order at 7:01 and we will start um with the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nation andice for all. Too many people for one microphone, I think. All right. Are there any um changes to the agenda? There are no changes to the agenda, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Then I will take a motion to approve the agenda. I'll make a motion. Second it. I have a motion by um Mr. Smith and a second by Mr. Pipo. Are there any? Um we take a vote. All in favor? I opposed. Agenda is approved. Public comment. Are there any is there anybody here that is um here to speak on um anything other than the public hearings that we will be having later on? All right. Thank you. Then moving on to announcements. We have no announcements tonight. Thank you very much. Then um moving on, we have the approval of the minutes. I will take a motion if there is no uh changes that need to happen to the minutes. Pause. I wasn't here at the last meeting. So, I didn't see any. Yeah, I approve. Okay. You want to make a motion or I'll make a motion. Okay. I'll second. All right. All in favor? I I um minutes were approved from February 27, 2024. First, we will move on to um the first of our public hearings. We have Parkway Meadows, August Ventures LLC, and Winkler Land Co. LLC are the applicants. Yes. Uh Planners Clausic is going to be handling this um presentation for tonight's meeting. Trying to get it get bigger up there. [Music] screen. Are you running the slideshow? It's just not Sorry about that, folks. Yeah, technology is wonderful when it works. When it works. All right. Uh yeah, you can go to the next slide and Renee introduced the topic. Um background on the property. Uh it's just under 34 gross acres. A concept plan was reviewed for the property by the planning commission and the city council in 2022. City received an application recently to reszone the property to PUD or planned unit development. The city also received an application for preliminary plat approval on 86 lots and four outlets for Parkway Meadows in addition to a comprehensive plan amendment. Next slide, please. uh neighborhood conditions. To the south of the proposed development is vacant land guided toward town center and city hall south of that. To the east is um large rural rural lot residential properties including two properties that are approximately 10 acres in size. Uh single family detached homes and then another property that's vacant right now that is approximately 35 acres in size to the north of the proposed development. um is more agg related land. Uh two properties with single or one property with a single family home and an active farm north of that and to the west is a low density residential development, Whispering Creek North development and a city-owned parcel which contains uh some infrastructure and a city park. Get this on my screen here. Okay. Uh the land is currently guided to lowdensity residential north of James Parkway and medium density residential south of James Parkway. The lowdensity residential zone is home to R1 and R2 zoning within the city which is 2 and a half to five uh units per net acre. Medium density would be R3 zoning which has a variety of detached and detached residential housing options. The density for that is 5 to 10 units per net acre. The proposed development is 3.3 units per net acre. um not meeting the density requirements for medium density, which is why the developer has proposed a comprehensive plan amendment uh to reguide the property to low density residential. Um and then residential detached single family homes uh also meet the intent of the guided land use um for the comp plan. You can go next slide. Sorry. 33.31 acres is currently zoned urban reserve. 68 is zoned uh single family residential. The entire property must be reszoned to zoning district consistent with the purpose and intent of the comp plan. Um PUD zoning is proposed for the entire project. As mentioned previously, next slide. The intent of PUD zoning. Um several different intents. Uh really what we're going for here is C. uh provide variations to the strict application of land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation while at the same time incorporating design elements uh which exceed the city standards to offset the effect of any variations granted um and then also preserve and enhance natural features and open spaces. Next slide please. Sorry, I got it. Uh the PUD proposed uh is going to allow for a reduction in lot size, lot width, setback requirements, and various design standards within the development. In exchange, the developers proposing to exceed public land dedication uh by.36 acres. Some examples that have been used in the past for PUB approvals in the city are incorporation of a golf course, increased housing design standards, um, park dedication exceeding minimum requirements, such as in this case, landscaping over and above minimum requirements, uh, construction of paths or trails, and construction of off-site infrastructure. Uh, here's a current zoning map. The property is in the red square. Um and then the proposed PUD with the design layout is also attached there. Section 11-3-8 of the zoning code identifies um criteria to be considered part of the Z uh resoning. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and found consistent with the uh city comprehensive plan. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The proposed use also conforms with all performance standards contained within this title. Uh the proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden overburden the city's service capacity and traffic generation by the proposed development is within capabilities of the streets serving the property. Uh so here's a comparison of the R1 which is the straight single family zoning district here in the city and their standards and then the requested standards for Parkway Meadows the developers requested um uh reduction of minimum lot size minimum lot width setbacks um and then block length uh the maximum block length currently is 1,200 ft. Uh there is a block on this development that's just over that and 1232 feet in length. Um they're proposing that due to some physical limitations to the north of the property that prevent an additional street connection. Sidewalks are required on both sides of the minor collector streets and only one sidewalk is being proposed on the east side of Riley Road south of James Parkway. Uh and then they're looking for dev deviation from street standards. um by not extending Riley Road uh proposed to the south of the subdivision. I'm sorry. Next slide, please. For one and two family residents, just a reminder, a 440 ft attached garage uh shall be constructed at at the time of the house. And for all new 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. Get into tree preservation requirements. The city requires that 40% of significant trees must be preserved. Significant trees are defined as blow. Um for hardwood deciduous, it's 6 in or greater in diameter. Softwood deciduous 12 in or greater. Coniferous is 12 feet in height or greater. Uh the developer is proposing to exceed the allowable tree remover uh by 249 caliber inches. Um so the tree replacement plan, the developer is proposing to plant 100 trees to meet the tree replacement obligation. Um 17 deciduous trees, 83 coniferous trees. The replacement plan does meet city code requirements. The developer tree replacement obligations are shown here on the plan. um the trees depicted on that map. In addition to the developer tree replacement obligations, um the builder is required to plant two trees upon each lot time at time of building permit along with sod. It's cut off a little bit there, but this plan illustrates that two tree um per lot requirement that's required upon the builder. Next slide. Uh easements have been depicted as required by city code. Uh in addition, three temporary culde-sacs are proposed within the temporary roadway easements. Staff notes that two retaining walls are depicted uh within these easements on the northwest corner of the plat. The proposed retaining walls should be moved outside of this easement or be removed from the plans entirely. Sanitary sewer is available on the west side of the property along James Parkway via uh 8 inch PVC gravity pipe. Additional service is on the west side along Riley Road via 8 in PVC gravity. Uh plans submitted are consistent with the city's 2040 sanitary sewer plan except that sanitary sewer must be extended within Riley Road to the north of the property line. Staff suggests inclusion of sanitary sewer stubs in Riley Road south of James Parkway to provide service to properties in the future. And ultimately the sewer plan requires city engineer approval right off. Water is also available to the west side of the property along James Parkway. Uh 12in ductile iron water man and at the northerly end of Riley Road. The plans submitted are consistent with the city's 2040 water plan and show 12in trunk water man running east west within James Parkway and 8 in water man to serve their remaining development. Staff also suggest stubs in Riley Road south of James Parkway to provide service for properties in the future. A city well is located at the southwest corner of James Parkway and Riley Road uh in that park. The well is currently considered an emergency well and is not connected to the city's water treatment plant. The engineer city's engineer has requested the inclusion of an additional 12-in um pot portable trunk water mane running to and through the proposed development. The requested water man is uh depicted on the plan set and the and will eventually be used by the city to carry that raw water from the existing well to the city's treatment plant. The city will reimburse the developer 100% of the cost for the oversizing of that water line. The water plan will also need to be approved and signed off by the city engineer. The property lies entirely within the Vermilion River wershed district and is divided into se uh several different subwaterheds. The storm water plan must also be approved by the city engineer. Uh the plan shows four separate storm water basins proposed to serve the development and all basins are located on outlots proposed to be dedicated to the city. Upon final plat 10 foot wide ve uh vegetative buffer is also required from the high water line around all storm water ponds. Basin 301's uh pond as depicted the buffer must be expanded. Currently wetland delineation has been completed in concurrence with the delineated wetland boundaries were approved by the city uh in January of 2021. two wetlands that were identified on the property m that must be protected in accordance with the wetland conservation act, clean water act, and city code. Required buffer for these two wetlands within the development average 25 ft with a minimum of 16 ft. Buffer sign markers are required along all lot lines at the buffer locations and there are no FEMA designated flood planes or DNR protected waters or wetlands on the property. This is just the plan depicting those uh wetlands and the buffer surrounding them. The proposed development borders on two existing public streets, James Parkway and Riley Road. Both streets are located to the west of the subject property. The city's transportation plan depicts a future road road running east west through the subject property in a street extending south which is Riley Road along the west side of the property and a street running north south along the east side of the property. Um all three streets are identified as minor collectors in the city's 2040 transportation plan. Minor collector streets. Uh here's a typical section. It's um 16 feet per lane, 10 feet uh rightway on each side of that. And then there's um five foot sidewalks on both sides. Go to the ne next slide. James Parkway as we said functions as a minor collector street. The segment located east of Dakota Avenue was constructed between 2000 and 2002 and uh west of Dakota Avenue was constructed in 2005. These serve as the primary access to Eagle View Elementary School to the west of Dakota Avenue. 