looking at it right now. Um I think just that uh I think just the point was that the reason why this is coming forward for the comprehensive plan amendment from urban reserve to um to the what we're proposing is so that other assemblages don't need to be made within the city. So the the part of this application or part of this narrative spoke to the fact that the reason for this being requested to be amended from urban reserve which does which is the 10 you know the 10acre parcels to the proposed 3 to three and a half units to the acre is so that part of kind of our our thought process behind that being this is one assemblage of land and there's other smaller parcels within the city that are currently in the current 2040 plan that are not urban reserve that are guided low density, but it would take a lot to develop them because they're small parcels. >> Okay. So, we're talking about this parcel here and you got required on smaller parcels and you probably have an idea of where those are. >> I I think the point is that we don't require that then because this is a larger assemblage where that that takes away the unknown of any of the other parcels that are within the current guiding. That would be the reasoning for for requesting this amendment with something that's in urban reserve is that it's a large assemblage of land that does not require an assemblage of other parcels that it could be developed as one assemblage and and move from urban reserve which is the 10 acre minimum and go to something more like a three to three and a half units which is the um [clears throat] which is the residential low to medium that we call >> like three and a half per acre. Woodland Cove, >> excuse me. >> You're talking [clears throat] Woodland Cove density, I believe. And you probably >> probably around like three. >> Yeah. >> And there that's a variety of different types, too. You also had uh you also had the Macintoons and you had some of the apartments that that isn't the intention with this site. It's it's a residential site that would, you know, be more of in line with the the other residential within for [clears throat] sale residential within Woodland Cove. Um, one other comment I did just want to I think I I forgot to kind of add on to was your comments on asking about timing and I think I just wanted to kind of reiterate that that's probably in line with what what we're talking about when people are asking how long this would take. This is a process that's going to take us time. We intend to take our time to get through it and make sure, you know, as you said, everyone has their, you know, there's public hearings and and other things that that we would uh listen to input and um just like Woodland Cove was a long process as well. Um so the intention is likely sometime in um 2027 there may be homes starting there. Um so it if that helps with clarifying timing. So, >> thank you. [clears throat] >> I have a question. >> Oh, do I have to get back up? Sorry. >> It's only because the mics can't hear you otherwise and it's recorded. >> Um, since we did not get the sketch plan is Can we like postpone this because it clearly says that it'll be ready in the middle of October and we can't we can't see it. I mean, if the commission wants to, that's something they certainly could do. >> Sorry, we can repeat the question. Can >> it says in the proposal or the man the amendment request that there will be a I don't even know what it's called. The sketch plan will be available mid-occtober. Well, we don't have the opportunity to see it to look at it. So, you know, we can't really discuss it in to the point or in depth like we need to >> which would be more of a detailed layout. >> Yeah. I mean, is there a way we can >> the land might be developed? >> Can we like postpone this or >> Yeah, >> it's within the commission's ability to do that if they if they chose if they feel they have enough information to make their decision, they could do that. Again, they're recommending body. So, um it's not final action. That's for the city council. >> Um so, independent of what they do here, it would be forwarded at some point to the city council. So there still is time between what they decide on here and before it's even presented to the city council where we could have a conceptual level plan um made available to people. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any [snorts] others? >> I have one last question. Sorry. Does Carver Park have any influence on you know since this is betting up to Carver Park? Do they have any call on that or decision or >> they are certainly um for for two different reasons um made aware of what's going on and invited to introduce or involve themselves in the extent they want. Um one because they're uh another public agency. Um when you go through comprehensive plan amendments, cities do keep these other agencies and other cities informed on what decisions they're considering. And then also just because they are an adjacent land owner. So they got a direct mailer like you all got. Um and then they also got uh a separate notice u for general comment to the the amendment. So they're certainly aware um what their position is. I guess we'll have to figure that out through the process, but they are certainly um kept a breast of it. >> They have quite a bit of influence or is this just >> it depends on what their position is. I guess I don't know. You know, I don't know what their their view on it would be. Um once we figure that out, then we'll know what influence they may or may not have depending on if they if they don't have any concern, the influence probably goes down. If there's concerns, then the developer and city would have to work with them to figure out that out and address those in any way we can. >> Thanks. >> Yep. >> All right. If no other comments, I will close the public hearing. [cough] [clears throat] So, can Nick, can we just review what are the milestones that'll be happening from this point going forward? um to to um decision-m that'll be happening. >> Sure. Um so um as the planning commission you are recommending body. Um so this first step we are looking at here is is for the comprehensive plan amendment. So that is just to change the the future land use of the property uh to something that would be conducive to possible development. So your recommendation we feed that back though. In other words, we're letting go of the 10 acre minimum and allowing properties to be built in three to three and a half. >> Well, that would be the guidance, right? The zoning would need to change at a future date. So, this is not addressing the current zoning of the property. So, to what size these lots will be, that will be addressed with the preliminary plat and and a future reszoning request. Um, the guidance will change. Just >> want to clarify for all the guidance will change other series of decisions that are being made. >> Correct. >> Other milestones. Yep. Um, so that's the next one likely. >> What's that? >> Uh, that >> Yeah, we have to work through obviously the comprehensive plan amendment at our municipal level and then the comprehensive plan amendment at the Met council level. So that is a two-step process, right? >> Um, and then it