To the flag of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible liberty and justice for all. All right. And then approval of the agenda. So consider are there any changes to I don't know who asked. Good. Okay. Any changes to the agenda? There are no changes to the agenda, manager. Okay. Anyone like to make a motion to approve the agenda? I'll make a motion. All right. Anyone want a second? I'll second. All right. All in favor? I All right. Um, number four is appointment of the chair and vice chair. Yes, in um typically in April of each year we do uh chair and vice chair appointments. We did not have it at the last meeting. So um this year we are looking for a motion to elect a chair and vice chair for the upcoming year. I make a motion to keep it as it is. Motion by Brad. I'm open to second. Whatever you guys want to do. Okay. All in favor? I I Okay. All right. Um number five, public comment. So this is public opportunity to comment on any items not listed on the agenda. So, anything that's not listed on the agenda. Does anybody have anything to comment, not related to anything? Okay. Uh, five, announcements. There are no announcements. All right. And then approval of the minutes um for April 30th, 2024. I'll make a motion to approve. Yep. I didn't see anything, so they look good to me. Anyone want a second? I'll second. All right. All in favor? I All right. public hearings. Um, so Parkway Meadows, um, August Ventures LLC and Winkler Land, um, company LLC applicants. So it's continued from last month. That is correct. Okay. Um so it's consider the application for the comprehensive plan amendment consider application for reszoning property from urban reserve to planned unit development and consider application for permary plat approval. That is correct and um planner is going to be handling the presentation uh for this tonight and we did a really thorough presentation at the last meeting. Uh the commission directed us to continue the public hearing on this uh matter. We will not be repeating the full uh presentation that was given at the last meeting. Okay. The public hearing was extended to give property owners an opportunity to potentially work together. Okay. Thank you. Y that being said, I'll breeze through the presentation um just to provide some background information here. Property is just under 34 acres. Um it's located north of City Hall and directly east of James Parkway. Um the existing neighborhood there. Uh the northern section of it is zoned for R1 lowdensity housing and south of James Parkway is guided for um medium density which would could be attached town home housing as well. The applicant is seeking uh to do PU PUD zoning for the entire property. Um, this would give them a little flexibility in how they deal with the density requirements for the different zoning dis or different land uses on the site. Uh, so some of the key differences would be lot width. Instead of 85 ft, it'd be 65t lots. On the front setback would be 5 foot less from 30t to 25 ft. Side setback goes from 10 to 7. Um, and you can see there the table there's the rest of the differences. uh the developer and the applicant have submitted all the necessary plans as part of the development. The reason the public hearing was continued as Renee said was to give the chance for the property owner located to the south um a chance to figure out their site and how the roads are going to work. As you can see on this, street A and street C to the south of the development would be temporary culdesacs which could be continued on in the event the southern property uh decides to develop. So they would not become landlocked as part of this development. Uh the updated plans I'll show you in a second here. Um so they did change a little bit from the initial plans here. Mainly Riley Road has been extended further down to the south. if there's anything else I want to touch on before I show you the updated plans here. Um, so as part of the PUD, they're considering uh to exceed requirements for parkland dedication to the city. Um, and part of that discussion involved the commission um, deciding if they would like to extend that to the three lots that I'll show you here in a second. Okay, so these are the updated plans for Parkway Meadows. As you can see, Riley Road extended to the south here. Um, the parkland dedication, this out lot C, this big area here to the south. The three lots in question would be lots 56, um, sorry, 55, 56, and 57 right here. So, that could be considered. Um, we could ask for those lots as well to be part of that additional parkland. That's the discussion we want to have with you tonight. And then, of course, the public hearing. So, Okay. Thank you. Um, I just want to clarify uh one point that Jake made. The the plan the revised plans that were submitted um still show Riley roads uh stopping uh to the north, but the road alignment has been shifted to the west. So, they did get rid of that outlaw D, which was um problematic in the first plans. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I will open the public hearing. Do you want to put that back up or no? Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Um, so I open the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Um, so if you'd like to comment on this public hearing for Parkway Meadows, um, please come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Madame Chair, uh the uh the city has received one email that was sent in that I will read into the record. Okay. Um if nobody else is, uh here to speak in person. Uh this email was received today at uh approximately 1:00 p.m. And um I'm just going to read it verbatim. Um, the email is from Jenny Kaylor who resides at 506 Riley Road. And Miss Kaylor states, "I am writing in regard to the meeting about the new development off of Riley Road and James Parkway. Unfortunately, we are unable to attend this meeting, but we do want to express some of our thoughts and ask a few questions about the proposed development. And please forgive me if some of those questions have already been answered in previous meetings. Uh my family and I have lived in Elqu Market on Riley Road since 2018. One of the main reasons we bought this home was for privacy of the dead end roads and the beauty of the farm across the road. Of course, we knew at some point it could and would be developed into a neighborhood. Our concerns are as follows. Uh no other outlets in this new neighborhood on the south or east sides, creating more traffic down uh Riley Road and James Parkway. Uh the last meeting there was a comment about the amount of kids in the neighborhood being added to the e to Eagle View Elementary School. I believe the comment was that there would could be an average of 50 uh kids proposed uh for the proposed development. I just wanted to point out that between Riley Road and Carter Street, which is about 20 homes, we have 30 kids just in those homes alone. So I don't believe that is a fair average. I am not against more kids to Eagle View. I just want to point out that comment did not seem very accurate. Our questions are as follows. What is the proposed average cost of these homes and what style of homes are being proposed? Has the option for acreage lots been considered for this land rather than the 86 home neighborhood? It is my opinion and that of many that I have spoken to as well as many Facebook comments that the need for acreage lots in Elco Market is in high demand. One plus acre lots would be a great option for this land. Uh question number three, will there be a four-way stop at James Parkway and Riley Road where Whispering Creek Park is located? Four, why are sidewalks being proposed for the west side of Riley Road when our home and our neighbors homes are already established rather than adding them to the east side of Riley Road where these homes haven't yet been built? Thank you for reading my email and for any clarifications you can provide. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Go ahead, Madam Chair, commissioners. Thank you very much. Joe Sullivan, the applicant. Uh thanks for your time again this evening. So, just to clarify, the uh change we made, slight change was basically a straightening of Riley Road, which uh provides for more open space to the east side of Riley Road. And so, it's increased by the difference of outlaw D or more. um when it came up in dialogue conversation a month ago about those three lots what I was trying to emphasize in the presentation the conversation is we're trying to hit an entry point here in terms of pricing the infrastructure is the same regardless of the number of lots that we put in this subdivision and if you decrease the number of lots by three um it just makes all the other lots that much more expensive we think what we've presented is very generous in terms of open space. Not just the park dedication area, but also the other areas throughout the development. Many of those homes look into an open space and not into another neighbor. And so I think it's designed very well and is very generous in terms of open space already. So, thank you. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Any other public comments related to um Parkway Meadows? Please stand up to the podium, state your name and address if you'd like. I just have a question or two. On the two culde-sacs that come down to touch the property for the bars, are they going to be permanent? To be temporary, but so you're going to force that street to come through then when we develop? We do not agree with the plan. I think you should either make it a permanent culde-sac or depending on how our plan comes in to tie in. We would prefer a permanent culde-sac. Can you please state your name and address for the record? That'd be helpful because that doesn't then it doesn't li limit our flexibility on the south. We have to continue those two streets. We can't accept that plan. Okay. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Pardon? Can you please state your name and address for the record? Okay. My name is Dale Wrl. I'm a consultant for the bars. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, your concern, I want to make sure I heard you right, was the culde-sac. You want a culde-sac? Yeah. At the end. Okay. I mean, we do not want the we don't want the sub streets for connections coming into the development because I think we're we'll have a different type of style in there and I don't think that would work mixing the two neighborhoods. At least it gives us flexibility as to how we develop that versus having to run those two streets in. It gives us a lot more flexibility of how we can design Okay, thank you. How many Can I just ask how many undersized lots do they have in this development? All All of the lots that are proposed within the development um are smaller than the current um minimum lot size requirements. They're they're smaller than what? They're smaller than the 12,000 square foot minimum. Okay. That's currently in place. And that's So what was the trade-off on that? Additional park dedication. Pardon? Additional parkland dedication over and above the minimum. And that's the only reason at this point? Yes. Okay. Uh, I guess I guess our position is we'd like a recommendation that the culde-sacs be permanent unless our plan works out that we could tie in. But other than that, I don't want to be forced to that when our development comes in. Does that make I think on the flip side, we would not want to be forced into approving a plan we haven't even seen. Normally, we promote connection between neighborhoods and that's the only basis we have for saying the intent of those is to be uh temporary. Why don't you loop the street and just back up to the development versus counter to our intention of connecting neighborhoods. So, so you're going to run single family into higher density or higher density into the property to the south of the two uh proposed temporary culde-sacs is guided to medium density residential. That land use designation allows a single family detached home or town homes town homes up to eight attached units. So it could be twin homes, could be forplexes, could be eightplexes, could be single family detached as well. So uh so um we the planning commission had recommended at the last meeting to continue the public hearing to give the two property owners an opportunity uh to work this this matter out. I don't know that there has been any communication. Um but the plan before you is still with the two streets running north south into the property. Did you guys meet at all or pardon me? Did you guys meet at all? We had phone conversation or not conversations, we made phone calls to each other and have not communicated. So, so for the record, we are against the culde-sacs. Thank you. Thank you. Wouldn't there have to be a temporary one on James, too? Oh, if it's under 150 ft or right in there where they So, there's a limit. Oh, I see. Close. Oh, okay. It's right at the limit. All right. Um Yeah. There's also a little bit of um extra space at the end of James Parkway adequate that our public works can push snow into the rideway there. All right, I will ask a third time. Any other public comments related to the Parkway Meadows public hearing? No. Okay. I will close the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Thank you everyone for your comments. Uh Madame Chair, if we wanted to take a second just to respond to that the first email, they brought up some concerns. So, um, no other outlets for the development. That would be true until, uh, we get a chance to connect Riley Road to the south and that east west road to 91. Um, that only happens as those other properties develop. Um, so this property would get us that much closer to those additional connections. Eagle View concerns. Um, so that study we referenced was out of date. Um, those numbers are probably different now. It probably is a little bit more, but that's the most current figure we have from the school district. It was It's important to note that's an average across the district. So, there are many areas that, you know, have uh no children in neighborhoods. So, it was a district average. Okay. The other thing uh would be that James Parkway and Riley have adequate capacity for this development, right? An additional traffic. Yeah. It's doesn't warrant an additional connection at this point in time. um the cost of home, style of homes, that would have to be, I guess, directed at the developer as well as the acreage lots. Um those aren't questions I guess the city could answer. I'll go ahead and address the grading plan that was submitted to pick split entry homes for throughout the entire development. So, as far as house style, um split entry price point, I can't we can't I can't speak to as staff. Um acreage lots would simply not be permitted in the city. um they're proh they're prohibited and uh we could never sewer provide sewer to 1acre lots. We wouldn't meet our density requirements from the Metropolitan Council. Okay. Thank you. I have a question on I think it's Riley Road to the south. Am I looking at page 42, which is the revision or or not in the packet? 42 of the packet. Yeah, that would be the old plan. Okay. What page is the current one? Uh it's on the screen right here. It wasn't included with your packet. What was it? It was an attachment to the memorandum. I'm not sure what page on the packet it is, but uh yeah, page 105. So, what are we doing with Riley Road to the south? Is it going to have a going to stop somewhere or uh staff's recommendation is that Riley Road be constructed to the south property line of the plat? So pass the basin right right like just as it's shown. So do they own that or is that uh Winkler property there? Then uh staff also recommends that the entire alignment be within the proposed plat. It is shown as centered on the Yeah, that's what I read about that it wasn't. So, that's not an accurate drawing either. That's correct. Okay. All right. So, the first one was closer. It's kind of a mix of the middle of the two. Okay. Um, which is staff's recommendation. So, is there going to be a temporary culde-sac down there, too? Uh, we have not requested one at this time. I would propose one at this time because if people go down there and then say, "Oh, I got to turn around." You know, because it's long enough, correct? Yes, it's long enough. I guess we're still sorting out what that road's going to be. Uh given that there wouldn't be any homes on it initially, it's largely about public works and not having to back out when they snowplow. But, um drivers entering and not having a place, that's a concern as well. But we haven't gotten that far. There could be at least one property on there or maybe two. There could be, but nothing's proposed at this time. And is there going to be a sidewalk on the west side of Riley on that? I don't see it on the drawing. I think it's on the east side. Correct. Correct. Um, local road. Riley Road is a local road. It only requires sidewalk on one side. Okay. So, they were Parkway. as a minor collector would be required on both sides. It's one of the it's one of the concessions. Yeah. Oh, so by the whale house. Yeah. It's it's the the plan set shows sidewalk proposed on the east side of Riley Road both north and south of James Parkway. In the future, we may uh also want to include it on the west side of Riley, but currently if you look at uh page 109 of your packet, you can see sidewalk on the east side of James uh Riley Road. So, so James Parkway would have both sides. Yes. Yes. Yeah. That's not Riley, though. So, up by where the houses on Riley are, there would be only on the That'd be only one side. That's correct. So, she was not understanding that. Correct. She decided on the wrong side. 109 you said. Yeah. page 109 of the packet. Okay. I'm trying to compare both. Say what? I'm trying to compare both. Any other comments, questions? I know there was a few things that were noted last month at the meeting. Is there like a bigger picture of the property of the south looks like I mean how is that how street and streetffect I have I have something Okay, hopefully this helps you visualize. You can see county on the south. See city hall here where my mouse is. So, this property that I'm outlining with my mouse is owned by um the Barsus family. this this here um L-shaped piece and you can um Casey you can see on County Road 2 the county did it set up future access uh adjacent to this property on its east side um the front portion of the property we envision would be um accessed through that full channelization that's in place on County Highway And then streets are stubbed uh here as proposed uh by Mr. Sullivan. Um this is how it connects into their property. So the northern portion of the property is under agricultural um use at this point. There's quite an elevation change. Yeah. Yeah. So this is the same um drawing showing the change in elevations. So street A and street C would eventually run into that street that's coming off of two. Not necessarily. Yeah, not necessarily. I you know like I think that is up to private developers to figure out how those areas will be served with local streets to provide access to local development. I don't I don't see another option for access to that property other than from the south and from the north. I don't see a westerly access right with the master plan in place you know right of the campus for the city so I don't see it connecting any other way so other than maybe from the east so that access is on a different it's not on the Barson property as you can see. They're going to have to kind of work with that property owner to bring in traffic from County Road 2. Um so if we did make those two streets permanent culde-sacs at this point and the Bars family did decide to develop that property, they would pretty much be forced to rely on the neighboring property owner to provide access for their property. Yeah. Well, I have a a few comments if I can make them and then a question. Um I'm I'm disappointed that um the discussions between the property owners couldn't happen in the last month. Um that's really what we were gunning for last month in tableabling this. Um, I really do appreciate the realignment of the Riley Road um to the uh west a little bit more. Um, and then I do support the PUD with dedication of lots 55, 56 and 57 um to city for parkland. And then my question to to city staff, and I thought I saw it in one of the reports, but I I could not find it here while I was scrolling through, is in exchange for the PUD, how many additional lots are being created going from our um established ordinance to this PUD to the 86 lots. How many additional lots are being created? I don't have an answer to that question. And I don't believe it was in any specific report, but if I was going to estimate, I would say at least 10, 12 maybe. I don't know exactly. Okay. It would take some calculation to figure that out. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Other questions, comments? I had a question for Rich. I guess on the retaining role notes on was it 110 of the packet. I I saw the red line what was that saying? Getting rid of retaining walls or if possible. Um but at least getting them out of city easement. And the other thing that I'm recommending is that they not be allowed to be shared like going across all the properties because you have a recipe for disputes in the future. Now you're forcing property owners to work together to maintain or repair a retaining wall that may not have the same interests. By wrapping them in at each corner, each person can take care of their own wall without having to rely on the neighbor. That itself causes some, you know, it's a little more wall and more work to build, but those shared walls can be a a problem in the long term. What is the easement back there? 10 feet or I believe in that area where those steep slopes are, I think it's shown at 10. Um, I'm I'm our main goal is to actually retain is shown at 20 feet in that particular area actually along the entire north property line. Um it's a 20 foot easement uh that's shown. Well, that brings up another question. Did the discussions further with the property owners to the north and the east with the fencing at all or Yeah, I remember reading about that. Like I don't know what the discussion was last month about that. Yeah, there really wasn't discussion. the the two property owners went on record to state that they have farm animals adjacent to the property. Yeah, there was no further discussion on it. Okay. Concerns about potential trespassing, but I guess that could happen anywhere in the community. Sure. Okay. Because the development to the west had a fence put in with the development. So that's the reason I brought that up. So I think our understanding that was a private thing, not required by the city. Yeah, it was negotiated between the land owner and the developer. So Okay. So, I know there was a list of like long conditions. Um, how would you like to best go about this, Renee? Um, let me pull up the staff report. I'm looking at the draft from last month. I couldn't find it for this one. I think it was the last two conditions on there we needed feedback on. Okay. Uh the rest of the list is pretty set. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. So there were yeah 11 um conditions. So the planning commission is being asked to make recommendation to the city council regarding the comprehensive plan amendment uh the resoning and the preliminary plat. Those three items. Staff has recommended 12 conditions related to the preliminary plat. Um the last two we're seeking your feedback on. Okay. Uh the developer has uh not in the current plans that have been submitted. These were revised since the last meeting. It's not showing Riley Road extended to the south property line. Um staff continues to recommend that it Riley Road be constructed to the south property line. Um so looking for your input on that and then the potential for additional park dedication as okay was mentioned. Okay. Um other than that staff has no uh comments regarding um this. I think staff would like to just touch on um the comment made regarding the the street alignment. Um the city is required to act on this application by July 3rd. So your recommendation will be forwarded to the city council for action in June. Uh we have to act on this application by July 3rd and we have seen no um I understand the adjacent property owner is going on record saying the um they are not in support of the current road alignment. Um we don't believe that the current layout is a reason for denial of the plat. provides a road connection to the property that they can pick up off um at some point. Somebody needs to go first and uh it doesn't preclude development of the property as presented. Sure. Thank you. Anyone else have any comments on the Riley Road construction? Oh, go ahead. I mean, in all fairness, I think we gave um the property owners to sell 30 days to try to figure something out. Maybe less than 30 days. I don't know what their plan is, if they want to sell that entire property or if they want to develop it themselves, but 30 days is not a lot of time to figure out how to work with Mr. Sullivan or whoever else might be involved. And like I said, I really hope that we can think towards the future on this as well. And maybe that maybe this is the best route, but Are we are we giving people enough time to actually get the affairs in order? Understood. We just uh we're bound by state statute on how uh soon we we need to act on it. We have already extended our 60-day review timeline. The July 3rd is our 120day, which is the maximum time allowed under state statute for the city to process Elang's application. Okay. And that's for us to make a recommendation to the city. Well, this is your last opportunity, your last meeting. Yes. Um where we could reasonably get something scheduled before the city council, right? You want to hold a special meeting in the middle of the month and give the another week or two weeks, but I don't Yeah. know that that's a going to be resolved by then. What page were these recommendations on? They were on page 29 of the packet. Actually, start starting on page 28. Any other comments regarding the Riley Road or the proposed lots 55, 56, and 57. I appreciate, you know, the comment of wanting to give them more time to kind of hash this out and work together. Um, and thinking in the future. Um, but you know, we do have to respect that timeline as well based on state statute. Um, and yeah, we do connect neighborhoods with the streets. I mean that's part of it. So, yep. Have to close it or make a motion to close public hearing. Yeah. Or this is the this is our discussion. Discussion. Okay. No more questions or comments. Okay. I'll make a motion to close our discussion at 7:40 p.m. All in favor? I. Okay. Anyone want to make a motion? Recommendation. I say should I don't see where they are listed there as far as how it was listed, but I agree with the road movement of Riley to the east to make it all the way to the property southern property line. Um, I agree with the temporary culde-sacs and making a sign that says they're temporary, you know, because I think it said there was a a sign that's going to go on the ends of these roads. So, future extension and then uh the three lots, I would request them as part of the PUD agreement as well. So, those are three items. All right, I'll make a motion. Okay. Does that motion include the additional lots, the 55 56? You did. Okay. Just making sure. Um Brad, on your Riley Road to the south, are you requesting a temporary culde-sac on Riley or Um I would like one. Yes, I like that idea. I think that people get down there and realize, oh, I'm not going anywhere. You're kind of stuck. So I live on a dead end for the last 20 some years. So a lot of people turn around. Safer to not turn around or to turn around than back up with having an area to turn around. Yeah. I'll second that motion. Okay. All in favor of Riley Road being extended, moved to the east, culde-sac sign, and then the proposed lots 55, 56, and 57 being allotted. All in favor? I I Okay, motion carries. All right, now we'll go on to general business. Um, so there's two parts. Part A, concept plan, review of proposed residential development, FKA, Fezant Hills, Robert. I don't want to say that wrong. Thank you. So, we'll start there. Okay. Um, Madame Chair, um, Brandon is going to be handling the presentation on this concept plan for us this evening. I'd like to point out for the commission uh Mr. Hatchek Mahhatic is uh looking at this property, considering the property for development. He's seeking preliminary feedback from this commission tonight uh regarding a concept layout for the property. Uh asking for your recommendation following our presentation uh just providing a recommendation to the city council. Uh we were we will not be taking the purpose of this meeting tonight is not to be taking public comment that is uh public hearing would be required and provided if a official plat application was submitted. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you Renee. Okay. So um this property is going to be 44.3 gross acres. Um the concept plan, as Rene said, has not been submitted yet or the concept plan is what we're looking at right now and it has not been reviewed by the planning commission or the city council. Um the property was formally zoned PUD in 2005 and has remained that way since. Um but because the PUD agreement and the zoning record predates the merger of Elco and New Market, um and because it was 20 years ago, uh staff agreed that the property should be entirely reszoned. Uh this is just kind of an aerial of it. So, it's in the southwest corner highlighted by that pink box. Um the neighborhood conditions. So, to the south of this proposed development is agricultural property located outside of the city limits. To the east um is a few large rural residential properties also located outside of the city limits. The north um is the proposed development is the Ruina Ponds residential development. And to the west of the proposed developments are a few large lot residential properties and agricultural properties located outside of the city limits. So the land is currently uh guided to low density residential. Um the lowdensity residential district is characterized by low residential densities that provide opportunities for a variety of detached single family residential housing units. Um it's shown by R1 and R2 zoning in our code. Um, and this comes out to be two and a half to five units per net acre. The proposed development meets those standards and is 3.1 units per net acre with 89 proposed housing units on 28.6 net acres. Residential detached single family homes meets the intent of the currently guided land use for the area. So, as I said, it was 44.3 acres currently zoned PUD. The property must be reszoned to a zoning district consistent with the purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan prior to development. And the developer would be proposing a new PUD zoning for the entire property. Uh Jake kind of went through this last month, so I'm only going to highlight a few of them. Um so the intent of PUD zoning is fair trade-offs. Um the ones highlighted here are C to provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in this title. Um in order to improve site design and operation while at the same time incorporating design elements that exceed the city's standards to offset the effect of any of the variations and to preserve and enhance natural features and open spaces. um planning new developments proposed to allow for reduction in lot size, lot width, setback requirements and various design standards within the development. Exam um examples that have been used in other PDs approved by the city to achieve the purpose and intent are shown there. Um the bolded one is construction of off-site infrastructure because that is what the city would be um looking for in this particular development. So the current zoning map, as I said, shows low density. Um there's a graphic of the proposed PUD. So section 8 uh section 11-3-8 of the zoning ordinance also identifies criteria to be considered as part of the request for zoning amendment um as follows. And I'm just going to highlight the fifth one because that's the important one here which is traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Um staff believes that the request to reszone the property to a new PUD meets the above stated criteria for reszoning except for the capabilities of the streets serving the property which will be addressed as the presentation progresses. Uh this is the chart obviously that shows the differences between normal R1 district requirements and the request for the proposed development formerly known as Peasant Hills. Um so as you see the minimum lot size 8,400 square feet instead of 12,000. Um, minimum lot width, same as the last one, 65 instead of 85. And then front setback, uh, 25 instead of 30. Side setback, seven and a half instead of 10. Side corner setback, 20 ft instead of 25. Rear setback, 25 ft instead of 30. And sidewalks. So, there's no sidewalk that's going to be required along 270th Street because it's just not uh not sensible yet. And there'll be no sidewalk required along Harvest Drive. And I also wanted to point out that you'll see it later in the map again when I show it, but we're omitting the extension of Cedric Lane to 270th Street East because it's just premature. Uh miscellaneous design requirements. So for one and two family residences, a 440 foot attached garage shall be constructed at the time of the principal structure. For all newly created lots, all site plans for single family homes shall provide for the location of a three-stall attached garage, whether or not construction is intended. Um tree preservation the a tree inventory plan will be required as part of a formal development application landscaping. Um in addition to developer obligations um the zoning ordinance points out that two trees must be planted upon each lot at the time of the building permit and sod must be