2019 traffic volumes for James Parkway located east of Dakota were approximately 700 uh trips per day. Plans submitted show easterly extension of James Parkway through the subject property with 80 foot rightway and 32 foot wide street with sidewalks on both sides which meet the city standards. Uh note that James Parkway will get narrower through the proposed development um than in the existing development to the west. This is due to changing standards over time. Two local street connections to James Parkway are proposed. Um, streets A and C depicted on the plans. The plan submitted do show a southerntherly extension of Riley Road approximately 100 ft south of the current termini. Uh, the plan shows a 35 or 34 foot wide road within an 80 foot rightway with a sidewalk on the east side. proposed development meets the standards for minor collector streets within the city with the exception of the sidewalk on the west side of the Riley Road. Staff recommend that Riley Road south of James Parkway be constructed to the southern boundary of the plat pursuant to uh city code section 12-9-5-1 which states the arrangement of streets in a new subdivision shall make provisions for the proper projection of streets into adjoining areas by carrying the new streets to the boundaries of the new subdivision at appropriate locations approved by the city engineer. The plans submitted do not depict a a north south minor collector street on the east side of the property as identified in the city's transportation plan as circled here on the graphic. Staff recommend that this road could be constructed further to the east and constructed entirely with the property to the east when and if that develops. The planning commission and city council supported this concept during the review of the concept plan in 2022. Local streets serve as access to properties. Um, they must be minimum of 28 feet in width with B618 curbing within a 60 foot rideaway. Sidewalks are required on one side of all local roads. The plan submitted meet minimum design standards for local roads. And here's a typical section. It's 14T lanes instead of 16. Sidewalks are still 5T, just one instead of two. And then you have that right of way as well. A short and northerly extension approximately 117 feet of Riley Road is proposed within a 60-oot rideway. This se section of Riley uh would be considered a local roadway and as depicted the northerly extension meets city code requirements. Additional highle comments regarding streets are as follows. Uh the future road extension signs are required where streets uh dead end. City code requires temporary culde-sacs to be constructed where deadend streets exceed 150 feet in length. Streets A, B, and C all exceed 150 feet in length. And temporary culde-sacs were proposed on the plans. Temporary culde-sac should be orientated that they only impact one lot and that it be constructed with curb and gutter. The preferred rotation must be away from the side of the street with the sidewalk and the culde-sac can be reduced in size from the permanent culde-sac dimensions with final configuration subject to the city engineer and public works approval. All boulevard all boulevards should be sided by the developer per city code and concrete driveway apron shall be constructed from the back of the curb to the property line per city code. Here's the proposed uh site plan with the street layout and an example of a temporary culde-sac. we get to traffic. Um, ingress egress from the proposed development will be confined to the existing segment of James Parkway until further street connections are provided to the east to either County Road 91 and south to County Road 2. From James Parkway, traffic will likely be distributed to County Road 2 via Todd Street and Dakota Avenue. 2019 traffic volumes for James Parkway um, located west of the development were approximately 700 vehicles per day. The proposed single family detached housing development is anticipated to generate 878 total daily trips to the roadway network with 65 trips in the AM peak peak hour and 86 trips in the PM peak hour. The table below demonstrates how these trips could be expected and distributed throughout the day. Good. Residents of the existing Whispering Creek neighborhood located to the west may have concerns regarding additional traffic on James Parkway. From an engineering perspective, the existing road does have the capacity to handle the additional traffic and it is noted that any such increase in traffic will be temporary until future road connections are made via other routes. Um concerns may also be expressed regarding impacts to Todd Street and County Road 2 intersection or the Dakota Avenue and County Road 2 intersection. staff has no knowledge of major operational issues at these existing intersections which are causing unacceptable levels of service. And um I'm not a traffic engineer, but Rich, I don't know if you'd want to kind of go in more depth on levels of service. That says it. Okay. Specific questions, we'll take them up. Okay. Uh the city's traffic engineers have reviewed the proposed development along with the existing traffic volumes on James Parkway and Todd Street and Dakota Avenue. It's their opinion that the additional traffic as a result of the proposed development will not affect James Parkway uh or the Todd Street County Road 2 intersection or the Dakota Avenue County Road 2 intersection beyond the capabilities of those streets and intersections or reduce the traffic operations uh to any unacceptable levels of service. They have also finded that the amount of traffic generated from the development is unlikely to trigger uh warrants for signalization or otherwise improved intersection traffic control along on County Road 2. And based on this consultation with the city's traffic engineer, staff are not recommending the completion of a traffic impact study at this time for the proposed development. The city subdiv subdivision ordinance requires that concrete sidewalks are constructed on at least one side of all local roads and both sides of minor collector streets. Uh it also requires that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of all minor collector streets. The city's park and trail plan identifies proposed sidewalks running east and west east through west through the property and north and south along the far eastern boundary of the proposed development. the north south uh trail along the western edge of the proposed the north I'm sorry that was just worded wrong um sidewalk trail requirements for devel development based on city code requirements 5 foot sidewalk adjacent to all local streets 5 foot sidewalks on both sides of minor okay skip past that uh so the first picture here in the top left is the adopted city park search area within the comp plan there is a neighborhood park search area identified um northeast of the property. And then the park service area map is shown directly below that. It's showing that the entire property is currently serviced by that um Whispering Creek Park, which is a mini park located right in the southern um western corner of the property. It's also served by Wagner Park, which is a neighborhood park, which serves a mile radius. Uh this plan on the right hand side is uh was approved in 2008 by the city and it's the public facilities master plan. It's a very high level plan basically that contains part of this property in the north and uh north of city hall section of this drawing here. Um we'll get into park or public land dedication here shortly, but this is kind of will help explain what the city is asking from the developer for. We can come back to this. Maximum length of all blocks shall be 1,200 feet. Uh minimum length shall be 600 feet. Blocks that are over 900 ft in length require pedestrian ways at least 20 ft wide. The use of additional pedestrian ways to schools, parks or other destinations may be required. The northerly block exceeds this requirement stated before. Uh the minimum lot area shall consist of build buildable land exclusive of wetlands, utility transmission easements, and pipeline easements that encumber lot development. The developer is requesting that the northerly most block be allowed to exceed that limit in length due to the landforms to the north, steep slopes and wetlands which prevent that road connection. The city requires 8% of the land be dedicated for parks, playgrounds or public open spaces. Um the developer shall make a cash contribution to the city's park and trail fund roughly related to the anti anticipated effect of the plat on the park and trail system. Uh so the city can request either 8% of that land be dedicated as land uh for parks or 8% of the cash value for the land be dedicated in the parks fund for future parks. The plat contains 33.09 net acres. Land dedication required for the plat would be 2.65 acres. If no land dedication was required, the park fee of 8% of the fair market land value would take effect. Whispering Creek Park already serves the area as we already mentioned um as well as Wagner Park. Go to the next slide. It's just a street view of Whispering Creek Park um in the city's wellhouse. Go to the next slide. Um so here's what the developer is proposing. It's 3.01 1 acres, which exceeds their required amount of land dedication. Um, this land dedication would be used by the city um eventually to help create that municipal master plan. Um, so it could be, you know, the location where the new fire hall is going to go. It could be the location where the new police department, library, city hall, park, playground. It's it's up in there at this point, but the city's just trying to secure that area for that future plan. Additional comments. The city engineer reviewed the memo uh reviewed in April 15th. Public works, they support the temporary culde-sac and inclusion of the raw water line to the eastern edge of the plat. Public works also mentioned they will need access to all ponding areas for maintenance purposes. The police chief has reviewed the plans and saw no public safety concern in regards to neighborhood layout. Fire department had no concerns. Building official had no comment. City attorney had no comment. Uh school district impact um an average of 0.55 students per household um times the 86 houses equals about 47 students which can be anticipated to be added to the new PRA school district. Um that study has not been updated recently so those numbers aren't 100% accurate. The proposed plaque contains a remnant strip on the west side of Riley Road. Proposed is out lot D. Subdivision ordinance prohibits the creation of such strips which may control access to streets from adjacent properties except under the conditions approved by city council. Staff notes that the adjacent property owner to the west Winkler Land Company LLC is also a party to the current application. And staff recommends that proposed outlot D shall either be conveyed to the adjacent property owner Winkler Land Company or dedicated to the city as part of the Riley uh Riley Road rightway. So, we'll finally get into the staff's recommendations for the action items here tonight. Um, staff does recommend approval of the request to amend the city's 2040 comprehensive plan to reguide approximately 17 acres from medium-density residential to lowdensity residential for the following reason. Um, proposed reidance is uh will not have a serious or negative effect on the overall planned land uses within the 2040 growth area and will help achieve housing housing goals contained within the comp plan. On the reszoning staff recommends approval of the request to reszone 33.31 acres from urban reserve to planned unit development and the request to reszone 68 acres from R1 suburban single family residential to PUB planned unit development for the