goes into the resoning and the preliminary decision which will be at this point probably, you know, several months from now, >> right? Um, and when are they coming back, the developer coming back with proposed layouts, sizes of lots of to the comment, >> there's another series of decisions here that the public has a chance to have input into. >> Yes. So, um, unless the commission desires, um, if you feel you have enough to make your decision, you can make your recommendation tonight. Um, if you don't, you certainly can postpone and wait till a conceptual level plan is presented. Uh but the expectation is independent of your decision that the hope would be to have a concept plan for the city council before they make their decision on whether or not they would approve the amendment. And that's before it even goes to the Met Council. Otherwise, it'll come back at least for sure at the preliminary plat stage. If not, if they choose to do a conceptual level review, um which we offer as a courtesy, um you could get it presented in that way. Um it really is going to depend on if the developer uh chooses to go down that route or not. Um, so there would be, you know, like I said, if you feel that you would like to see that before you make your decision, you're welcome to delay um till our November meeting and hopefully have that concept. Um, if you feel that you have enough to make your recommendation with the idea that the the concept would be presented to the at the council level before they make their decision, you could do that. Um, and then obviously you'd potentially see it um at a preliminary stage or a concept stage depending on uh the path the developer wants to to go down. >> What are your thoughts? >> I'd say if we're going to make a decision to recommend anything, we see the same information that the council is going to see. >> We're just recommending whether or not the zone, which is Can you go to the compre comp plan map? >> Yeah, that was my question on um I actually had her on the zoning just listening to the conversations around that. you talked about the urban reserve and then you jump to the um low medium uh residential and there's one in between that's called low residential and I was just wondering what's the stair step in between and then when we're talking about like the woodland coat roughly three and this at the you know high side to the amount of homes was like three I think it was 3.4 four. So, right under that three and a half threshold. Um, but just was wondering what the in between zoning was. You jump from 10 acres of house to three and a half per acre. What's the in between? >> Um, there there wouldn't potential >> I mean, in terms of as far as an option for the commission to consider or >> Yeah, just just yeah wondering what the scale 10 acres. >> No, that's urban urban reserve. Urban reserve is to 10 acres per lot. >> Got it. >> Um when you go from that urban reserve to a level of urbanization I mean you can look at those different um future land uses whether it's residential low medium medium high right and it's just how much do you want to have growth. I was just >> there wouldn't be an in between. I mean you you you don't go from urban reserve to residential low to residential low medium. >> Okay. So there's no difference between low and low medium. It's the same density per acre. >> Um the the residential low is a lower density. Um I believe with our current plan it's like a one to um top my head it's like a one to maybe four um range for that one. The residential low medium off the top of my head was like a 3 to three and a half. Um, part of the consideration to go to the residential low medium versus the residential low is when considering the density, right? As Ben mentioned many times tonight, the Met Council is holding the city to a three and a half, right? Um, and they're always looking at the minimum. What's the low end of that range, right? So, if you have a range that has one to four and one that has three to three and a half, they're going to look at the one. They're not going to look at the four. They're going to look at the minimum, right? So that keeps that overall city's density way down. So if you go to the low medium, that somewhat raises the floor and keeps your numbers at that 3 and a half units an acre. So that's the reason for the decision being made to go from not low to go to the low medium is part of the math problem. >> Got you. And then um just another question around um you know protecting the um rural nature of Minitrista like can there be requirements and things around um greenery coverage to surrounding neighbors or or guidelines along those lines with the development. >> That's certainly things that can get vetted out through the preliminary process. Um especially if [snorts] this would end up as what's called a planned unit development. Um, there would be a series of of gives and takes, if you will, where if [clears throat] there are things that this development presents that are impacting adjacent properties, we can look at buffering or open space or landscaping, whatever is necessary as we figured out through this process of where the areas of concern are and what the issues are, um, that could get vetted out during that time. I have a question regarding uh the urban reserve. This area is considered currently urban reserve. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> And as an urban reserve area, is that inside or outside the metropolitan council's per purview? >> I mean, it's not within what's called the the mucus line, the utility service area. So, it's outside of that. So, >> so any recommendations they have wouldn't be prevalent to this. >> I mean, this would this part of this request would be bringing this into the utility service area. So then obviously they're they're involved. >> Oh, >> I need some water. >> Sorry, Nick. [snorts] [clears throat] >> So yeah, I mean they they are not concerned entirely with it's when you start connecting into utilities. That's when the the Metropolitan Council gets more involved. So in the urban reserve, they're not entirely involved because it's not an urban area yet. Um, >> so and correct me, the 2040 plan's goal is to preserve the rural setting of Minatrista while also focusing on growth. >> Yes, [snorts] it's it's a balancing act because a developing community, you're you're balancing between those two. >> Sure. So, when they did the 2040 plan, they laid out the current areas based on their projected perspective, >> the idea of where the city may grow, right? So, areas in the urban reserve are areas that [snorts] may develop in the future, where the growth may occur, right? So obviously when you look at this overall map like we have up here you can see the rural in kind of the the darker olive or it's olive color whatever you call then the lighter olive is the um permanent egg those are you know the 10acre lots the the large areas and you can see where um I guess even even the darker yet olive almost brownish color that's the um urban reserve where the possible growth can happen like I said that doesn't guarantee development it just so happens we have an area and corridor that is seeing growth in the city and a landowner that is