placed in the front and sideyards and rear yards must be seated hydro seated or soded and these landscaping requirements apply to the builder at the time of the building permit for each of the new homes. Um, easements have yet to be depicted, which is required by city code. Section 1296 of the subdivision ordinance requires that drainage and utility easements are at least 10 ft wide. Um, shall be provided on all lot lines. These easements may be centered on common rear and side lot lines. At a minimum, these easements shall be 10 feet wide along all lot lines on streets and not and along all boundaries within with land not being developed. Uh larger easements may be required where infrastructure is installed or to protect required drainage swells. So sanitary sewer um it is available on the north side of the property along Cedric Lane via an 8 inch PVC sewer stub. Preliminary utility plans have not yet been submitted um and they will need to be when they are submitted consistent with the 2040 sanitary sewer plan. Um it's also to note that a lift station and a force man will be needed in order to serve this proposed development. Uh because the lift station will serve a larger area than just the proposed development, it is considered a system lift station in which the city has typically paid the cost for and sanitary sever plan will require city engineer approval. Um preliminary water and utility plans have not yet been provided. The city's 2040 water plan depicts a 12-in trunk water line extending along Harvest Drive on the north side of the property and a 12-in water line along the south side of the property along 270th Street East. Um the 12-in water line on the north side of the property currently exists on the north side of Harvest Drive and there's a connection point at the Cedric Lane um Harvest Drive intersection that can be used to serve the proposed development. The connection point is highlighted on the bottom image to the right. Just a little highlight in the middle there. Um, the 12-in trunk water line on the south south side of the property does not currently exist. Staff recommends that the 12-in water trunk line along 270th Street be constructed in the future and not required as a part of this proposed development. The proposed development can be served with 8inch water lines, which can be extended south on Cedric Lane as that road is being built and expanded to the south during the development process. And the water plan must also be approved by the city engineer. Um, same thing. A storm water plan has not yet been submitted. The submitted concept plan shows four separate storm water basins proposed to serve development. Um, all basins are located on outlots proposed to be conveyed to the city as part of the platting process. 10 foot wide vegetative buffer will be required from high water level around all storm water ponds and access to the proposed pond on the east side of Cedric Lane must be provided for. So staff notes that two of the conceptual ponds depicted on this concept plan located west of Cedric Lane, the two in the middle, um should these areas, they are shown on top of potential wetlands. Um should these areas contain delineated wetlands protected by the wetland conservation act and or the clean water act, these areas may not be available and be used for ponding purposes. Storm water plan must also be approved by the city engineer. A wetland delineation um and MRAN report will need to be completed prior to development of the property. The required buffer width is dependent upon the quality of the wetlands. Um wetland buffer signs sign markers are also going to be required along all lot lines at buffer locations. The subdivision ordinance requires that wetlands and buffers be contained in outlots and conveyed to the city upon the filing of the plat. And there are no FEMA designated flood planes or DNR protected waters or wetlands located on this property. Transportation and access. So the proposed development borders on two existing public streets which are Harvest Drive to the west and to the north and 270th Street uh east to the south. The city's transportation plan identifies Harvest Drive as a local street. Um it identifies 270th as a future major collector street and identifies Cedric Lane as a future minor collector street. So Harvest Drive um local streets are primarily for access and adjacent land uses. Harvest Drive is located entirely outside of the city limits and is under the jurisdiction of New Market Township. Um staff have concerns with the conditions of the pavement on Harvest Drive as you can see on the picture at the bottom left. Um, of particular concern is the condition of the pavement on the segment um, of Harvest Drive that would serve the proposed development, which is located between Cedric Lane and um, Zay Avenue. Staff are recommending that this segment of Harvest, which is approximately 1,600 feet in length and 26 feet in width, be repaved as a condition of the development. Uh, because this section of Harvest Drive is a township road, any improvements to this road will require the coordination and approval of New Market Township. All right. So, 27th Street collective roadways uh provide balance of mobility and land use access functions. The they generally serve trips that are entirely within the city and connect neighborhoods to each other. The city would typically require that Cedric Lane road connection to 270 Street be made um and that 270th Street be improved, two major collector street standards. However, in this case, um the city supports a temporary culde-sac on Cedric Lane to the south and not connected to the development because it's gravel road and located entirely outside of the city limits. Major collector streets require 100 ft of rightway. Uh but staff recommends that a total of 50 feet of rightway from the section line be dedicated for 270th Street at the time of platting. Um Cedric Lane. So collective roadways provide a balance of mobility and land use access functions. Um Cedric Lane is shown here as the north south oriented road proposed to go through the development. Um the proposed alignment of Cedric Lane as shown on the concept plan depicts the uh street jogging with a 90 degree turn traveling south. Um but staff would recommend that Cedric Lane be shown as a more continuous street as depicted in the city's 2040 transportation plan. So some additional high level comments regarding the streets. Um there are a number of local roadways shown on the concept plan. Local roads require a minimum of 28 feet um width within a 60 foot rightway with sidewalks on one side. Um a temporary culdeac will be required where the dead ends of streets exceed 150 feet in length. Um staff believe temporary calls will be required at the following locations which are between lots 85 and 86, 47 and 48 and at lot 60 along with future road extension signs that will be required at the end of all temporary culde-sacs and the culde-sac at the southerntherly end of Cedric Lane will be temporary. The street will eventually be extended to the south to connect to 270th Street. Um, so access staff believe temporary culde-sacs will be required at the locations I just stated. Um, as shown with the pink circles on your map. And on the bottom right, it shows an example of a temporary culde-sac. Sidewalks and trails. So based on the city's subdivision ordinance 2040's transportation plan and 2040 park and trail plan, the following would be required. Um, sidewalks are required on both sides of Cedric Lane. Sidewalks would be required on one side of all local streets within development. Sidewalk required along the north side of 270th Street and sidewalk currently along Harvest Drive. Um, as I said earlier, these are conditions of PUD. So, that wouldn't necessarily be how it works. Um, but there's currently no sidewalk on either Harvest Drive or 270 Street East. And for this reason, staff recommend that the sidewalk along 270 Street and Harvest Drive be deferred to a future date when those roads are improved. Should the development proceed, uh staff will be seeking a recommendation from the parks commission locate uh regarding the location of the proposed sidewalks within the development. So parks related comments. The city's subdivision ordinance requires as a prerequisite uh to final PL approval and to the sole determination by the city that the applicants or developers shall dedicate land for parks, recreation facilities that defined Minnesota statute, playgrounds, public open spaces, wetlands or trails or shall make cash contributions to the city's park and trail fund um roughly related to the anticipated effect of the plat on the park and trail system and based on fair average fair market value of the unpatted land for which park fees have not already been paid. In all new subdivisions where land dedication is required, 8% of the net area subdivided or a different percentage as the city council determines necessary as a result of the subdivision approval shall be dedicated for public park trails or open space. So, the city's 2040 park and trail plan does not identify any park search areas um on the subject property, but identifies a neighborhood park search area to the west of it. Should the development proceed, uh, input regarding the desire for land versus cash would be sought from sought after from the city's parks commission. It is generally recommended that all neighborhoods be serviced by a neighborhood park, a park located within half a mile and not interrupted by major roadways or major physical barriers. Um, the closest park to this proposed development are Wagner and Rowena Pond, which is identified as a community park. Um, community parks have a onem service area. The drawing to the right depicts a onem radius in pink. um of Wagner and Rowena Park. The subject property would be served um because it is roughly 75 miles away from the subject property. There's also an undeveloped park located to the east in the farm development which is primarily a natural area. So, some miscellaneous items. Staff just wanted to note that um on this plat, everything we're currently speaking about is highlighted in red, but as you see, there's a little bit of ghost platting done to the west. Um we just wanted to note that this depiction does not indicate anything, but rather shows the potential for future development based on the roadway alignments um within the proposed development. Um additional roadway connections to the north. staff raises the question to the planning commission whether an additional road connection should be provided to the properties located to the north as shown with the blue line on the adjacent map as you can see on the left side of it. Uh staff also notes that the subject property is fairly rolling having nearly 100 feet of elevation changes throughout various portions of the property. Uh the steep grades may may present some design challenges as the property proceeds into final design. Um there's a potential that some lots may require elimination during final design due to steep grades. U most notably as you see here lots 85 and 86. Um more notably even so is 86. Um the subdivision ordinance prohibits the creation of reserve strips uh which may control access to adjacent properties except under conditions approved by the city council. There are a couple areas within the concept plan that indicate the potential for