following reasons. Um it's consistent with the city's comp plan which guides the property to lowdensity residential. The property uh the proposed use of the property for single family residential is compatible with present and future uses of the area. The proposed use of the property complies with performance standards contained in the city's zoning and subdivision ordinance except as specifically identified in the PUD ordinance for the Parkway Meadows development. The proposed uh residential use of the property can be accommodated with existing public services. traffic generation by the proposed development is also within capabilities of existing streets and intersections serving the property and noting that Parkway Meadows will be subject to the R1 suburban single family residential district except as depicted on this graph to the right which shows those difference in standards. Uh the plat and this is what the developer has requested at this point. Um, the plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans subject to the conditions uh contained in the April 30th, 2024 planning commission report conditions noted on the redline plan stated April 30th, 2024 and subject to the recommendation of the city engineer. PUD must be maintained and comply with the following conditions. First, Riley Road shall be constructed to the southerntherly property line of the plat. Outlots A and B containing wetlands and storm water pond shall be dedicated to the city upon a final plat. Outlot D shall be conveyed to the adjacent property owner or incorporated into the Riley Road rightway. Outlot C containing 4.2 two gross acres um shall be dedicated to the city or outlot C containing 4.78 acres uh shall be dedicated to the city and this would incorporate proposed lots 55 56 and 57. Um, so those are our kind of two options regarding outlot C that we'll be seeking some feedback from. On the preliminary plat, staff recommend approval of the request for preliminary plat meadows containing 86 single family residential lots and four outlots on 33.99 gross acres. Uh, for the following reasons, the development of the property for single family residential homes is consistent with the city's comp plan. The proposed plat is consistent with the purpose and intent of the city's comp plan and standards contained with the city zoning and uh subdivision ordinances. Development of the property single family residential compatible with the adjacent land uses. Uh conditions that the city is recommending to impose on the preliminary plat are as follows. Developer must enter into developers agreement with the city at the time of final plat approval. Preliminary plat is issued for a period of one year and shall become null and void uh without further action unless the final plat is filed within one year of the date of city council granting preliminary plat approval. Preliminary plat approval is granted in accordance with Parkway Meadows preliminary PLA plans uh submitted to the city. Preliminary plat approval subject to conditions contained within the planning commission report. The plan shall be amended to depict the required 10- foot wide vegetative buffer from the high water line of all storm water ponds and uh show that storm water ponds and buffers and outlots will be dedicated to the city. Sanitary sewer shall be extended to the north end of Riley Road. Future road extension signs must be placed on deadend streets of AB and C. Riley Road and James Parkway. Wetland buffer signs are required along all lines at wetland buffer locations. The proposed outlot D must be conveyed to the adjacent property owner or incorporated into Riley Road rightway. Concrete driveway apron shall be constructed from the curb to the property line. Boulevards shall be solded by developer. Riley Road shall be constructed to the southern property line of the plat and proposed lots 55, 56, and 57 shall be incorporated into the proposed parkland dedication. The last two are highlighted because those are items we're seeking feedback from the planning commission on tonight. Also noting that the preliminary plaque contains 86 lots on 26.03 netacres which meets uh 3.3 units per net acre which meets the density identified in the city's comp plan. The parks commission has recommended approval of the public land dedication for Parkway meadows instead of cash and loo. A public hearing is required for these items. Um notices were mailed to property owners within 350 ft which is why I'm sure a lot of you are here tonight. uh notices were published in the newspaper on the city's website and social media. Staff encouraged the public to submit comments prior to the meeting. So, in a second here, staff will open the public hearing. Um anyone participating via Zoom who wishes to address the commission, please raise your hand uh on Zoom. If you're unaware of how to do that, um it's a chat. It's the react button on your Zoom on the bottom and just raise your hand if you would like to speak. Uh once unmuted, please state your name and address for the record prior to addressing the commission. And once you have finished addressing the commission commission, you will again be muted. When all questions and comments have been received, the public hearing will then be closed uh for planning commission action. So I think we can start the public hearing. Um, we'll just note that we'll take comments um for the public hearing from in-person participants first and following all in-person um comments, we will turn to the Zoom participants. So, anyone um wishing to address the commission uh please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Public hearing is opened at 7:36 p.m. Hello. Um, Steve Nightingale. I live at 502 Riley Road, directly across the street from the park and the proposed development. I don't really have any questions. I'm all for developing the city and and increasing the population here and the businesses and everything. I think it's great. I've been here since 2008. Um, my only concern I guess um that I wanted to address was that this development um is landlocked at least for 15 more years um or when the next thing happens. But uh we currently have four deadend roads um with give or take 119 residents from Todd Street to the east. Um, and now we're adding 86 more families and vehicles driving driving only one way out. Um, I just wish that this development included another exit. Um, I know the roads and everything can handle it. Um, I'm also concerned about the park across the street from me. It's a little kids park. Um, there's a lot of kids that play there every day. um they have to cross the street to get onto the sidewalk on my side and adding all that traffic coming through. Maybe there's some alternative that could happen to make it safe for all the kids to get in and out of the park. But that's my only concern. Thanks for letting me speak. Thank you. Thank you. Please feel free to come up to the podium. Hi, my name is Reie Benson. I live at 25678 Natchez Avenue, which is directly to the east of this proposal. And I have some concerns about the density of it. We have horses and I have children are just drawn to them. I don't think that we should have the uh requirement to worry too much about them can a fence or other larger buffer between our properties property my property and the property directly to the north of me. So we don't have a lot of trespassing I guess is the word I want to use. Yes. I'm just nodding that. Okay. Okay. Um I'm also concerned how the topography of this land is going to be changed. This is really a low area all the way around his and to the west um of your property. It's very low and we flood out even with the rain that we have now. You know, we'll get a little pond that'll stand for a while. And I'm concerned that you don't put in adequate enough piping. So, we don't have runoff come directly into our property. We come down the hill of that property that's right on um the corner there of 91 and two. That is a large hill going down towards my property. And that drains from that hill and all that side there down through the back corner of my property and then into that area. Now, if there's not if that gets higher or lower and there's more water coming in because we know the ground itself takes care of a lot of rainwater. You get concrete and houses and expect your sewer drains to drain all of that off and we have a substantial storm. We're going to be flooded out again and I'm very concerned about that as well. So, those are my two main concerns. I don't I bought the property out here because I didn't think it was going to be so developed so fast. And now you guys are basically pushing me and my next door neighbor to the north out. And I really take objection to that, too. So, that's all I have to say. Is there anybody present here that would like to also speak? Members of the commission, my name is Dale Wrl. I'm a real estate planning consultant for the Barseness. Um Warren passed away as you know not that long ago and the one request he had for me was to just look a after his property. I think I had one question on the plan. The outlet that was red hashed, what is that? Was that a left D? Is that C? Let me see if I can on Riley Road. Was it this little one? It's the uh public land dedication. Yep. What is that? Uh the public land dedication. just a public. Okay. And was there an access? Where's that access or? Um, so there will be an access uh here. I don't know what it's it's might just be grass. I don't think there's any plans yet for but there's a little spot here you can get off that temporary culde-sac. And then on Riley Road, you should be able to access that as well. Anyway, the one before Warren passed, I think he met with Mr. Sullivan and had requested that he has the property directly to the south and he talked about he always thought that we would split a road or when that would be developed and run a parallel road east west along the south our north property his south property um I think Mr. Sullen said he looked at it but then Warren passed and he went back to the old design. I think the way that we look at this development with the two stub streets that come to the south is not going to work for the development to the south of what we're looking at to do. And I would think I would request that we would relook at that east west road going across the southern boundary of that property. Uh, I had a very interesting meeting this afternoon with a reputable developer looking at the south property looking at more of a town center concept and I don't want to re reveal the name at this point but it is it was a good meeting and I think we're going to take the next steps to see what we can do to make something happen. So, that is in the works and that would then provide possibly another access down to County Road 2 along our uh most easterly boundary and splitting with uh Jay's property and coming up and we're both you know if that if they develop first I mean we'll give the easements and work with that but uh right now I think we could be we're a little bit behind the eightball but we're in the very beginning processes of trying to put put the deal together. It was the best meeting I've had in a long time and and trying to, you know, tie a piece of property together. And that's all I can reveal at this point. But that would be our request that continue that item to relook at that east west street and we would be willing to grant our side of the easement and work with that street. So, thank you. Before you sit down, when do you think you would Excuse me. U M Mr. Vogle? Question for you. Um when do you think that you would be able to have your plans with this developer? With this new developer that you had just recently met with, when do you think you would have your plans in order to piece both properties together? It would be yeah I mean we would be looking at running the north north south street up the the boundary and we would be looking at