interested in considering the options of developing it. So, >> and where are the areas on the map that are the current low medium density? >> Um, there's not a ton of them. Um, let's see if I can zoom in here and if it gets more clear. Um, but areas like that are um a moment here. Kind of in the in the northeastern area of the city. Um, you know, parcels around the school. Um, uh, Orchard Cove along 110, Red Oak, those are all in that residential low medium. >> Okay. And what was the percent or do you have any idea what the 2040 plan says as far as the percent of ruralness or I know that a lot of it's one per 10 acre, but also one per one acre, you know, those in terms of and still maintain somewhat. I mean, you I guess I would just be doing rough math, but I mean, you look at, you know, the areas of the city that are in those two green colors I referenced and even the darker um olive is still until it's changed in that 10acre area. So, I mean, that's a good area of the city landwise. Obviously, it's not for population wise, those are concentrated in the other areas that have developed. >> Sure. But is trying to have a good balance of that? Is that kind of the incorporation? >> I mean, that's historically what Minetris has tried to aim to do, right? Is it's, you know, it's a developing community, but also very rich in history with with farming and agriculture and rural. So, it's it's a balancing act to try to to keep everything, you know, >> and with the new water treatment facility, was that in response or I know you said chicken in the egg, but is that part of that being the new Woodland Cove area that's just been added recently? I mean, we we need it for the current current housing stock we have, but also if you know the city desires to continue to grow, it's going to be needed for that as well. So, it's kind of serving both purposes. It's kind of retroactively helping what we already have and it also will help serve what we we may have in the future. >> And what what expansion have they built into that treatment facility plan as far as estimated increase in population or number of houses or density, whatever that may be? Um I guess I'd have to check with our I don't have that number off the top of my head. [clears throat] >> Like you want to know whether or not it can s how many more houses? >> Yeah. I mean like just based on what areas are available for low to mid currently versus what could potentially be changed from from the urban reserve to more high density. >> So the treatment plant is just going to be on the south system. So anything tied to the north system, it's not on this. So all growth we the the plant will be able to cover the growth that we're expecting including this project including a few more we built in to get us to 2050 and longer pending if people use less water. There's plenty of growth we're putting in a 635,000galon clear well. So there'll be plenty of water. There'll be plenty of um clean water. So it's built in for growth. We had them AE2s do the projections to make sure that this could accommodate growth in the south system. So, we won't need another one in the foreseeable future. Um, if somebody buys property up on the north system and wants to put in, you know, 600 homes, that system will need to be addressed because they're they're not tied together. They can't be because of just the layout of Ministrista. But, it's it's being built for growth. So, it it it's going to last. I mean, like, we should be good for quite a while. Does that kind of answer your question? >> Yeah. I'm just concerned about if if there's development in the south and then there's also matching development in the north if if the city is going to be taking on too much burdens to handle >> if we entire city versus just one region of the city. >> It's it's it would be similar to this pro process. They'd have to come and get a comp plan amendment and the council can always vote no like we can't do growth in both sides of the city at the same time with our water and infrastructure and stuff. So ideally we'd continue to see the growth on the south side because that's where we're putting in the water infrastructure >> in you know 20 years. Yes, maybe the north because this one will be almost paid off and you know you'll have to keep growing as people want to sell their land and developers want to develop it but ideally the growth will continue on the south side because that's where we're putting in the infrastructure. >> Can can we just talk for a minute about the impact of the Met Council on this? Yeah, that's what it is. They have control. This is this is what what we are being pushed to do as a city because the Met Council says you need population density or we're going to take all your taxes and not give any back to you. >> And that's what this is pacifying. And maybe I can't say that cuz I'm not on the council and nobody votes for me. But I mean that's that's yeah, I would love if there was all farmland in Minresa for the rest of my days, but we don't have that option. And so this is the best of a bad situation and we have to let some of our land go to this higher density stuff and we've and the comp pan plan has it focused on the the corridors where the the roads are set up to do that and one of them is highway 7. >> I get it. >> And that's that's what this is. >> What is the what is the requirement? It's so much by 2050. Is that their plan for the Met Council? because they're trying to grow. >> I mean, that's just, you know, every 10 years the Met Council and the cities update their plans. So, I mean, it's it's a again a a long range look at it. So, yes, I mean, the the goals and the system statements and the plan set up are through the year 2050. Um, that's what we're currently operating under, right? I mean at 10 years from now we'll be talking 2060 and and so on and so forth. >> But but based on the city's 2040 plan, they've addressed that by the original redistricting or resoning of what they had plots for. So they had originally planned that growth to take place in certain areas other than others. Not saying they're completely closed off. >> Well, the the city the city did that when we adopted our 2040 plan. I mean, we started laying the the framework of where we envision the city growing. And to Sarah's point, you know, areas of um you know, where we were seeing it were along the the bigger roads we have, Highway 7. Um so I mean it it it's a situation where that that urban reserve doesn't guarantee development. In this case, it just the the stars are aligning a little bit more than it has in other situations and other circumstances. We've had areas go in and out of the urban reserve without being developed. So I mean it's just this is things are lining up here. What are your thoughts? [clears throat] Any other discussion from the panel? I >> mean, we're not today. We're not approving any plat. We're not approving any plans. We're just all they're doing is saying, "Hey, if we want do you agree that this is land that can be developed in this way if if the plan is is something that you choose to approve?" I don't I mean it's to me this is in alignment with the 2040 plan which I agree with. I've I was a part of well I mean I came to the