property remnants such as west of proposed lot 60 as you see on the top picture. Um staff also question whether proposed lot 47 is developable developable within the project limits or if additional land is needed for the creation of proposed lot 47 since it goes outside of that red boundary area um traffic. So based on the IT generation manual, the development can be expected to generate approximately 890 new vehicle trips per day. Ingress and egress from the proposed development will be primarily from the existing segment of Harvest Drive on the north side of the property until other area roads are improved in the future and alternative connections to the development are made. Uh most recent most recent traffic counts on Harvest Drive are from 2021 and indicated about 469 exactly 469 average daily trips east of the proposed development. adding the proposed development traffic to the existing vehicle trips result in less than 1500 vehicle trips per day um on Harvest Drive. Staff's opinion is that Harvest Drive has the physical cap capacity to handle the proposed increase in traffic, however lacks the structural capacity due to the degrading pavement surface. Um based on consultation with the city's traffic engineer, staff are not recommending the completion of a traffic impact study for the proposed development. Um so premature development title 1247 of the city code addresses premature subdivisions. Um it states that existing roads providing access to the subdivision have the structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the proposed subdivision or the developer agrees to pay for any structural deficiency corrections. Staff's opinion is that Harvest Drive, which will be providing the access to development, does not have the structural capacity to support the proposed increase in traffic on the street. Uh staff therefore recommend that Harvest Drive be improved or repaved as a condition of the plat. The city engineer has recommended milling the current pavement and paving a 2-in base course and a one and a half inch wear course on the section of Harvest Drive um between Webster Street and Cedric Lane. However, this recommendation is totally subject to township approval because Harvest Drive is again a township road. Um there are criteria that must be considered when determining a proposed resoning of a property as shown below. Uh in addition, the purposes of a planned unit development as stated in the city code must be documented. So staff's opinion is that all criteria can be satisfied provided that Harvest Drive is improved between Webster Street and Cedric Lane. And again, just want to highlight the fifth one that traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property, which we do not believe is true. Um so additional comments, the city engineer has reviewed the concept plan and his comments have been incorporated throughout this report. Um public works director reviewed the concept development plan um and his comments have been incorporated throughout this report. The police chief and the fire uh fire chief have not commented. The building official has also not commented. The city attorney reviewed the concept development plan and has no comments other than those included in this report specifically required to the improvement of Harvest Drive. Uh she noted that any improvements to Harvest Drive will require a joint powers agreement between the city and New Market Township. And these numbers, as we talked about, may not be accurate, but um this proposed development would add 49 students based on the best information we have available to the new Prague School District. Um annexation. So the site area is currently located within Elanoo Market municipal boundaries and is under the jurisdiction of the city. The Harvest Drive road rightway located along the north side of the property is located entirely in New Market Township and the existing 270th Street Road rightway located on the south side is also entirely within the New Market Township. Um the township questions and recommendations. So, uh New Market Township has not yet provided comments regarding the proposed development. This is kind of my fault, but um approval of the development would require coordination with New Market Township because the proposed street access into the development would be provided from a township road. Um so feedback from the township will also need be needed regarding the recommendation uh the recommended improvements to town uh to Harvest Drive. So some staff recommendations for resoning. Um, following all feedback from the planning commission regarding the proposed concept plan, uh, the planning commission is being asked to make a re recommendation to the city council uh, regarding the development. If the planning commission does not support the proposed lot size, lot standards and so on, staff recommends that the planning commission provide a specific recommendation regarding supported lot sizes and standards. If the planning commission does support the proposed lot standards and layout, staff would recommend approval of a proposed development for the following reasons. Um the proposed use of the property for single family residential development meets the intent of the comprehensive plan which guides the property to lowdensity residential land use and two development of the property as single family residential is compatible um with adjacent land uses. So the following is a summary of items that must be addressed and noted as a condition of the planning commission review. Number one uh the developer must enter into development contract with the city at the time of development. Two, drainage and utility easements must be dedicated at the time of final plat. A tree inventory will be required as part of any application to plat the property. Um, a wetland delineation report and MN RAM will be required as part of the applicant part of any applicant to uh plat the property. All proposed storm water ponds must be located outside of any delineated wetlands or comply with the requirements of the wetland conservation act. Number six, all wetlands and storm water ponds must be located on outlots and shall be dedicated to the city at the time of final plat approval. Access to the proposed ponds on the east side of Cedric Lane must be provided for for maintenance purposes. Maintenance access to the most suddly pond must also be provided for. Um, a sanitary sewer lift station and force main are going to be needed to serve the proposed development with sanitary sewer. Cedric Lane must be redesigned to be a continuous street as depicted in the transportation plan. Um temporary culde-sacs must be provided where dead end streets exceed 150 ft and future road extension signs will be required at the end of those culde-sacs. Um any remnants and reserve strips of land shown in the concept plan are not permitted by the city subdivision ordinance. 14. Harvest drive must be improved or repaved as a condition of the pl uh plat. Sidewalks will be required on one side of all local residential streets on both sides of all minor collector streets. Um the proposed street connection to Harvest Drive will require approval of New Market Township. There is potential that some lots may require elimination during final design due to steep grades. Um an additional local street connection must be provided to the north of the proposed development and further input will be sought from the parks commission regarding the desire for what they want to do um regarding land dedication or cash contribution. Um staff also would like to note that um number one staff recommend that the 12-in trunk water line along 270th Street as shown in the city's water plan be constructed in the future and not required as part of the development. Number two, staff recommend that the sidewalk required along 270th Street and Harvest Drive be constructed in the future and not required not required as part of this proposed development. Number three, the culde-sac proposed at the southerntherly end of Cedric Lane is temporary and will ultimately connect to 270 street east to the south and staff do not recommend the completion of a traffic traffic impact study for the proposed development. So, uh the requested action, the planning commission is being asked to provide feedback regarding the concept plan and make a recommendation to the city council. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Great. That's a lot. No, that's okay. I read it all earlier, so it's fine. Where do you guys want to start? How about this? Can we start at that road? Can you explain to me more about that, Cedric? So, what we are asking the developer to do is to straighten that just take that left that that that 90° turn out. and kind of smooth it out. [Music] Circled in pink. Yeah. So that's as it shows, but according to Street. Okay. Maybe it becomes a curve with that other road coming into it perpendicularly, but we'd leave that to them to solve. But that's the issue. Okay. Gotcha. to reconfigure the lots down there to make it work. Yeah, I understand the concept of their backyards being towards the ponds. I understand not wanting a road along the pond, I guess, is their their point behind that. also note that Mr. Mahachek is here tonight if you have any questions for him. Okay, thank you. [Music] Um, [Music] so in regards to lot size, I know that's always a big topic. Uh after listening to the applica applications that have come before the planning commission the last year or so, it seems to me that the request for smaller lot sizes seems to be on everybody's PUD request. Um so really I I would like to see this the I would like to see um a change to our code. I mean, if this is going to be the regular, I think that we should be looking closer at that. And and I don't know, maybe that's a staff admin type of a thing. But I would think that having to run to us for approval for everything, maybe this is an area that, hey, this could be an administrative thing if we already have these um lot widths changed. I don't know. Just just a talking thought. Sure. Um, in regards to this, my question was, um, I'm very familiar with that area. Um, so that section of land that's in the middle that's within city limits and everything else that surrounds it is not. So, it makes it a little bit challenging. Um, do we know roughly what the lot sizes are around there? Because I know they're fairly large. And I just I'm thinking of marina houses, big lots and then tiny lots in the center. Like it Yeah, I get that things may be developed, but that might take some time with all the individual property owners along Harvest. It's not just one. So the the lots along Harvest as you continue to the west are approximately four to five acres in size. The lots to the east are closer to 10 acres in size. They would be along Webster or Zayn. Uh to the south it's kind of a mix of, you know, maybe even larger, right? Um you know, old farmsteads. So yeah, and you know, Brad can probably attest he was probably here at one point. The entire um Well, I can certainly property. Yeah. The entire um Sakora farm had been annexed in anticipation of a development. Uh the grading had started in this particular area. Um it was just simply abandoned due to the recession. I think I'll go ahead. Can you unshare your screen? I was going to say, is this close to what it was planned back then? It's