that south prop street to be working the internal of our development. So um you know we would be looking at some kind of a buffer between the single family development and then moving into more of the town center concept. And uh right now it's just it's it's preliminary but it's very good. So thank you. Put up the other one that shows like more of that land the one that shows the town. Oh that's an like the comp plan. No the 2008 first one of your first sites in the show. your slide show. I think it shows the land he's talking about so people understand where it is. Oh, okay. Yeah, the very first slide. Okay, just one minute. Actually, I'm going to just share the uh county's GIS. Yeah, it's a better idea. That's probably easier. Um Okay. Um, for the planning commission's reference, I have shared um, on my screen the property highlighted in red that Mr. Wrl is representing. It has been uh, long known as the Bars property. Um, it was owned by uh, I think it's still entitled to Bars construction and excavating. Uh so this uh proposed plat preliminary plat uh butts into or is connected to uh the Barson's property. There are two planned local street connections uh that come into um the property at approximately where where my mouse is shown. Do you have any other questions about this particular comments? Okay. Is there any? Go ahead. Is there anybody else present that would like to comment in line? Uh good evening uh madam chair and commissioners. Uh my name is Joe Sullivan. I am the applicant and appreciate your time and consideration tonight. Special thanks to Jake and Renee for their help in getting us here and to Rich. It's been an enjoyable process. Um it's hard to believe it was two years ago already nearly that we're here in front of you presenting the concept plan which at that time was extremely wellreceived which we appreciate. Um the reason and we talked about it back then and tonight again the reason we have the PUD process is we're trying to bridge two different underlying residential zonings. We've got the uh low density housing which allows for 85 ft lots and the R3 or medium density housing that allows for 60 foot lots. And we've tried to balance that with predominantly 65 foot lots. And what we're trying to attract, our goal is to attract families and new residents to Elco New Market. And hopefully this is their first purchase in Elco New Market to establish themselves and their families as residents. Maybe not their last purchase in Elco New Market, but hopefully their first. And so I think with the layout that we've presented and the lots having the dimensions they do, I think we can uh create a community there that is achievable and appealing to that audience. And I think that's important. Um I'm here with my associate Rick Jansen and also Nick Pa of Pioneer Engineering. And so we are certainly available to try to address any questions or issues that you have. I know there are a couple of things that we need to address and to Dale's point, you know, that is something we considered and we would consider it again, but con circumstances, I guess, didn't allow us to to do that uh right now. Anyway, if there's questions, uh we're happy to address them. Thank you, Madam Chair and the rest of the planning committee. Thanks. This is Tim Wber. I live in the north agricultural part of the proposed development and um just have a couple of concerns about where storm water will be routed. wasn't super clear to me where that will be routed out of the pro out of the proposed um development and how it will get most likely across my land since I think most of that stuff drains that way unless you're taking it a different direction I don't know about and also um same as my neighbor uh concerns about fencing for trespassing um or just to in general how uh how the border will be dealt with between our property and this development because now I will have a lot of neighbors. I don't intend on talking to each and every one of them about events. Are there any other comments? And I don't see any on Zoom. So, with that, um, one more time, are there any more comments before we close the public hearing? Hi, my name is Amy Carse and I live on 255 Park and Wayne was my dad and Warren was my uncle and Dale's been working with them for years trying to get that organized and help them with the process. And um it's kind of unfortunate that it's happening like right now after they're gone and we are kind of not stuck with but figuring all of this out. So it would be nice to um figure it like have some time to decide what we think should happen and what we should do because it's all new to us. Uncle Warren took care of a lot of that stuff. So, um, we appreciate Dale helping us and kind of guiding us through what he thinks we should do. So, we're just asking for maybe a little bit more time or some consideration for what we would need for that property. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll ask again um are there any more comments before we close the public hearing on this item? And again second time any more comments on this item before the public hearing is closed. Okay with that um the public hearing is closed at 7:52. Um these both the city engineer and the design engineer are here uh tonight and could potentially address the concern or the questions about what uh will be happening with the storm water and what uh how it will discharge from the property, how it discharges today versus how it will discharge upon development. Um we can bring up some drawings for you if you wish. No, I'll just talk. um our our code um uh not only um our code but it's also been deemed equivalent to both Vermillion River Wershed and Scott County wershed management organizations. So we do the reviews on behalf of those agencies as well as our own. And our code is set up to require developers to basically to the extent reasonably practical maintain existing drainage patterns. Not increase runoff rates, which is how how much water is flowing at any given time. Not increase runoff volume, which is the overall amount of water going off the site in any location. and to maintain the quality of the water uh similar to or better than what it is today. So, every developer has to lay out his plans. He has to look at where's the water going today, how much, how fast, and how dirty and then uh put in facilities to um not divert water all from, you know, if it's distributed. They can't run it all at one point. They have to maintain that distribution, but they also have to put in facilities that um slow down the the rate uh so that it doesn't wash out uh things and slow uh retain the volume so that we're getting as much into the ground as reasonably we can as what happened before. And then uh use wet ponds to remove sediment which typically has nutrients attached to it. Uh so that gets removed in the ponds uh and then cleaned out periodically uh by the city and in my opinion after reviewing the uh latest set of plans I think these satisfactorily do that. In fact um I think one of my comments even was that the ponds appear to be larger than necessary. So hopefully that addresses in in a general way. Um, so I I would expect that no neighbor should see more water certainly uh or really much difference um from before and after. Thank you. Can we get any if it doesn't work? Is there any repercussions if it doesn't? Yeah. Ma'am, the the public hearing is closed. Uh if the chair wishes to reopen the public hearing. Just a question. Yeah. Yeah. I guess as far as technicalities because again when we have developers come in and say that they're going to do this, that and that. What are the um conditions or protections we have as a city? So we do a few things. We um provide inspectors during the work on behalf of the city to observe that the plans and specs are complied with. We require asbuilt uh record drawings of the utilities to ensure that they were put in per plan and the grading to ensure that it was graded per the approved rating plan. So those are some enforcement mechanisms we have. Um I would well I I mean that's that's the the bottom line. The other thing I would be caution. Um, as far as making promises, you run into the question very quickly, who decides that it's worse or better and on what basis and what are the what's the data? Um, you know, these are standard policies in pretty much every city and watershed and they seem to be working. Uh, it follows the state's general storm water permit. Um, so there's no guarantees um that someone won't be dissatisfied, but it is certainly a pretty thorough attempt to try to enforce that policy I talked about. With that, then is it our turn to discuss? Yes. All right. Thank you. So, I'll open that up then uh to the um commission for any questions, comments. My only comment was on the the abundance of sidewalks, I guess, but I I don't know if the two sides on Park James Parkway are uh you know, they won't match up anything we currently have over there, but I can't remember talking about that in the past either. So, was that something parks brought up or No, it's not something the parks brought up. It is a a standard detail plate. So, uh, every type of road has a standard detail and, uh, for a minor collector street, which James Parkway is considered a minor collector. Um, sidewalks are required on both sides, and that of course wasn't the case in 2000 or 2002 when the previous development was, uh, went in, uh, with the city of of New Market. So, Okay. And then which block was the block that was 37 ft long? It's the nor it's the northerly most block. Okay. Um and I can show it on the screen if you want. Um I actually will for the benefit of um the public. I just need to share my screen. Um so you if I you can see this block. Can you if you can see where my mouse is? Um I'm going to do that so I can blow it up a little bit. Street A. Yeah. So along the Northerly property line uh which I believe abuts most of Tim's property um uh Riley Road will be extended to provide a connection to your property. Uh we did look or the city engineer evaluated with the developers engineer the property to the north which did have quite a bit of topography and didn't see a a really good spot for street connection um if you would want to develop in the future. So uh we kind of just stuck with the Riley Road connection that would provide sanitary sewer to your property uh should you choose to develop at some point and that one will be difficult. So yeah, I know there's there's no there's no good connections on that side. That's not a steep drop off or a wetland. Ste Yeah, basically everything there. Yeah, the the even the backyards of the lots in this block will have very steep backyards. Okay, that answered what I had. So, um, just looking at how the street C's and street A. Um, with regards to Barc's concerns, I mean, I do think that we'd be doing a incredibly disservice if we don't allow them to develop that because that is a major roadway that could get back there. And I think Casey, can you speak a little louder? Sorry. Close to your microphone. I was just wondering what streets is it street A or street C that directly would run through would that run through the Bars property? Both could be extended. Uh, both. uh street C and A um that you see here where my uh I'm pointing my mouse. They both connect into the Bars property. So there would be opportunities for them to develop. Uh they just don't know the proposed the layout on that property at at this point. Um so would that change any of the developments in let's just call them hose numbers 65, 66, and 58? like if that was if those roads were to run through and we could give them time to get the the affairs in order that they you know that maybe this could change the layout of this property too a little bit for the better. I would think you'd lose two to four lots because there wouldn't be adequate width if if the rightway was split on the property line. Um there would be width for