meetings and helped get that you know I mean I I mean this is this is what growth looks like for us. Even if I don't love it, it's still what it looks like for us. So I hear you. I think that you guys need to keep speaking really loud and make sure your voices are heard in this process. But that's that's what it is. [clears throat] >> And again, I [snorts] wanted to go back to there in the process, if we approve this tonight, goes to the council and so on. But then the next round, there would be also room for public input into how it's cut up and divided. >> Correct. Yes. If if >> my picture of this is that there'll still be some 10 acre plots that are not changing unless it's a willing seller willing environment, right? Nobody >> Well, the land the land being included with what we're considering, I understand to be intended to be parcled up, but it's not impacting any adjacent land owner that lives there. Their land, their guidance is not proposed to be changed unless they want to request it. Um, which it doesn't sound like that's true. Um, no, it would not impact any of the surrounding properties. It's just for the properties owned by the applicant um that they're um that that we're considering tonight. >> So within that within the confines of the property that he owns um there would be then three to three and a half units per acre. >> Probably closer to three and a half. Yep. >> Uh which might be surrounded then by other 10 acre parcels. Correct. Which is some of the families that are here. >> And there might be depending on how they ultimately lay this thing out, there might be buffers and and areas adjacent to those that are left more open. Um, but that's obviously what a concept plan would show. >> And for [clears throat] the benefit of the the audience, I wanted to reconfirm too that there's two more phases where there's public input um to the layout the potential plan. >> Well, yes. When the >> laid out >> when the resoning and the the preliminary plat um those two require hearings. Um >> so um they they may be done concurrently depending on how the process plays out. Um, but there is that involvement for the the the residents. >> But in previous property developments, that's where you would look at where are the roads laid out, how is it entering Highway 7, how is it fitting with the rest of the properties around it? You have a chance to see that and react to that as well in the future. >> Would this come to council on the 3rd or the 17th of November? >> Um, I guess that's something we'll have to figure out. Um, I obviously have a lot of comments and feedback here. we'll have to talk with the applicant and about getting their concept and everything situated. I think that would likely be a goal is to have at least the concept by the time the council looks at this. So really it depends on on some of those factors that aren't fully within mine or the city's control. Um and obviously we we'd have to look at our u we are required to um move things along in a certain process between 60 and 120 days. That was brought up a few times before. or so. We just have to look at where we're at for that timeline. Make sure we stay within that window. Um but yes, um so I I don't know whether we would intend on November 3rd or November 17th or possibly even into December. It depends on where things are at, but I think I think at least having a concept for the council makes sense. I'll let the commission here determine if seeing a plan would would change your thoughts on it. Again, you're just making a recommendation here, but that's totally up to you as the commission. um >> wouldn't hate seeing the plan, but I also would like to know a little bit more about the traffic because I feel like we talked about the traffic multiple times just throughout our meeting tonight. Um so just seeing what they have to say about that I think would be beneficial. Who's the I'm just who who can we talk to about that? Because I agree traffic's like a big thing, but I know it's a state highway, so I feel like we have no >> jurisdiction. So how does how do those things come together? The engineer will work with MI or the builder and they'll come together with traffic plans of how to flow it, how what access they can get from MDOT to Highway 7 because Mandot has to approve access. It's kind of like Woodling Cove. They only allowed the one roundabout. So they'll work with them to see what MDOT's [clears throat] going to allow. I'm assuming they'll only let one access access point. They might want to filter it all down to King's Point. They might like they'll decide where the front edge road is, how traffic gets in and out, all that. So the engineer will work with the builder and they'll work with Mindot and Henipin County to figure that out. >> So did they do any of that until there's a plat so I mean >> but is that an open process that these guys can that our citizens can have input into with mind or is that I guess cuz it seems like a big thing I don't know. >> They'll they'll be allowed to come to council meetings provide feedback through >> Yeah. And then we can bring that to our engineer Alison's at most of the meetings so she'll be there. She makes comments, she writes it down, she goes back, she'll work with MI if they don't have a representative there. It's a it's a big process where we listen to the residents, we take their feedback, we also look at what's actually feasible. Like with the water treatment plant, like we were like, "We want access on Highway 7." And and they're like, "No, >> good luck. Too bad." So like you sometimes are just like, "No, we don't care what you want. You figure it out on your own." But like it'll it's it's a big process and everybody has to work together on it. And council is not going to go, "Well, we don't care what you guys want. We're just going to do this. We we listen. We're very open about it. It's It's all gonna work together. >> Yeah. And I think it's been said a few times. Um but as part of the comprehensive plan amendment process with the Met Council, I believe an environmental study is required and that includes a component related to traffic. So again, independent of the decision the city makes, the Met Council is not even going to approve it until they see what that looks like from a traffic standpoint. Um and whether or not they need a concept to do that, I don't know. I mean, obviously, you can look at the number of houses you're you're forecasting here, and you can use numbers based on how many um trips that that would generate, and you can understand how many trips you're adding to the corridor and that sort of thing. So, that'll all get vetted out as part of that process as well. So, there will be a level of understanding of where things are at even before the Met Council will consider it. >> I appreciate that, but I don't have a lot of trust in what the Met Council making great decisions for the city of Minrista. I have a lot more trust in my city councilors. I mean, we look at that in environmental study, too. >> And that's that's good. That gives me a lot more faith because Sorry, I love the Met Council. I should get a button made. [laughter] Well, we need to decide if we're going to move this forward or not. [clears