very close. Okay. Lot sizes. The lot sizes are No, they're not. They're smaller. Okay. Yeah. lot sizes in the original development um didn't meet they I were my I I believe they were 12,000 square feet and I believe the PUD at the time was needed because there was a sewer capacity issue in the city it was before the city was connected to Musa so they were using PUD as a mechanism to control phasing of lots within developments um just you know the market has changed and as Melissa noted we continue to see requests for um and you can look around other communities. This isn't new something different in Elquan New Market. Um in fact, I think Shaki's removed some of their minimum lot sizes alto together. Um most other developing communities are have smaller lot sizes requirements. And this Harvest Lane uh or Harvest Drive that was from the property on over to Webster. Webster. And then is Webster approved? I think it's asphalt, but is that a um I think Webster's paved in that area. It is. Yeah, but I mean that's not a needing of an overlay. Okay. But I I agree this road does look pretty poor in shape. It does need an improvement. um being on that road. I And one thing with that, I know it's not part of and this would be part of the township maybe because it's Harvest Drive is township. Um that's a really wide road. Um at least it appears to me when I out there and people drive pretty fast on that road and the curves and the hills like it's a beautiful road. I love that area. But um I don't know if like markings need to be like you know if that needs to be done just to slow people down a little bit or give them some sense of direction like we've done on local streets here um based on how wide they are and I don't know considering if if this were to move forward and additional traffic and it's just a thought that came in my head. Sure. Yeah. Right. Sure. Mr. Mahhatcha could answer that question. I think at this point he's just seeking feedback uh to determine if he is going to proceed forward. ask. Yeah. Okay. Right. Yeah. Nicole, the pavement's actually about 26 feet wide, which is slightly narrower than our minimum street standards. Um whether some edge markings and stuff would be appropriate would be a discussion of the time. I'm just thinking it would slow people down because they we are using that tactic on some collector and uproads in Elen New Market or in special circumstances like the south end of Todd Street where we've got a pedestrian way on the street. We do not want to get into marking every location. No, I I agree with that consideration just to not set precedent. Okay. Yeah. There's no people think it's the country and they just fly down that road since it's paved. Yes. Yeah. So, just noting that this map depicts, you can see the darker um taupe color is what was annexed into the city in 2005. Um and all of that property had been proposed for development at that time. You can see um based on u some elevations that are shown here, the road that was graded in at the time. Um but what we're speaking about tonight is the properties outlined in red. There's see three separate PS and then keeping with the road discussion, there's a note on here that says add additional street north uh street connection to the north and at lot 32. That looks like that's a private residential. That's what I was just gonna bring up too. Like is that in running into somebody's property? Well, it is, but it's keeping in that um spirit of providing connections to properties. So, at that person ever were to sell like right those five that road through your property? No. Like Yeah. Well, I think that's why I'm like this is a tough one because all of them it's just like encompassed in surrounding really large properties and I don't you know just my personal opinion I don't feel like see people selling you know and to develop yeah it's possible to do it right just to contradict that point of view is um the development that went in adjacent to your house was a single family home on a 10acre lot and the home wasn't really that old. Um, at some point somebody just decided they wanted to sell it for development. So, it's just providing those opportunities and not precluding the opportunity for connection. Valid. Yeah. Like the neighborhood I'm in is they're smaller lots. They're not 5 10 acre lots, you know. So, it's like I I I just meant the the development that went into Yeah. So the rightway lasts forever. Right. Right. And not having it also lasts forever. Sure. Which can major be major problems. But there is other accesses to these properties with the harvest. That's correct. I mean it would be like bars property if you didn't have a road from the north. You would be landlocked to the south or the east. So general practice neighborhood connections where it's reasonable. Yeah. Right. And I don't I don't think I would need one there myself either. So from lot 32 or whatever the comment was. Yeah. Yeah. Um that's exactly right. And we were seeking feedback from the commission on on that since there was another road directly across from it here. I've shared my screen. Other comments questions? Looks like there's some challenges to develop. It looks like and I don't know what you could land in the market. Yeah, I know. I don't know what you can do about how if if this is a plotted area that how do you do like for for lot 47, how do you change the shape of that lot or Yeah. Oh, yeah. Because it goes Yeah. and the ones down by the pond. How do you I mean I know what you're stating is because Winkler Development had that issue at one time and and they've been there 26 years, half lots and Yeah. So, I understand the concept of not doing that, but how do you avoid it here? Well, I think that's for the design engineer to see if the lots on the other side of the street could be um shortened up and and maybe the road aligned and maybe it is buildable. We're just pointing it out as a question and pointing out that residual lots aren't um permitted. Are these red lines movable on there or No, that's property boundary. Movable if they can acquire more property. Oh, I see. Yeah, because it's 47, a little bit of 48 and 47 wouldn't be serviced by a road necessarily either because it looks like it would face the road to the south that would be ghosted in. So, it might not be a buildable lot due to So, the sketch plan is kind of their first Yeah, I understand. So, they'll have to work that out. Yeah. How many lots would it be if it was stay at the current proposed lot size? Again, that would take some work to because to me, the 65 foot lots do not make sense in this area. I just did some quick math based only on land area. You take 89 lots at 8,400 square ft. That's the same as about 65 lots at 12. Let me check my number. 62 lots at 12,000 square feet. That doesn't mean they could get 62 lot. Everything changes when the lot size changes. I just don't think the lot sizes being smaller and getting more people in that area is the right thing to do. I think that's a a spacious area of homes that could, you know, maybe that whole neighborhood could thrive with a larger lot size. I mean, there's only so many first-time home buyers that are going to buy a 65 foot lot. I'm a first-time home buyer and I'm not going to buy a 65 foot lot for my second home. It's going to determine from staying in market. I agree. It's pretty hard to go from five acres or 10 acres to a 65 foot lot. Yeah. Not knowing preemptively if others are going to sell or not, you know, like so it would be cohesive. [Music] Um, yeah, I just I do I do understand that we do need to look at the, you know, that ordinance or whatever, but And correct me if I'm wrong. If we keep adding all these lots and just say that we're going to gain x amount of students through this development, the development by your house, this development, and we're never going to get a high school. Is that kind of how I understand it? That's um not really our It's not our wheelhouse. Not our house. I know. school district. That'd be nice. Careful what you ask for. Okay. So, how big are the lads in Rowena? I can't recall. The ones on Harvest Drive are fairly large. Yeah, but I'm talking about the ones that go to the west are probably smaller. Yeah, that's where I go jogging back there. It appears they are about 80. I'm not looking at the recorded plat. So, this I'm pulling like 82 80 feet wide. Um, yeah, they're large they're larger. They're probably more consistent with like the 12,000 square foot standard that had been in place at that time. And those Rowena was developed in 2005. Um yeah, right in there. So I think um I think it was six or seven. Okay. It took several years. There were several phases, but it was in that early 2000s. Yeah. So I'm just going to state the you know the planning commission um is being asked, you know, what they support or if they support the use of PUD for smaller lot sizes in this area. If you do not support um the proposed lot standards, which are the 8,400 square feet, 65 ft wide, are there other standards that you would support or would you request that it be redesigned to meet the minimum lot size requirement of 12,000? Is there something? Well, I guess you I think I only heard from Casey, so I wasn't I won't interrupt your discussion on size. No, it's fine. Um I mean, I'm kind of hearing it, too. And I I feel like 65 foot lots in this area are not conducive right now at this time. Um, that's just looking, you know, in my brain and like an aerial view. It just looks like kind of like a hodgepodge of stuff, density, low density. And um I I don't know how others feel about the lot size. I think they would need to be bigger as well. Um, I mean, how do others feel about even just meeting the minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet at this time and see what it see what it looks like? Well, I think it was approved at one time back in the day for the 12,000, you know, the whatever the current thing was. I think it was 12,000 square ft back then, but and I think it looked all right compared to the the 85 or 100 square f feet or 8600 square feet. I would go with the,200 or 12,000, I'm sorry. Like the R1 district requirements like those. Yeah. And then I agree with the lining of the road from the north to the south and and the culde-sac at the end. It makes sense for now until that other land acquisitions would happen where you could exit to the south. There's a lot of wetlands. there is on the topography. Um I don't know about the I I don't foresee a park at this juncture um needed at this phase. I would say no cash and l or [Music] whatever. So I'd agree with that. other people's thoughts. Well, in looking at Rowena Ponds, that was a PUD as well. And just doing some quick back of the napkin measurements here, it looks like they had on the low side 80 foot w uh 80 foot lot widths. So, um, yeah, I I hear our our standard lot width right now is 85 and the PUD is asking for smaller lots of 65 widths. Um, I I'm still supportive for the smaller lots even if we don't go all the way down to the 65 foot. We have precedents just to the north where we have 80 foot um lot with. So, that's my two cents. Okay. Thank you. other people's thoughts because really you just want to know Renee the the lot size, right? I mean, I personally just think just going with the R1 district requirements as it's laid out and then we don't have to go through every single thing to readjust. I mean, that's just to keep it simple and clear. Um, but I don't know how others on the commission feel about that. I agree. Agreed. Yes. Is that a Yeah. No, I I I'll support the planning commission against you. Whatever. But do you get what I'm saying though? Because if we adjust it to like 80, then we got to go through every single one and Yeah. No, I agree. I would like to get rid of PUDS in the future if possible. So, you know, fair enough. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Does that answer questions? Be our recommendation. Okay. Yeah, I think we have what we need. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um All right. And then general business, the zoning ordinance amendment detached accessory building research. Can we get that in the form of the last action in the form of a motion that we can forward? The formal motion. Yeah, sure. Just uh support for the proposed development maintaining R1 district standards. Okay. Anyone want to make a motion to support Say that again. Support the the recommendation to use R1 district um requirements regarding this. I'll make a motion. I'll second it. Okay. All in favor? I Okay. All right. Opposed? I'm still opposed. So, okay. Yeah. Okay. Um, general business B, zoning ordinance amendment, detached accessory building research. All right. So, this is a continuation of a discussion we had a few meetings ago. uh staff initially resident inquiry led staff to do research on our current standards for accessory detach structures. Um what we allow, what we don't allow, how big we allow, stuff like that. Um so the resident inquiry would allow those with detached garages the ability to uh have an additional detached garage. basically making it more fair for those who have attached garages and can also do a a detached garage on their property. The city has received a lot of past complaints and comments about our size restrictions on detached accessory structures. Uh we've heard from various residents complaining that they're too strict um regarding size. The city's current standards are located below. So it's just separated into two categories. uh 1 acre and under, which is I would say 90% of at least 90% of the city lots in town. Uh the maximum you can do without a conditional use permit is 250 square ft. With a conditional use permit, you can go up to,000 square feet. If your lot's over 1 acre, um you can do 1,000 square feet without a conditional use permit and go up to 1500 square feet with a conditional use permit. I just want to note conditional use permits are not guaranteed to be granted. um everyone is individually looked at. So staff's research focused on other cities codes uh specifically what was allowed for size and number of structures as well as those standards in business and industrial zones. Research did not take into consideration what is allowed with conditional use permits. Um, and it this is just meant to give the commission and staff a guideline for providing future feedback on recommendations. So, the last time we met, we presented you with this information. Um, and we put in memo kind of picture form each and every one of these so you can kind of get a better visual of what it might look like. Um, those examples obviously they can move around a little bit. A lot of these cities have a total square footage limit so they don't really limit the number of structures. they just have all of those added up and if it's under the total square footage limit, you're good to go. Um, so those are those standards there. As we move into the business and industrial zones, um, staff would recommend leaving our standards the way they are. Um, there was a little discussion between staff on limiting the 50% to 30% um, as other cities seem to they don't go above 30%. Um, at this point I think staff are comfortable leaving it the way it is with 50% in industrial areas the way we're looking at it as it would just it would look like another industrial building. I mean it wouldn't really stand out. It would fit the surroundings. So the size isn't really a huge issue in our mind. Uh so staff are recommending the planning commission consider amendments to the city's accessory structure ordinance uh due to the following reasons. resident inquiries and past complaints. Uh increasing standards in other cities allowing for larger structures, regular review and updating of the city's zoning ordinance to ensure that we're with the times. And if changes are recommended, staff will draft an ordinance amendment for further discussion at an upcoming meeting and then we'll take it to the city council at that after that in the public hearing. So there are any recommendations. I don't have those images in the presentation, but they are in the memorandum. I can bring that up if we have specific questions on any of those examples. Okay. Thank you. Uh I do think this needs to be updated. It's obviously we're pretty limited on our space right now. Um I'm not sure how others feel. Um but I'm glad we're talking about this. Um, I guess what are other people's thoughts on this first? Well, I built one that was 250 or 249 square feet. Exactly. So, um, it's just as expensive to build 250 than it is as 400. Right. Would you have gone bigger if you could have? Um, I would have. Yes. So, yeah. Well, and I I think in a previous meeting, Jake, you made the comment of like this might help um eliminate or lessen um city ordinances where people are in violation. So, um I know a lot of people have things out here. Yeah. So, that's one of the main changes since the standards were put in place, I guess, is now everybody has a toy in their garage. Campers got longer, trucks got longer, everything getting bigger. So, does this anyway impact um the staff is using accessory uh structures? So, would this apply to accessory dwelling units that are attached structures or perhaps detached as part of a garage or is that something so separate? Right now, our ADUs um I believe there's just a minimum size. Correct. Uh the max you are correct the maximum size does correspond with the maximum size of a detached accessory structure. So we would probably have to look at that section of the code as well or we would um and I can pull it up here real quick but um good catch. Yes, we've been exploring options for my aging parents and my disabled sister. So thank you. Yes, I would love to revisit this. So, right now we have a th00and square foot max. Is that between the That's No. Is that your What? What is that? Um, so if you have an acre or over, you can go up to 1,000 square foot, but that's only one structure. Um, it's not a max square footage limit for multiple buildings. Just one building. Oh, I see. Are there But like Ldale has a maximum per per lot footage for lots. Yeah, I I think that would be a better way to go. Don't I agree too just having this is the max if you're obviously you have to meet the setbacks and all the requirements. So your property is going to only allow you to build as big as you can build. And in like Brad's case, realistically a lot of people already have those little 250 foot sheds. Um, realistically, they're not going to want to get rid of them for a new garage. So, so I I don't want to limit like two or three. I think that just makes it more messy in my mind to keep track of. Well, I'm saying about like you've got your attached garage in most cases. Some are detached, but um I don't know if I would say I I've had a neighbor that had three or four sheds. Mhm. Well, hopefully the difference, you know, so hopefully they'll just have one with I'm saying you have your attached garage or if it's a detached, you can add on to your detach or add on to your attached or or have a secondary garage but with a maximum total square footage, you know, that's not to exceed a number. You know, that's what I would think. I don't think people are going to build a third garage. No. Standalone. I mean have attached a second st standalone and a third standalone. Yeah. You know they could I don't think that's what our intention would be. No. You need to state your intention. Yes. And that's what I I would state. Yeah. Okay. And garages would still be required to have an access off of the driveway. Correct. If it has if we write that into the code. Okay. We'll have to be explicit about that. Um attached garages are limited to a thousand square a maximum size of a thousand square feet, right? So you can um attach garage can be a thousand. So I think the two questions are what's the there seems to be agreement to increase the detached accessory structure size. So we to we're looking for your direction regarding that size for detached. Sure. I mean, I'm going to propose a thousand square feet because I mean, just looking at kind of what's on this, I'm looking at the chart, the table, which I would say if you were going to say generally speaking, that's about a fourc car garage. Yeah. If if your property allows that. So, you know, I'm thinking of smaller lot sizes. It's not going to it's not going to allow for you to go up to that space. But if somebody has a bigger piece of property and it allows for it, are you saying a combination of a thousand square feet or no? To total just for detached accessory structures. So like if like I say you have 600 on your house already, you might have 400 on your house. So you would like to build a 600 in addition to your 400. I don't even know if my property will allow for that. That's what I'm saying. That's why I'm saying like setbacks and everything will determine how big of a structure you can build. Does Am I making sense? Am I not making sense? You're making sense. Um, but I think Brad misunderstood what you said regarding square footage. I heard you say you support a max uh detached accessories structures up to a total of a,000 square feet. Correct. So you could have a thousand square foot garage plus a thousand square foot shed or detached garage if your property allows if your property allowed it within setbacks. That's Yeah. And that's for an acre and under or every lot or fits within the setbacks. I would say if it fits within your setbacks like then do not limiting it to you know acre or not acre because then you have to yeah get rid of that little table with the and it'll just be the one standard. I mean, that's just my Okay. And then um the number of detached accessory structures. I I heard you say no limitations. So somebody could have a small and then they could have bags for their boat. Yes, I agree that that's what I don't know. Or they could have four 250 foot sheds. Just just to be clear, if we don't um if we don't limit it, it could happen. I just want to make sure that you're But are you going to stress like it's somebody said um you're going to put cement under it, right? I mean that's a garage then a shed doesn't have cement under it. So one is meant to be permanent, one is semi-permanent. I'm thinking if all the people So with that already have the 250 square foot building, right? and they want to go beyond that, like that's going to be more than one. They're not going to tear that one down and then make a bigger area. Correct. That's just I don't think that's feasible. Could we limit the maximum number to something? I think a thousand is quite excessive. I think for I think it's bigger than some people's houses. Cap it on some number. I was just looking at the chart. That's Oh, I see. That's what where that number came from. I was looking at the table because I was looking at Well, even I mean we could do 900,000. I mean it your setbacks are going to your property size limit to how big you can make it. No, currently there's a standard of your accessory has to match style and the pitch of your house. Correct. siding and to a reasonable extent. Yeah. About same color, same material. No. Yeah. We don't get as far as like we don't get as far as p roof pitch. Um we just say siding and color material generally to match. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Because we do have something on um land and sea boxes, we do. Yeah, cuz some people are doing creative things with those on. So these would not be on a foundation or a slab. So you'd have a they could be okay. I was I got confused by that conversation talking about the 200 foot. I mean it would be up to the person building it and how they want to I don't know, right? I think we see some of those in town with slabs, too. It's just up to the property owner. Mhm. Um so just to be certain, there wouldn't be any support for going larger than a thousand square feet um in the larger lot areas of town. What are our larger lot areas? It's basically Thomas um it's basically along Thomas Avenue. Uh there's several homes. They're approximately 3 to four acres, but there's a lot of wet land also. Um, so they're really limited on placement to begin with. I mean, if somebody wanted to go bigger, I mean, could they ask the city or like Yeah. So, currently a conditional use permit um is that mechanism that would allow them to go bigger. Okay. Okay. And then that gives staff and the city council and you guys a better chance to review each and every to make sure it's to make sure it's feasible and reasonable. Okay. Yeah. I mean because that's not Yeah. I don't want to do that for everybody. Everybody's business uniformity. But I think if you have a 5acre lot and you can support 2,000 foot shed then sure why not. Yeah. You bought the property. This is America. So I think the largest lot in that area would be just under four acres. Sure. For reference and what Lansdale those guys I know Londale standards go by acre. Do we have several of those lots within city limits that are that significant? About 10. About 10. I wouldn't say yeah 15 to 10 probably. I'm just Yeah. Maybe a few along Xerxes Avenue. Yeah, some of those older homes and then Thomas and they probably already have the structure on there, right? Realistically, you can also just change it to the lot size relative to the square footage. You're saying could be an option if you got over an acre, right? How this range under an acre is this range. You're right. Like that's how we have it right now, you know, and is an acre and greater. You're allowed by right up to 1,000 square feet and then up to 1500 with the conditional use permit. So So I would suppose you just change that one to 1500 or 2,000 or you know. Mhm. Sure. And then from there that if we wanted to do that. Yeah. I would say 2,000 if it's a larger piece of property. So, I'm trying to deal um trying to narrow this down a little bit. I heard Nicole say that she just for the normal lot size city lots that she ports 1,000 square feet. Yeah. Um I heard Casey say that he supports 1,000 square feet. I heard Brad say that he thinks that's maybe a little bit too big. And I haven't heard from the other two. So, I support the 1000 as well. Okay. Yeah. If we need to assign a number, I would say a thousand. Brad, do you have a might be like a thousand total? Yeah. Right. That would be the total. So if somebody had a 200, but not what you said earlier. Oh, well that's what I meant. So like you already have 250. So then you could do the additional structure. Three more. We're not I really don't see people. No more than two because people already have a lot of people already have one and then Yeah. I don't Yeah, I don't want to make them right. Yeah, that's that makes sense. No more than two. Yes. Okay. Uh then 2,000 for acre and over. All good with that. Yeah, I'm fine with that. And if they want more, they can ask. Okay. Say that again. Um for lots one acre and larger, we'd go up to 2,000 instead of one. Allow up to 2,000. And then are we going to limit them to number of I would so same I would two okay okay we'll um keep we'll keep the um city council informed of your discussions and then at the next meeting that we have time to discuss it we'll just bring back a draft ordinance if you think everything looks good we will go ahead and um prepare for publication. So, this will take several months to get through. Um back to U Melissa's point, accessory dwelling units, the maximum size of an accessory dwelling unit on a lot is currently limited. It it corresponds with the detached accessory structure size. So, we should maybe revisit that. I think a detach accessory structure of a thousand square feet might be excessive, but that might demand further discussion. I need to think through that a little bit more. Okay. But like what Rich was saying about the green space, I guess is that a factor? It's not in your code. So not in our code, but it certainly is a I mean consideration. The more roof the less green. So that's more runoff. Okay. Okay. Thanks. All right. Moving on. Uh, miscellaneous community development updates. Only update I have. Sorry. Did you I respect everything. Appreciate your time and everything. Is there a way best way to keep us on harvest drive if we want to stay up to date with what's going on with that? Another good way to kind of follow up with that and just to keep informed. Sure. On the with that potential development defend driver. Yeah. So you can always just look out on the city's website. The packet comes out I would say the week before the meeting every week. Check the Friday. The other thing is um did you guys sign in? Okay. We might know within a week this he might call me tomorrow and say it's it's not financially feasible for him to proceed. you know, we could let you know if he's not proceeding. That would be great. What were your names real quick? Just so I can I'm Joe. Okay. Mike. Okay. Kevin, if it does proceed to a formal application, um, you would receive a notice if you're within if your properties notice. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks for coming. Thank you for coming. Um, only update I would say is that the staff completed the code enforcement uh, sweep, the annual inspection throughout the city and they can report on the numbers. You guys are all safe this year. Um, I think we had 90 91 90. It was about 88 after all said and done. And then I sent out a couple additional uh letters to the like the developments that need to be mowed which is almost all of them at this point. So Boulder me Right. Oh my god. I waited and I was busy though. I usually don't mow that. I think the developers it's more just forgetting about it than no mo for them. But mine's intentional. Yeah. Let it recede itself. Yeah. So Brandon's first year doing the sweep. Um so it was a good experience. Really I think 90 is a lot. It's more than we've had in previous years. So I think you know having two people doing it you catch a lot more. Sure. Definitely worked out better this way. So, okay. When did you conduct the sweep? Uh, it would have been the last week and No, the week before last, I think. I don't within the last two weeks. Yeah, it would have been last week maybe. I think it was last week. Yeah, the 23rd and the 22nd maybe around there. But I think Jake said years prior took him like three days combined time. I think it took us like a half a day total. So, yeah. Nice. Definitely much more efficient. Was there a a yard that needed sod on James Parkway? I don't remember. There's a lot that need a lot. Is there? I don't know. Is there one? There's a lot of the firehouse. Well, they were working on something when we drove by. Is it rebuilt already? Oh, it was rebuilt last uh fall. Yeah. Okay. still bigger. This has weight. So, there's a person on Dakota that I think is like doing cement their whole yard. I'm not sure if we got sent a letter to that one or not, but I know we drove past it. The one on Dakota? No. Um, the one Brad was talking about. I remember. No. Make it stop raining. Yes, I agree. All right. I haven't. I think later this week we're going to try to tour it. Um, so we'll get a chance to speak with him directly, but I haven't I haven't heard personally. That's good. Are they opening that tour up to anybody or I think so. Well, it was uh just staff only. Yeah. if you're in town. It was um yeah, Dwayne, one of the owners or one of the equity partners, just had text me and asked me if I wanted to go on a tour. I just have a history of working with him in other in my previous cities. So, um and then Tom Terry said, "Well, can I go?" And then, can I go? Josh, I kind of want to go. go. I think, you know, we can open it up, but if uh if the commission um we need to post a special meeting if there's a quorum of the commission. So, I think they put on Facebook that they were having a public open house, but I think that might have already happened. Okay. I think that was at the But that was at the firehouse, correct? Oh, it wasn't at the apartment. They don't have their occupancy permit yet, so we can't they can't allow a public into the building. Um so, that was at firehouse. I see they put their approach in recently. Yeah, there was a couple of garage doors on this afternoon. So, was I've been so excited to see it with the garage doors. Yeah. Great. Any other updates? No. All right. We ready to Where are we at with the DNR? We expect to get our permit early next week. tomorrow or the next day or tomorrow. Um I think June 3rd is their target date and uh yeah, we haven't heard anything that changes that. So see they're busting ground. I see. So, it's likely to be a two-stage type thing where we'd get our initial 135 million gallons a year on June 3rd and then once we finish and agree on a plan for well interference with the DNR, the rest of it would be um added allowed. So, speaking of water, I think it's important that as a city we should drink our own water. I see we have Culligan bringing us water. I was here one day when Pelican dropped off a lot of water. I'm like, what the hell? We got water here for. I don't disagree with you on that. We actually have really good water say that. I go to other places not like that. So, I think we should probably talk to the council about cutting out the purchasing of water for the city uh employees. So, we will let them know. Um, when we hear back from the DNR, is that posted anywhere? Is that like let the public know or I mean I really haven't heard much about that? I would imagine there will probably be some kind of public communication knowing knowing Tom the city administrator is sure pretty big on advocating for notifying. Sure. Okay. I was just curious. Would you I think there's some planning. It's not an engineering issue, so I'm not privy to where that's all at, but I know there's been some talk with in fact coordinating with the DNR, make sure we're getting the same information out of things. Okay. All right. Anyone want to make a motion to adjurnn? I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Anyone want a second? I'll second. All right. All in favor? I All right. Meeting adjourned 8:59 p.m. Thank you.