those southerntherly four lots. Casey, could you repeat your question for me one more time so I can understand? Make sure that I understand. So, sounds like Rich did, but I want to make sure I do because I'm assuming most of I would say all the the Bars property is considered commercial, right? No. Uh this northeast corner of the Bars property is guided to medium density residential and some of and then the remainder is guided to town center which allows a mixture of uh multifamily housing and commercial. Um but this northerly most um section is guided to uh medium density residential which allows single family detached homes or uh town home attached housing up to eight attached units. Any other comments? Then I'll I'll go ahead and and say a few things. So recently Minnesota housing policy um they just issued a recent housing report and they have identified that Minnesota is missing 106,000 housing units today. So we we have a housing shortage. Um, I really like this proposal as that it does bridge the different lot sizes from the bigger lots to the smaller lots, identifying that there's a need for smaller homes in our community. Um, and this also opens up hopefully starter homes, but I've also seen the costs of these newer constructions and honestly I don't know how they could financially be considered starter homes, but that's another argument. Um I am very concerned as well regarding the street connectivity um with the Bars property because with that said we also need uh multi- family housing or excuse me single family housing that's the missing middle which is oftent times what town homes are or even condos are and we need that here as well. Um I guess with with that I mean I guess I also have another question too um with the developer is is this going to be a phased build out? Um do you have it set up so it's possible to take some time and try to align part of it with the Bars Nest property? Is that possible approach? What was the question? Wondering about phase development. Madam chair, um you're wondering about a phase development. We are here tonight to have you consider this preliminary plat as we've laid out. So there's kind of two different questions. Given the volume of new home permits and sales in Elco New Market, this will most likely be, I would say, a two or threephased buildout, if you want to call it that. Um, you know, that said, once you start, it's engineered very specifically to do that layout. Uh, are there tweaks along the way? Undoubtedly. You know, it happens all the time as you get more familiar with existing conditions as you're digging. Um, is there something specific within the design that you're thinking maybe there's some latitude or flexibility? Is it specific to the bars corner? Correct. It's the the roads because I'm not a fan either of dead ends. But then my concern too is if you're going to develop right up to the property, but then those roads aren't usable or it's not desired or um we have some Wonka creativeness. Exc. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Rich. Well, I just it sounds like we might be missing the Those are temporary culde-sacs. Those are not permanent. They're just temporary. That those roads could be extended. That's the intention. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm I'm going to display a couple of more maps. Um so, um I want to help you understand the connection to the Barson's property and where these two roads uh come uh to their property line. Um, this is um, and I can I can switch maps around if you give me a minute, but uh, if you can see where my mouse is, this is Mr. Sullivan's property here. Um, he's asked to reguide the entire property to lowdensity residential. It's uh to meet a density requirement mandated on us by the Metropolitan Council. And this is Mr. Bars' property line, the north property line of Mr. Bars' property where it meets Mr. Sullivan's property. The two row uh and you can see that the blue is guided to town center which really allows a large variety of uses including commercial multif family. Um the yellow is medium density uh residential and those two roads stub in to Mr. Bars' property or I should say the Bars property um in the yellow area. So they could continue those within their development. We're not precluding them uh from developing. Uh, so we looked at it as um they're bringing a road to and through Mr. Sullivan's property, providing opportunities for the Barsman's property to develop in the future, however that may be. Now, do we know their preferred layout? No, we have not seen anything or talked to to anybody. Um we do have an application before us that we have uh time uh restrictions based on state statute that we have to act upon the applications. Um for this particular application you do you would have the opportunity to um let me just double check the um I think you could continue this request and still meet the guideline. we have to act on this application by the city council by July 3rd. Um so uh you could if there's a reason uh another reason for you to delay action on this, you do have that cho uh opportunity. Um but if you don't have any further questions, um we would ask that you make a recommendation to city council. Any other comments, questions from the the commission? How is the development that is your microphone? No, I'm sorry. Uh how is the development getting developed over by um to the south side of like firehouse? Is there any building going on right there right now? We have two building permit applications. the uh development on the south side of County Road 2. Oh, yes. Yeah, we have two building permit applications that have been submitted. Okay. And then what is their lot size? Uh 65 to 70 ft. Okay. I just think 65 is an incredibly small lot size. It's just my opinion. Um, so but I know we've discussed this before and I think I was probably not um in favor of that in the past, but I just think with what you're saying with how expensive housing is now, I'd rather get more bang for my buck and have a bigger yard size if I was ever going to move away from my town. Yeah. Were these designed for a third or stall garage? Yeah. Okay. a sec two starter and a third added building with three. Yeah, likely three car would be constructed right away. But go ahead. So, madam chair to turn it off. There we go. Sorry. Uh some of your concerns. Um, tonight we're hoping to get as much feedback and issues, questions addressed as possible. Um, we fully expected, no, that's too too broad. I said we were not we're not surprised perhaps that things could get tabled or continued if that's the phraseology and we're not opposed to that. There's things here that maybe we could do to tweak the plan and maybe accommodate the bars. We had a plan in place at one time. Again, circumstances changed. Uh we can go back to that if that's a big concern of the commission. Uh to Rene's point, somebody's got to go first. And so you present the layout and you present it in a functional way for your development, but doesn't hamstring the guy next door. So that always happens. Um, I what I would suggest is perhaps respectfully we table it and give us a little time to maybe work out some of these details, questions that you have and see what we can come up with. Um, again, if there's issues or questions that we can address tonight and incorporate into any um discussions or changes that I have with my neighbors, that would be very helpful. So, I guess I would encourage all of you to let us know tonight what you know, if it's acceptable except for these issues, great. We'll work on them. If there's other things, I'd prefer that we hear about them tonight. So, we're not going back to the drawing board again. So, thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate your cander and your honesty. Um, I am for the the plan. I I like the smaller lots. I like the opportunity for um for housing, more housing here in um Elco. However, I am concerned about the connectivity with the neighbors um the neighbors land. And if you are willing to pause a moment and um work with the neighbor, I would encourage that. And then um we would have to move forward next month and take action in order for it to be in front of the uh city council in time for response. That is correct. I think we can give feedback if there's additional items that Yeah. Yeah. Let's make sure that you've went through all items that any questions that anybody has so we can Is that Mr. Winkler out there or No, that's Mr. Winkler. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um I was going to say that doesn't this all lot a couple more lots on Whispering Creek third or not? Yes. So that's what I would or at least one or two. Yes. It incorporates um the residual lots in Whispering Creek third edition into this development. Yeah. But there's some to the south of the park too that could go Oh. Uh, this considers those, but they are not part of the plan. I know. Okay. But they could be Yep. done by Mr. Winkler. Okay. Because I think that's a good idea to extend the road. I think we talked about that before to get the road as far down as you can because that that'll be a nice road someday. So, so on Riley Road. Did staff want us to go through line by line of the request? The only uh you know feedback we were seeking or the only questions that we had posed is um uh are you uh supportive of the point in exchange for the um deviations from city code? Is the 36 acres sufficient uh tradeoff for the planned unit development approval in your opinion? Um, so really the the two questions are, you know, the real strong recommendations uh from staff were the based on city code or the extension of Riley Road to the south. And then the if the 36 acres were not in your opinion a sufficient tradeoff, you could consider um you know t taking a couple of additional lots which may make the public land dedication area more usable for the city in the future. Um, but that was the only those are the only questions we're really seeking feedback on. I w I would um be supportive of the outlot C plus lots 55,56 and 57 to be dedicated to the city as part of um parkland dedication in exchange for the cup um PUD, excuse me, PUD. Um the request was uh lot 55, 56, and 57 um south on that's not Riley Road. It's a you know, I I can't read them on here, but maybe you can point to which one's there. I think it's this is one. Those three. Those three right there. Oh, okay. I agree. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I agree with that. Joe Casey thoughts on that? Because I was going to say when you go to Arseness property that makes that next lot kind of impossible to fit with the city owning well or well the city wanting the area to the north. with the road there. It would be a weird looking lot. Right. Am I allowed to approach? Go ahead. It's your application. Sure. So, I can appreciate um the horse trading that goes on with the PUB. Um again, the reason we if I back up a little bit, there was a time when the city was considering this size of a lot as a um our zoning. the city has not made progress in that regard in the two and a half years, closely three years that I've owned the property. And so rather than waiting and waiting, we decided that the best approach was the PUD. And it was a balance between the low density R1 and the medium density R3. We are trying to hit a achievable threshold for entrylevel buyers. Each nick that you take out of this makes each of those lots more expensive because the same infrastructure is required. So yes, it's a PUD. Yes, there's give and take. But you're now reducing development by three lots. That puts the burden on the rest of the lots and it all adds up. Anyway, thank you. I would uh concur with everything Mr. Sullivan stated. They know with the wetlands they are losing buildable land, you know, so that's why they're going around them. So, I I can understand the issues with that. as well. So that is an issue. Yes. Any other thoughts regarding the the the de the development proposed as it is? Have you met with the developer or the land owner to the east as well or uh the landowner to the east is here tonight? Yeah, he did not choose to speak during the public hearing. Okay. Um he's contacted uh city hall with questions uh regarding the road alignment for James Parkway, the potential for development of his property and the property the Barson's property to the west. So, okay. Well, I just wanted to know. Yeah. If um if you were interested in hearing from him, you need to reopen the public hearing. No, I don't think that's necessary. Right. Okay. All right. If there's no other feedback, um I guess we're going to table this then until next month. Yes. a recommendation to table from and if you are wishing to take any more public comment at the next meeting you would you should make a motion to continue the public hearing. Um but if you're not uh if you don't plan to make take any more comment from the public then if you think you've people have had the opportunity to state their concerns uh for consideration by you and the developer uh that we can keep the public hearing closed and just continue um the item till the next meeting and as acting chair I can't make the motion correct you can Oh I can I would say open it. I I would appreciate transparency and open I would like to have as much public engagement as possible. So I would recommend that we would keep this open. Okay. Okay. So should I make a recommendation or make a motion please to continue the public hearing? Continue it with the public comment open. Yeah. Mhm. I will second that then. Okay. All in favor? I I opposed. All right. It's passed. Okay. So, it will be uh con uh continued to the next planning commission meeting which would be the last Tuesday in May. Thank you. Next up, we have another PLA clearing for RNF properties. Is there a presentation? There is. And um I will be handling uh this presentation. Okay. Um, tonight we uh are the next item on the agenda is consideration of the application for comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendments as proposed by RNF Properties LLC. Um on the aerial photograph here you can see the properties in red. RNF Properties owns approximately 155 acres of land. Uh bound by County Road 91 on the west. Um Count France Avenue on the east. Uh south located south of County Road 2 and north of the Whispering Hills development in the golf course. Um the property owner uh representative Tom Ryan is with us tonight and he has been in discussions with the city's planning commission and city council regarding the long-term highest and best use of his property. Um uh again this property includes the Elco Speedway uh the drive-in movie theater and the Ryan contracting sites. Uh the property owner has expressed interest in a potential uh multifamily and/or mixeduse development uh on his property located north of Marketplace Boulevard. Um and he has expressed an interest in potential long-term redevelopment of the Elco Speedway Drive-In Theater and Ryan Contracting sites south of Marketplace Boulevard for residential development. Um the concept plan has been discussed uh by both the planning commission and the city council on multiple occasions. Uh most recently on February 27th, the planning commission provided feedback regarding future land use concepts for the property. Um and on March 14th, the city council provided their feedback um regarding future land use concepts presented by the property owner and um gave provided a um pretty um direct recommendation regarding what they would support. Um, so this map just shows the overall city's comprehensive plan. For those uh here in attendance that might not be familiar with uh what a comprehensive plan is, I was just going to give a little background. Um that the city has adopted a comprehensive plan to guide the growth and development of the community through the year 2040. Um this is a requirement of both state statute and the metropolitan council. Um a comprehensive plan is a document that provide that documents or describes a community's vision for itself into the future. And it is a compilation of the community's um policy statements, goals, values, standards um and contains a whole bunch of maps that uh describe or guide future growth and development of the city. It is a communication device that uh we use for the public to convey our vision of what we want to be. And uh one component of the comprehensive plan is the land use plan. A land use plan is a graphic graphically depicted here and it shows um in the yellow uh different areas where the city would uh has adapted uh residential growth. um blue and pink uh represent uh commercial growth areas and uh more purple shades uh depict where we envision um industrial growth in our community. So in um the application that has been received was to amend the city's comprehensive plan by creating a new land use category that would be called mixed use that would allow a mixing of commercial uh and or residential development within one area. Um, also uh request to amend the city's compreh uh uh request to amend the city's comprehensive plan by changing the guided land use on properties owned by RNF properties and Thomas Ryan. Um specifically uh the southernmost uh area to reguide that uh from medium density to low density residential. um the area where the Alcoa Speedway is. Uh reguide approximately 85 gross acres from commercial to lowdensity residential. Uh reguide an area along France Avenue, approximately 88 8 acres from commercial to medium density residential. And then again, the request was to reguide um this area north of Marketplace Boulevard, approximately three and a half acres from commercial to mixed use to allow that mixing of commercial and multifamily development. Also, a request to amend the city's zoning ordinance uh to create a new zoning district and finally to reszone the property north of Marketplace Boulevard. And that reszoning would allow more immediate development in that area. Um there is no current request to reszone any of the property that is currently occupied by the Alcoa Speedway, uh the Drive-In movie theater or Ryan Contracting. Uh those uses would be permitted to um exist for as long as the property owner um chooses to. Uh but at the same time, regiduing this to residential would allow um at their discretion the uh opportunity to apply to to reszone them for development. Um the map on the left shows the city's currently adopted uh land use plan which uh the entire Speedway property is uh and movie theater is guided commercial. The area north of Marketplace is commercial. Um there is the current plan shows medium density residential um off of the east end of Whispering Hills Lane. uh that land use designation allows for development of town houses and single family homes. Currently the request uh again the map on the right shows the request which was described uh in the last slide. Uh most recent discussions held by the city council on March 14th. The city council expressed support uh mostly consistent with the uh the request by Mr. Ryan. Uh, however, with some caveats in that area north of Marketplace Boulevard. So, the city council supported low density residential on the majority of the site south of Marketplace. They supported the medium density along France Avenue, which was inconsistent with the planning commission's um recommendation at the last meeting. So, I'm just wanted to make you uh make sure that you knew that uh the city council did support that mixeduse along France Avenue. And then north of Marketplace Boulevard, they didn't want the ability um they wanted to restrict the um developer original or Mr. Ryan's original request to have some full full flux flexibility to do multi all multifamily. They were supportive of um high density on the southwestern portion of his property and a mixed use only allowing residential above the first floor, but they wanted to maintain that commercial component along France Avenue. So, um these are just two site plans that had been previously submitted by um Mr. Ryan that showed concepts. Um there is no approvals being sought for any particular development. We're only being asked to amend the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. Um but these are concepts that could be allowed with the new zoning. Um again you can see the a multifamily building on that southwest portion of the uh the site could uh on the southeast portion of the site. It could be an entirely commercial building or a commercial building with residential above and then uh maintaining a little property on the north for some single-use buildings such as you know a single subway or whatever a standalone building. Um based on this final recommendation from the city council, staff have prepared full revisions to chapter six of the land the land use chapter of the comprehensive plan uh by adding uh that new mixeduse zoning classification. Again, this mixeduse classification allows an option for residential above the main floor on commercial buildings and for projects containing a residential component um pushing a density of uh 8 to 8 to 30 units per net acre. Um and this comprehensive plan amendment also uh amends the land use map to reguide uh Mr. Ryan's property, RNF property accordingly. Examples of uses that you might see in this type of mixeduse district, could be a multi-tenant building um as shown in this picture could be a single tenant building um or a mixeduse building. And I just grabbed a picture of a building that had commercial on the main floor with uh two stories of apartments above. Um state statute requires that uh we provide upon uh upon changes to our comprehensive plan. We provide notice to adjacent and affected jurisdictions. Uh we have identified the Lakeville School District, New Market Township, Scott County Planning, Highway and Parks Department, the Vermillion Wershed District, and the DNR as adjacent and affected jurisdictions. Um no comment waving further review were the school, the township, and Scott County. Uh the Vermillion River Wershed District uh only had a very high level comment and stated that uh they would recommend upon redevelopment of the Elco Speedway property that um the city require investigation for potential soil contamination from cars, oils, and then um the Minnesota DNR has advised the city that we need to adopt a shoreland ordinance. Um and that probably should have been adopted. Anybody that has land within 1,000 ft of a DNR protected water is required to have a shoreland ordinance. I'm not sure why we don't, but um so we'll get that going. Um in the zoning ordinance itself, a new zoning district is being proposed uh called B7. It's a mixed commercial mixeduse district. It's an exact replica of the B5 general business district which applies to the property today with a few additions that would relate to the allowance of residential uses. Again, residential uh dwellings which don't occupy the ground floor space of a building has been added as a allowable use. And then other uh residential related uh uses such as home occupations and home daycarees uh things that would naturally be allowed keeping of animals um if a residence were allowed. Um staff has went through the entire zoning ordinance to see where um other items may need to be addressed and are recommending I amendments to chapters 57 12 24 and 26. Um specifically chapter 5 building and site design requirements. This is where u the part of our code that applies building stand design standards. Um then there are landscaping requirements uh signage requirements. So um specifically pertaining to chapter 5 building and site design requirements. So for the proposed uh B7 zoning district staff has suggested the design standards that would be associated with multifamily zoning and that is um basically precludes the use of um vinyl siding, wood siding or class 4 building materials and requires 25% of the