throat] I would make a motion to say that let's move this to the city council. I [snorts] mean, like I said, you could certainly include that a concept be required, you know, so to make sure at least the city has a concept available before it makes its final decision. >> I can pretty much guarantee you council will want to see that before we make a final decision. >> There you go. So, what's the language we want to use for this motion? >> Um, I [clears throat] can bring that back up for you. Like I said, the component I mean I think just to add that you could add that the requirement for the um the conceptual level uh plan be presented with the materials for the council. So >> I can't read that. >> Do you want me to read it? I've got it on my phone. I figured >> I can maybe zoom in here, I suppose. >> All right. So then I would move that uh we recommend a city council approve the requested comprehensive plan amendment to the described properties on along Highway 7 and Grim Road uh stage development district based on certain findings of fact outlined in the Stanford board with the following conditions. applicant obtain all necessary permits and approvals from the city and other applicable entities with jurisdiction over the property as required and the applicant is responsible for all fees incurred [clears throat] by the city in review of this application. >> Are there any other conditions we want to add? >> And the >> is there anything to do as far as minimizing the three and a half and making it one or two per acre? or anything like that as far as recommendation just to preserve the rural nature of the area as it already has. I just drove through >> Woodland Cove on the way here and I don't want to have more of that miniaturista possible. >> I mean I hear you but I mean >> I live there. [laughter] >> I I would also want to add the plat that they have a plat for the city council to look at which I concept >> concept. Yeah, the concept but I think it's >> I think that needs to be included as well. >> All right. All right. Are we ready for a vote? >> Yeah. A second. Did second. Someone second that. >> Second on that. >> Sarah second. >> Okay. Thank you, Sarah. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> opposed. Nay. >> Okay. It's 4 to one. >> Mhm. >> So, yes. Again, for the audience here, um they are recommending body. Um so, it will go to the city council. Um unfortunately, I wish I could tell you the exact date at this time, but it's going to depend on when we get a concept and we have all the materials. Um, I would encourage you to uh keep an eye on the website. It'll all be posted and made available for the public. Um, usually the the Thursday prior to that. Um, I can say there's November 3rd and November 17th for November dates and then it's December 8th um are the three dates remaining on the calendar for 2025. Um, you certainly uh my name is Nick Olsson. I'm the city planner. can always reach out to me and I will happily get you whatever information you need um so that you can be as informed as possible through the process. >> And I just have one thing to add for everyone concerned about the Highway 7. You can go online to the you can basically just Google Highway 7 um study and they have a link and you can add comments right now to all their proposed roundabouts and all of that. Um encourage everyone to do it. More feedback the better. Council does respond, does give our feedback. We work through our engineers. So council is providing it, but if you personally want to do it, you can go online and do that as well. >> I think is a good recommendation because I think some of their studies are old like around COVID time frame is what I've been educated on too. So with the traffic flow, it is a very different state too than at that point in time. So >> yeah, I didn't know that was open. >> All right. [clears throat] Right. >> We voted, right? Yeah, we're there. >> Yeah, we're all good there. Right. [clears throat] >> So, item three. >> Yes. >> Maybe we give a second here. I don't know if >> everyone's interested. >> Everybody. >> Thank you. >> How are you? Good to see you again. Neighbors neighbors and things like this. >> And then there's [laughter] >> this is >> you're all alone. You're >> This is at least the second. >> Should have done that one first. >> I wish we had >> s through all this patient, [laughter and clears throat] >> right? You know, I remember when I was in teaching, we used to have in social studies, we had the thing on how a bill becomes a law. And you had this little sheet that would say this happens, then this happens, then this happens. And and I've been in this meeting now three times with you where I've said, "Well, but what's next?" Mhm. >> So I wondered if it'd be worthwhile. I don't want to assign duties to you. >> To write up something that says here's how we go from, >> you know, piece of bare land, >> you know, somebody wants to sell it, somebody doesn't want to sell it, whatever to a piece has developed and some of the milestone decisions. If that would help you, it would certainly help me, I think. >> Yeah, we could look at that. I mean, I'm sure as a tool to say, here's where we are and even for the audience to say, you know, there's two more meetings where you're going to have a chance to look at plants. have a chance to help us decide what you like, what you don't like about that. I think there's a lot of stuff that happens here that I don't think we make really clear upfront to people that would help them understand. >> Also, how do I understand because I feel like you were saying that it's pushing us to the three and a half based on the Met Council. How do I get more information about that to understand a little bit more about the direction that I feel like is sort of meaningful? >> I mean, probably go to their website. I mean because they've just like us they've got >> is the 2040 plan like >> the 2040 plan is what we're all operating on right so >> all cities around here are operating on the same >> if you're in the seven if if you're in the seven county metro area you're required to have a comprehensive plan you're required to update it every 10 years council themselves has a comprehensive plan that they update every 10 years so they're already beginning to plan for their 2050 and they're basically telling cities we're starting to implement this and that's why we as the city have to keep that same mindset because they're they're going to look back at us. So, um it's it's better to try to stay with it and slightly ahead of it if we can because if we fall behind then you get forced into developments like this. At least in this situation, we have a land owner that's willing to do it. We're not telling the land owner you have to do it. Could you imagine if we had to tell those guys that farmed, hey, you are changing, you have to change. They would not have been happy, right? At least they get to preserve their little bit for now. It's because of other development happening. Is it fun for anyone? No, it's not. Right. >> So, how do I find out about that specifically? Like, >> you can just go to like type in and search Met Council 2050 plan. Okay. >> It's called Imagine 2050 and they have a full page of