exterior of a building facade be brick, stone, rockface block or glass. So that's a 25 25%. Um so that is what is being proposed. Uh landscaping requirements. Um we've taken the exact landscaping requirements that apply to the property today which is the commercial landscaping requirements and um proposed those requirements for this new district. signs. Same thing, proposing exactly what it would be permitted on the site today is what is being proposed for the new zoning district. Um, and that's basically it. I do have a couple of um questions for the commission. Um, and these are the questions. Uh, we can I'll finish my presentation. Maybe we can come back to these. Um but specific to open space, so in that building and site design, that's where we address the requirement for open space. Um does the planning commission want to include a requirement for open space for project residents? In our multifamily district, there's a 10% requirement for usable open space uh 10% of the project area. Uh the R5 district, our downtown multifamily district has no such requirement. So like the downtown new market where you're mixed in with more of commercial area um does not have that requirement. Um so I would be looking for feedback on that. Uh building height currently the property has a maximum building height of uh 35 ft. That applies to our commercial districts. Um that is the same height in our multif family district. Uh, however, in our downtown New Market, the 40 we would have a 45 foot max building height. So, I'm looking for feedback on maximum building height for that mixeduse zoning district. Um, and then whether you think the residential above the main floor should be a permitted use, which is by right, or a conditional use, meaning they would have to get a conditional use permit for the mixing of commercial and residential in one building. Um, and it's a bit o over the board when I look at the districts that allow for multifamily, our apartments above the R4 district, uh, which is, uh, where the apartments are being built today by that's R4. That's our multifamily highdensity district. Apartments are a permitted use. Um, in the R5, they're a permitted use. Uh however, in the R5, if they're mixing commercial and um commercial and residential in one building, then it triggers a conditional use. So, I'm going to kind of leave it at that. Again, the applicant uh had initially requested to reszone the entire um site to allow for either for all mixed use. Uh and following discussions with the city council, we were directed to reszone uh the southwest portion of the property to R4 high density residential southeast portion of the property to mixed use and this resoning would ensure consistency with the comprehensive plan as required um should that amendment be approved. Um the planning commission is being asked to hold a public hearing on this uh on these applications and provide recommendations to the city council regarding the following following items. Um amend the comprehensive plan. Uh amend the zoning ordinance to create a new district and reszone uh the properties north of Marketplace Boulevard. And this map graphically depicts what the proposal is. Um, as in as with the last public hearing, um, we would ask that comments be taken first uh from in-person participants. Uh, second from Zoom participants. Anybody uh wishing to address the commission um approach the podium, state your name and address for the record. uh when in person comments are uh finished then we will look to Zoom to see if anybody uh would like to raise their hand. Thank you very much Renee. Um I am going to go ahead and open up the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Um hi I'm Tom Ryan. Most of you know me. I'm the applicant and um you've it's a basically the same thing that's come before you at least three times. Maybe four. This is the fourth. At least three. We started last year on this. Anyways, um so um just address a couple uh things. Um some for clarity if there's public comment. I think I maybe um could clarify a couple things. Um and then uh I want to first start off by saying um there's two real issue here. Uh it's it's reszoning the speedway property uh from commercial to residential use. Now before we um go any further with that, the speedway as it exists now and has existed for more than 60 years um is viable. Um I intend to operate it that way until it becomes not viable. I don't see it being unviable or not a good business for coming years. I I I just don't see it. But um as everybody probably has been to the property or has seen the property, you know, it's uh if there wasn't a speedway there, it just isn't suitable for commercial use. Um well, it could be suitable for commercial use, but um it's the land is rolling. It's got wetland features. It's got mature trees. Um, it just seems like uh also the place that it has within the city as far as the the the wetland and the lakes around it, it just seems to be more suited for residential use than it would be commercial use. Um, so that's that's that's one purpose here is to get the right um um end zoning on the property. Um, I think, um, that's one purpose of what we're doing here, but again, the speedway, I always intend to run it as a speedway. Um, there's a history there, so on and so forth. Um, I think it's it's good not just for the community, I think it's also for the region. Um, so as long as the racing business is viable, um, we'll continue to run it that way. After the speedway's gone, um, I think the you what we're proposing to the city is the best use for the property as some kind of residential. And to follow that up, um, I was fine with the planning commission's recommendation last time of making it all single family. I was fine with that. Um and and I also told the city council that um I don't have a preference whether it's single family or whether it's town homes. Um and of course we're talking about a portion of it. So whatever you come up with I'm good with. Um I think hopefully it'll be a long time before we ever get to that point and maybe there's an adjustment to what the market wants and what the city needs at that time. Uh so um that was the one thing. Um, okay. So, now shifting gears. The other issue we're talking about is 4 1/2 acres that's not near the speedway that's across the street from the Quick Trip. Um, it's it's south of the um post office and south of the Quick Trip and it's bordered by the Curb and Gather. It's about 4 and 1/2 acres by Marketplace Boulevard. So, um, and I've been trying to sell that, uh, 4 and a half acres for more than 15 years and, um, tried to do everything. We've recently within the last year put up more signs. Um but really um and then in fact um last year I did a market study on um what this area could use, what this community could use and uh came back with, you know, affordable housing and um the affordable housing component would fit really well into this 4 and a half acres um in the form of like an apartment building. Um, and I think staff and and and the city council and you people and and the planning commission were supportive of that. But the one thing you didn't want to miss was the component of the uh commercial retail space. So, what we agreed to do um um what I agreed to do um based on recommendation uh from city council was to make the lower level of the second building all commercial retail. Um so that was a good compromise and um I think I think we can swing that as far as when I say we can swing it, we'll have enough tenants that when that time comes that we could rent those spaces out. um I had my doubts at one point but u maybe 3 years from now or so um that need will be there. Um so um that being said it's it's you know and and as far as timing goes I would like to build that first apartment building. I'd like to move forward with that yet this fall. So, uh um that being said, uh I just had one more small comment and that was um I think to change your your historic rules or um guidelines that you have for your historic apartments that you're already building successfully in the city to change those from height requirements and green space requirements. Um, I think that would only hamper um and drive up the costs of anything we'd try to build inside this area. Um, so we hope those stay consistent with what they are now. We can make it work now, but some of those things, especially, you know, a two-level building versus a three-level building or maybe you'd end up with a onelevel building above a retail space. Those those numbers don't work. So anyhow, that's that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other comments? All right. I'm going to ask one more time or two more times. Are there any other comments? Anybody that would like to speak during this public hearing? Does anybody have their hand raised on Zoom? No, they don't. Okay. And then one more time, any other comments uh for the public hearing? Hearing none, I close the hearing at 8:47. And then Renee, if you could put up those questions, please go here. Okay, so here are the questions. Uh, does the planning commission want to include a requirement for open space for project residents uh within this newly created B7 zoning district? And uh we kind of see it both ways in depending on the two different highdensity districts that we have. So what was the apartment over here? R4. Yes. The site where the apartment is under construction is R4. It's a high density residential zoning district and uh in that 10% it can be simply green space, it can be a workout room within the building. Um the R5 district which would allow multifamily in downtown New Market like a full multifamily building downtown does not have that requirement. I guess this is a question for Tom. Where was your parking going to be? Was it under the building or or around it or I didn't recall that one space has to be enclosed? One space per unit. So, okay. So, kind of kind of a mix. There's some different different ways you can do it. Yeah. But it is clear you have to have one in closed space. one enclosed space per unit. Yeah. Okay. And that's for our four or any of them. That applies to all of the districts. Okay. All of the multif family districts, the R4 and the R5. I would be supportive of um no 10% usable space requirement. I al would also be supportive of going up to the max height of 45 feet for the buildings. And then also I think that housing housing should be permitted and it shouldn't be a conditional use permit. I believe that housing should uh above the apartments above floor commercial be a permitted use. Yes, I agree. I agree. So, there was a consensus on all three of those items as stated by Melissa. I would say I would which what's the height of the apartment? It's about um No, they had a maximum height of 35 ft, I think. Yeah, it's just barely over the 35 ft. And we have the fire equipment. That was back in the day didn't have the fire equipment for above a certain height. Now we do. So, and with flat roof buildings or whatever, you can do different stuff. But yeah, I agree with those three comments. Just confirming that case. Yeah, I agree. Okay. You want to make a motion? Sure. I'll make a motion. I just wanted to uh I think there was one comment that Tom asked that was maybe uh did you if I understood you correctly have a request regarding exterior building materials. We propose that or maybe I misinterpreted that. Okay. I don't think I don't think he mentioned that. So, okay. Misunderstood. Well, thank you. Then I will go ahead and make the motion then um regarding the 10% where my question back up one. Oop, sorry. Goodness. Let you go with the B5, right? Or whatever it was. Yes. Okay. Yep. So, um, regarding open space, we will be going with either with a B5 or R5, excuse me, no usable space requirement. And then building height, u R5 again, 45 ft. And then, um, we would we would go with the permitted use apartments, correct? R4. Yeah. Okay. Um and then so those are will be incorporated into the final documents presented to the city council and we need um motions regarding the following items as shown on the screen. Request to amend the comprehensive plan. Amend the zoning ordinance and reszone the property north of Marketplace Boulevard. So, we're just doing the one property. Okay. Not the whole Okay. Y we're reguing the entire property uh to future land uses, but we're only reszoning the marketplace boulevard area north northern area. Okay. The area south will continue to be zoned PUB to allow the track, the speedway, and the construction company. So, I'm assuming the town homes that were discussed at the city council meeting are not up for debate topic. Um, that could be whatever. Just just so I understand that could be whatever. It can still move again in the future. It can you know you can guide it one way if things the market changes is what Tom was saying that. Are you are you referencing this area? Yeah. So the planning commission can continue to make whatever recommendation they want regarding that area. Um, this is just we talked about a buffer between the commercial or uh apartments to residential and the council disagreed with our comment and so they went a different way than what we thought and uh they're saying that's up for negotiation or discuss discussions at a later date if that ever becomes true is what you're saying. I think a that's how I would see it. Well, but be clear that what is shown on this map would be in place today if you recommended approval. Again, uh the speed Tom may continue his operations for a you know decade or decades. Um he could choose to amend this again if he chooses to if he changes. It was a high level concept. Um, still is. Yes. Does that answer your question or? Yes. Okay. I'll go ahead and make the motion then for those three items as well. Okay. Um, as recommended by staff. I'll second it. All in favor? I I. All opposed? Passes. Next, moving forward, we have our third public hearing, which is very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Consider amendment to chapter 9 of subdivision ordinance regarding utilities and driveway aprons. Brandon is going to handle this request. We haven't It's a pretty easy um amendment. So, we don't have any PowerPoint or anything, but yeah, I mean, pretty much what you see on the memorandum is what's described. Um things that are struck through will be removed and things that are underlined will be added. Um all this was looked over by the city engineer and approved. Uh I'll take any questions, but that's really all. Was this development we looked at tonight? um ventures or August or what's the name of August Ventures? Okay. Was that one based off of this ordinance and then now we're looking at doing something different or what? No. No. Um really we're just cleaning up some language. Um, for example, we had language in there that said it shall be ductile iron pipe for uh water manes, but in practice we don't do that. So, we're really just cleaning up the language to more accurately reflect what we actually do. But I it is not dependent or will affect the previous uh development proposed tonight. All right. So, what do you need from us on that? We do need a public hearing. All right. So, um I will open the public hearing at 8:57. Is there anybody present that would like to comment? Come on, Tim. Come on. You can do it. You can do it. Second request. Any comments? Thirds? And nobody online? Okay. So, we will close it at 8:58. The public hearing is closed. Any discussion, questions? Okay, I'll take a motion. I'll make a motion. Motion by Brad. I'll second. Second by Joe. All in favor? I opposed. All right, that has passed. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on. General business. Old police department building committee appointment. I'm sorry, just real quick, who did the motion and second on that? I did the Joe. Joe second. Thank you. All right. This one will be quick. Quicker than the last one for sure. Um, is it working now? Nope. Still not working. That's fine. Uh, old PD committee appointment. If it I just wanted to change slides at least. Uh, so here's the property. Old PD formerly uh the police station city hall in Elco. It's right next to the Elco Express ballpark for those of you who aren't familiar. Um, currently it's being used by the food shelf and part of the property is also being used by the Elco Express. It's one-story structure approximately 3,500 ft. It was actually a school building um and a post office long ago. The original structure is likely built around 1900. Um, but it's suspected that the addition was built in the 1970s or 80s. In the early part of the last decade, city council has a a phased remodeling plan for the building. Um the work was planned to be phased out over a few years. Right now, we are all the way into phase 4 um interior improvements basically to meet city code, OSHA, and ADA standards. So, a lot of a fair amount of work has been done to the building to get it to this point. All phases were intended to be completed within a few years. However, in uh 2019, it was determined that it was better alternative to relocate the police department to the city hall. Um so it was kind of put on hold for a while. The city council has not made a final decision regarding the future use of the structure. Um but they do want to repurpose it the building uh some form of community space in some form or another. So at the April 3rd, 2024 city council meeting, the city council discussed the topic and advised staff on how to proceed. They directed staff to initiate a search committee to handle discussions related to the property. Uh that search committee would be made up of one to two city council members. Um one planning commission representative, which is why we're here tonight, one parks commission representative. Also, we're going to bring in hope for the community food shelf. Um a member from the Elco Express, one to two representatives from local organizations like the Boy Scouts or the Lions who may be likely to use the space. and then one to three additional atlarge citizens. Staff will facilitate the meetings and provide technical input as well. So if there's any questions or discussion, we would like a volunteer. Um whoever may be interested in serving on that steering committee, not I. So no meetings are scheduled yet. Um we're thinking probably June or July would be the first kickoff meeting. Kind of just a tour of the whole place. Um and most likely meet about once a month. So, if there's a volunteer, otherwise we can nominate uh whoever's not here tonight. Maybe I would love to volunteer. Actually, okay, perfect. Unless somebody else wants to be Okay, thank you. Is there a motion? I'll make a motion. Thank you, Brad. And Oh, thank you. So, then uh we've appointed Melissa Hansen. Thank you. on this committee. You're welcome. Do we have to vote? Do we Do you guys want to vote? I vote passes. All right, then. And moving on. Um miscellaneous community development updates. Um the I have I think just two updates. Um we did receive an a concept plan that will be scheduled on the next planning commission meeting agenda. For those of you who may have been around, Brad only probably. Um, Feeasant Hills was a development that had been proposed in the southwest portion of the community um, pre-recession in the early 2000s and um, the property had started grading at the time and then when the recession hit, the project was abandoned. Uh, there is a developer that has submitted a concept plan and would uh, like the plan to be reviewed before the planning commission, city council. Did it change much or um, not a whole lot. It for the most part follows the original plan. The original plan just had more property. Um yeah, it was um they had only the developer at the time had only taken down like a phase one or two of the development. The remainder of the property still remains in the Sakura family and I think that they have what we have been told is they are not interested in selling the remainder of the property anymore. So this is just again we'll kind of stub roads into their property so they can pick off in the future. Um between now and then I do want to meet with township representatives so we can um get township in input on on this particular one. So right now it looks like a motorcycle path in really road roadway that they started. Yeah. Um and then um today they started or they uh Niagara bottling is starting to mobilize on the Niagara site. At this point they're proceeding with grading at their own risk. Um the city city still does not have the water appropriations permit that has been applied for. Um we are told that we can expect a decision by approximately the beginning of June, possibly late May. Um but until that time NR had a timeline on that, did they not? Or it's kind of a self-imposed timeline. Um state statute does say something, but they decide when they think the application's complete. Um so you'll if you haven't already you may start to see uh some grading equipment mobilizing on the site and they also started to grade our roads too or grind our roads and Oh yes they're going to start paving tomorrow. Oh yeah there's a good chance they could be done with that whole thing by the end of next week. So how many days is the paving count? It's like six, seven. Yeah. Okay. If it goes that fast, of course. The whole city, the whole job. The whole job. Yeah. Right. Yeah. They were quick today to grind. I mean, they got a lot done. So, yeah. Yeah. All the prep work is pretty much done now. They're milling. They'll start paving tomorrow. Um about 1,500 tons a day. I don't remember the total tonnage, but it's going to go pretty rapidly. So they they put a a sticky layer and then they So I have people that come down to our house, you know, to work and I told her not to come if it's sticky roads. I didn't want her getting all over her truck. So sure. Yeah. They'll usually put some signs on the road the day before they're going to do um the milling or the paving so that people can be there's no parking signs already out. Yeah. So, yeah. But I just didn't know if they were going to start way in the back and work their way out or I think they're going to start up in your neighborhood. Oh, okay. And just keep going. Yeah. All right. Um, did you want to update on the downtown reconstruction or nothing? Okay. It's actually going pretty well. Um, we we didn't need the rain tonight for the project, but overall it's, you know, it's part of living in where we do. So, but uh we're finding a lot of abandoned stuff such as storm sewer pipes and culverts and drain tiles. And so, we're taking out what's in our trench, but the soils aren't very good there. So, we're not excavating to chase stuff to take it out because we don't want to dig any more than necessary. So, where we cross an old pipe that's probably abandoned, we're still just going to put in some sort of a conneure just so there's continuity. Um, so that if it is taking water, the water can keep flowing. Um, but we're not u Yeah, we'd be spending a lot of money trying to remove all that stuff and then having to deal with trying to stabilize the roads because once you stir it up, it's just that much more difficult to build a new road on top. So, but they're making progress. They've got uh one, two, three, four, five blocks out of eight. The utilities are pretty much done. So, that's over here in the Yep. south of double wide. Yeah. Harry, do you have any updates from the township? Okay. us. Um, next meeting we'll go over our chair and vice chair nominations. We're supposed to do that in April. Um, but it worked out because Nicole wasn't here tonight. So, we'll do that next month. So, with that, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion. All right. Second. I'll second. Anybody opposed? You okay with us, Kim? Yeah, I think adjourned. I think it's I think you've done all the things.