all of their stuff that I'm sure will just make you very annoyed. >> Oh, I can't wait to get their newsletters. >> Oh, yeah. the the zoning is confusing to me cuz like I was trying to look at that and then understand where I was asking about the stairst step in between cuz Woodland Cove is all pink. Um >> that's mixed >> cuz it's a planned development. So like if they were like we want to put town homes, apartments, commercial. >> So this should be truly like individual family homes. >> This a half gets me a little bit because I'm like usually a third of an acre is kind of >> right. No, these would I mean there may be town homes associated with this. When you get to that three and a half, >> you kind of got to start getting like town homes. So you might see like Cove has four, five, six unit town home buildings. You maybe see some of that. Um or you see like the the villas where things are somewhat tightly packed together. I mean to get to three and a half, that's what you're starting to look like, right? >> But that's where a concept obviously helps. >> Catching me the extra half. just it's just an overall calculation, right? So, I mean, think of it as, you know, three and a half units per acre. So, seven on two acres, you know, if you want round numbers, you know, it's the same idea. Um, it's just a number um that we're, like I said, we're we're going to be held to. So, it's kind of, for lack of a better way to put it, a pass through to, you know, they're going to tell us. So, we have to inform developers that this is what the expectation is. Do we know what that number is by chance or I'll look it up if I have to but the current number that we have to hit for density or >> well it's a three and a half is I mean where we have to be I don't know where our overall numbers are on the city I'd have to do that >> three and a half for those specific zones. >> So anything new has to be at least three and a half and the city's overall has to be three and a half. So there is two checkpoints if you will. Um the simplest way is if this is at three and a half, you're not in theory lowering your overall density away from three and a half, right? If you're meeting that standard, you'd at least stay on pace wherever you are with that. Right? If you start developing at three or two and a half, your number goes down and it gets away from three and a half and mech council doesn't like that. >> What's our number right now today? >> I don't know. >> Oh, sorry. >> I mean, it's probably over three. Um I don't know how close to three and a half we are. Um, but I mean >> surprised that we're over three with as much rural land as we have. >> Yay. Apartments, >> but it doesn't but they care about what's serviced by sewer. So all the rural they don't really care about as much. >> Okay. >> Cuz it doesn't really impact that that calculation. So it's what's on the the the um utilities on the sewer is the big utility. Um as to what they concerned as being at that three now three and a half. Do we get any benefit of removing parkland? Like we have a lot of parkland in Minry. >> They have the Met Council has >> what you can because a site when you start it's gross acres, right? That's what you know and then you eventually get down to the net acres which is the brass tax what everyone cares about. They have the formula of what you can exempt out to go from gross to net. Most of it is wetlands, wetland buffer, stuff like that. Um parks I think there's certain criteria they have to meet. Um, so I don't think inherently a park is exempt from that. I think it's considered in the density most of the time. >> Um, but yeah, so there is, >> you know, the Three River Parkland, like if we could >> Well, some of that's not in the I mean, certainly Gailwood's not in the service area, so they wouldn't care about that. um the regional park. I mean, I don't know how that I have to look and double check how that factors in, but that's technically in the service area, but I don't know what they have for connections into utilities even because they're so large. They might have private treatment. I don't know. >> So, the Met Council thinks our population in 2050 should be 12,500 roughly, which equates to 4,200 households. So, I mean, they they want us to add almost a thousand households. >> 25 years. >> Well, no, because we're in the 2040 now. So, in 10 years, cuz they're 20 like in in 10 years, we're going to start the 2060 like they're >> by that time frame they want us to achieve that by. So, we have 25 years to get to that extra thousand >> by 2050, right? >> Yeah. >> Um, >> no, cuz there >> you said 2050 is the >> that's the plan name. It's not like you're you're >> Should we move on to this other item quick and let her get out and then we can have our continued discussion? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be [laughter] rude, but I just want to make sure. >> Absolutely. Say that. >> Be cognizant of her time here. Um >> you're so sorry. >> Um we actually I think I mean depending on how much how much questions you guys have. I um we we did this last month for a separate property and a separate agency. Um but uh this time we we were able to put together a staff report. Uh give you um some kind of background here. Um the this evening we have the the Minihawk Creek Wershed District is looking at acquiring a property within Minitista. Uh 6300 Painter Road is the address. Um it's located in kind of the northeastern portion of the city. It's adjacent to land they already own. Um they're certainly working towards water quality improvements and things like that. um heading down Painters Creek and into Jennings Bay and into Lake Matonka. So, that's generally the the intent behind this um is is for um you know continued um um conservation areas and and and uh preservation and and things like that. Um this is another case of a willing seller. That property is for sale. Um so they are um working with that property owner. Um but because they are a public agency purchasing um land within Minitrista, we do have to go through the motions to make sure that it is consistent with our comprehensive plan. Um so you as the the planning agency, the planning commission um should consider this and then make a recommendation onto the city council who's the governing body as to whether or not this complies with the long range municipal plan. Um based on its location relative to other holdings they have and the intent and the uh purpose of the land. um uh staff feels it is a a certainly reasonable uh proposition here. So the recommendation would be to uh determine that this acquisition is consistent with our long-range comprehensive plan um and have a uh city council adopt a resolution of support. So um I know that was all kind of quick. Um so if there's specific questions I'm here we do have a representative from MCWB if there's more technical questions that I cannot answer. Um but yeah, the the recommendation or the what we'd be seeking is that um a motion for um uh consistency with the comprehensive plan. >> So did this one as well. We contacted um neighboring properties and and no no comments or feedback. >> We This does not require a public notice process. >> Okay. >> Um >> what is actually happening? Come on. Why don't you come up tell us what's happening? >> Hi planning commission. Achilles Surac, planner, project manager with the wershed district. Um, as part of our, we also have our set of, you know, standard legal processes that we run. So, we have just noticed a public hearing ourselves for the acquisition that will be on November 6th. So, property owners within a th00and ft um of the property have been notified that there's like a pending kind of proposed acquisition. Um, and I've heard from one resident so far just out of kind of curiosity. Um, and then as far as a question I heard kind of about intent for the property. Um, short-term, we're looking at demoing kind of the old structures on site, there's an 1890 built home. Um, quite a few older structures and a lot of just kind of older remnants from its farming history. So, looking to kind of clear the site of those. Um, do some mild grading, native seeding, and kind of keep it um in the near term in kind of a conservation private property status. um to give us a little bit of time. We're running through a subwhed wide diagnostic study right now. Uh collecting data, want to see what what that tells us about the system. Uh give us time to engage with all the public partners in this subwaterhed ahead of our next comprehensive plan that's always seems right around the corner, but we're we're kicking that in motion um to look at what we can do for kind of regional water quality benefits. So, stream restoration, larger scale wetland restoration. Um, and then we've talked with staff about being open to exploring ways of, you know, passive recreation on the site like we've done over at Six Mile Marsh, too. >> Um, >> I lost my question. So, if anybody else has one, I have a question, but I can't articulate it at the moment. >> Um, I was just curious what the feedback was from the one resident that you received. >> Sure. He's on the other side of the creek. So just um adjacent [clears throat] to the Painter Creek Estates Park that kind of the city and the district kind of own in conjunction there. Um he's on the horizon looking to sell in the next 5 to 10 years. So we're just kind of curious, you know, how his surroundings might be changing um when he goes to sell. Cool. >> So, the idea would be to um take off any structures on the property and to any runoff that would get into the creek has to be addressed so that it's keeps clean and and how this this came up just because the seller or the property owner wanted to sell. >> Yeah, it's kind of interesting. Um >> there was no lynch pin to this particular little parcel. >> Um so, our our interest in this site actually dates back to the early 2000s. we were negotiating with this exact homeowner over a conservation easement. Um, and that never kind of came to fruition at that time. And so the the homeowner had that memory in her head when she had the the house sitting on the market. Hey, let's reach out to the watershed and see if they're still interested. Um, so we started kind of digging back in, doing our due diligence on the potential that the site has. Um, you know, sometimes we've gone a little bit further in our project planning stage before we would seek a property acquisition. So, we'd be able to tell you, you know, the project scope, the cost. Um, this one we're looking at kind of the potential and how it fits within our strategy for the wershed. Um, it does have about 1500 ft of creek frontage, so about a third of a mile. So, it's a pretty unique seed uh site in that respect. Um, and being adjacent to city and watershed district land on the other side, it really positions us well to do kind of full stream bake restoration through there. Um and it is kind of a pinch point in that it's fully downstream of all the really large wetland complexes that we see um in the subwhed even you know north of the city boundary. Um so it allows us to kind of think about how we're treating kind of wetland export at a subwaterhed regional scale. >> So it's like it becomes parkland I mean accessible to the citizens. >> I think long term we are open to that. short term, I think our intention would that it be posted as private property. Um, we are keeping one uh there's a new pole barn structure on the site. We would keep that just in the short term um till more understanding is done about the site and what we'd want to do with it. But um we'll continue talking with staff once we get into, you know, feasibility and um thinking about the potential for the site on on whether we would open it up and provide kind of public community amenities. >> Yeah. And [clears throat] are we making a decision as to whether it is in compliance with the comp plan? >> You're you're making the recommendation, but yes, that's the the root of your role here is that if this were to be owned by a public agency, it's consistent with our long range plan. And because of the environmental um issues here, um certainly think that's always a a key topic to to protect our natural resources. Um, so that'd be kind of the direction. >> And this property too is in, if I correct me if I'm wrong, Nick, but permanent agriculture. So it's zoned for, you know, one house per 10 acres. This is >> Yep. It's in the agriculture zoning. Yep. Yep. >> Would there be any potential reszoning for housing on it potentially in the future to offset cost or >> Not from our perspective. Um, we're under the understanding that >> yeah, it it can't be redeveloped and can >> not in the current zoning. So, [clears throat] I mean, we'd have to be back to what we were here just a moment ago talking about if they were to even consider it, but um it's not Yeah, there would be no further development at this time based on the current um framework of the codes and and the comprehensive plan, etc. >> It's pretty straightforward. >> Yeah. I mean, I love the idea keeping our waters clean. Anything you're adding to it. So, >> are thrilled, too. [laughter] >> Yeah. And you're going to keep it under the rural character and it's going to be just a beautiful open piece of land. and the wershed district always does good work in my opinion. So >> I agree. >> So I would u make the motion to recommend um allowing the Minaha Creek wershed district's acquisition of 6300 Painter Road. Um in support anything else? Second. >> Sec. Okay. >> Okay. Moved and seconded. >> Second. Can I ask you another question on um what with the six mile creek? I heard that there's I think it's going into the planning phase if it's approved for a big water treatment facility that will go into Hellsteads Bay. Do you have any updates on that? >> Some mild updates. Um so yeah, we have a piece of land that is kind of adjacent to Sixmile Creek there. Um, and in our capital improvement plan, we have a um a project identified for addressing load to H Hallstead Bay. Uh, we're kind of booting off kind of a a feasibility study probably coming this winter. We're kind of just getting into conversations with our board again about the size of that project and just the size of that issue with that big wetland system bringing in quite a bit of phosphorus into H Hallstead. So, those conversations are kind of booting back up. Um, and we're really using those conversations and those studies to think about Painter Creek as well. It's a wetland dominated system with some similar issues. So, um, kind of using it as a a way to learn and kind of reboot our understanding around that site. So, nothing concrete yet. >> Okay. >> Okay. We've had a motion and a second on on the uh Yep. >> selling the property and approval for that. All in favor? >> I opposed. Carried. Thank you. And I have one other question if you don't mind. Not >> at all. >> Um unrelated to this property. I'm also on the Lake Mitaka Conservation District and we have been recently approving docks in the wetland areas over [snorts] we were having we gave an approval to someone to remove 100 no 300 ft of cattails so they could put in a dock. And I I I checked with you, Robas, and apparently that is not in violation of any of your principles. I would have thought it would been. Do you have any any connection to that? >> Is this the Lost Lake? >> Lost Lake is one. Okay. Another one is is um Six Mile Creek is um my fear is I think we're being too loose in docks. Uh but there's a lot of pressure to have a dock anywhere there's a piece of water. and the one on on Sixmile Creek, they were going to have to pull themselves out of there because they can't have a motor. It's just nuts. And [clears throat] yet the pressure on the on the conservation district to approve all these docks, it's crazy. So >> yeah, we do I mean we get word of most of those, you know, dock permits that come through kind of our door, but usually they are coming in for like within a public water. So, it's DNR paired with the Lake Mitonka Conservation District that really have a lot of the the kind of final say in approving those, but um I can get a little more information on on that and plug in with my >> I just would have thought it would have been a violation to rip up the cattails, but apparently not. So, all right, that's not for me. I'm sorry. >> Any other conversation on this? >> Thank you. Thank you [clears throat] >> very much. Thank you. >> That be on the third or the 17th? >> Yeah, that we'll put that on the third. I think the November 3rd city council meeting. What's up? >> Staff reports. >> Yes. Um let me look here. What do we have? Um I think we had the one um the variance for the house um was on our last meeting that went through that was approved by the city council. Um they have applied for their building permit. So that's in the process of being reviewed. Um so they seem to want to move quickly on that one. um looking forward to uh we have a meeting on November oh boy is it the 24th um is our uh next date. Um we have at least a couple items on that agenda. Um I think a guest home conditional use permit and a setback variance. Um so mark that on your calendars. I understand it does get close to the Thanksgiving holiday, but hopefully enough of you were able to show up so we can uh keep those things moving. Um, that's really all I have. Um, I'll let Kathleen give you council updates. >> Um, not too many. Um, um, we approved the water treatment plant, um, which came in about a million dollars over budget. [snorts] >> Yeah. Um, so we opted not to do the pretty exterior since the project was over budget. Uh we'll be discussing new water rates at our November 3rd work session and just um what those will go up to with the new tiers and um how painful that will be for those of us on city water. Um the plan is to switch to monthly billing in July. So that should help alleviate the price because you'll be able to judge how much water you're using a lot quicker than every quarter and hopefully use less. Um construction will start in the spring. It's just too late in the year for them to do anything right now. And then full completion will be 2028. Um it is as we stated earlier, it it does account for growth. There is the Clearwell, there is capacity. Um the good news is with the new plant, we'll be able to take the current one offline, do maintenance on that if we need to, and we'll be able to pull take the King's Point tower off and paint it and make it look nice. So that will be done when that's up. Um the other thing, um we added the 16th police or we approved a 16th police officer. So when we can find a good candidate, we'll get one hired, which is awesome. Um, so that probably won't be till mid 2026 just with the options that are out there. So we had a we were fully staffed the 15th officer for I think all of three months. >> So it's yeah, [snorts] hiring police officers has not gotten any easier in the last five years. Um, big the other big thing is we just added a four-way stop in Woodland Cove at the corner of Lotus and the Sunset Wolfberry curve there. So that was a big thing with the residents and I [clears throat] don't know any questions for me on anything going on with council. >> Was the million dollars over budget before or after they decided to not do the fancy facade? >> That's without the fancy facade. >> So how much did that save? >> No, this is it's it's a million. The fancy facade would have added $260,000 to it. So it's [clears throat] >> Yeah, it's still a million over budget without the facade. [snorts] >> Well, kudos for making that tough change. Yeah. >> Well, the the residents that [laughter] look at it Oh, funny enough, the residents that have to look at it were very very mad when we said no. So, it I mean, yeah, it's not >> it's over by the pickle ball. It's going to be by the pickle ball courts in Woodland Cove. Yeah. >> Yes. So, >> I was trying to understand that because I sometimes hike in the little woods back there. >> Yeah. So, and the road, I don't know if Lisa told you at the last meeting, the road is going through the neighborhood and not through three river Rivers Park. So the residents that back up to the road are happy. The new homes that will be going next to this road will probably not be happy, but >> they don't exist yet. They don't at least know what's going to happen in the >> Well, hopefully because they're building them as spec home. So hopefully they tell the people that buy them that that's what's going to be happening >> landscaping or a bad facade. [laughter] >> Good news is it's happening and there will be plenty of water for everyone on the south system. The north system has capacity, but again, like I stated, if somebody wants to do a huge development, um, and if the state legislature pushes through a middle housing bill where we have no say, then we would not have capacity. So, we'll continue to push for them not to take away our zoning rights, >> but it's like, who knows? It's like the M council, they do what they want and we just are along for the ride. on old business piece the U on former garage site a garbage site rather that had the boat storage there on that >> it's still being litigated >> still being litigated >> I have to run for hockey pickup I'm so sorry >> be a while >> but I I heard your report out earlier [laughter] >> move to adjourn yeah >> I'm so sorry >> second [laughter] y' minute >> all right thank you very being litigated so I can't say anything about it. [snorts] >> Is that the place right on the corner branch and >> Yeah. >> Is it that place? >> Yeah. Past the high school >> that's for sale right now. So, no.