All right, I'll call the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Um, and please stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands nationy andice for all. Okay. Okay. Are there any changes to the agenda? There are no changes. All right. Anyone want to make a recommendation to approve the agenda as written? So moved. All right. Anyone want a second? I'll second. Great. All in favor? I. All right. Public comment. Let's see. Anyone here? So, we'll go to announcements. Any announcements? We have no announcements. Okay. Um, and then approval of the June 25th, 2024 meeting minutes. Anyone have any changes or corrections? I saw no changes needed. Okay. I didn't either. So, thank you. All right. I'll make a motion to approve them. Anyone want to second? Second. All right. All in favor? I. I. All right. No public hearings. And then on to general business. Zoning ordinance amendment, detached accessory structure and accessory dwelling unit discussion. All right. So, we're continuing our discussion on accessory uh detached accessory structures. A little recap. We've discussed this in February and May so far. Um where we came to the initial recommendation of a thousand maximum total square footage limit for properties 1 acre and less uh 2,000 square foot for 1 acre and more. Maximum of two structures allowed per property. The last time we chatted, we also talked about ADUs. um and driveway access which we decided no driveway access should be considered with uh any ordinance amendment. But at the May 28th commission meet meeting uh the staff discuss ADUs a little further because ADUs must conform with the area limitations contained in the accessory buildings structures and uses section of city code. ADUs must be at least 250 ft in area and are limited to a maximum detached accessory structure size. though in this case they would be 1,000 square ft just like accessory structures based on your recommendation so far. Um, additionally, ADUs may not exceed the area of the principal dwelling unit no matter what. So, they can't be bigger than the house. Uh, they have to be bigger than 250 ft and we'd like to discuss that a little further. Um, so it was recommended to treat them the same 1,000 square feet. Uh this the purpose and intent of the ADU ordinance according to the city code is to create new housing units while also respecting the appearance and character of single family dwellings while also providing housing that responds to changing family needs, privacy standards and household sizes. Also to make more efficient use of existing housing stock and infrastructure and to encourage the creation of additional affordable housing. Um, so ADUs are really intended for the creation of additional housing for one or two close family members, maybe your grandparents, uh, someone with special needs in the family. If the maximum allowable size for ADUs were to increase, it may encourage a whole separate family unit to occupy that dwelling, which is currently allowable under the ordinance. Staff believe this could compromise the appearance and character of single family dwellings and does not accurately reflect the a typical change in household size. staff recommended the planning commission reconsider ADU separately from the detached accessory structures in uh an effort to maintain the intent of the ADU ordinance. And just for an example, a standard hotel room ranges from about 250 to 350 square ft. So right now an ADU is at 250. Um if we did want to increase it, staff is open to that idea, I think. um we just don't want it to quite be that a thousand or whatever we end up going for uh detached accessory structures. A little more background on the city council meeting from June 13th. Um staff advised the initial recommendations by the planning commission to the city council. They provided the following feedback. Um that sizes for detached accessory structures should not be at the high end of ranges. Uh the city's researched by staff staff wish to consider the current allowable maximum height standards. Um it's a new conversation tonight. This is what you asked us to bring back last time. Currently the city allows a maximum building height of 15 ft for residential accessory use structures. We've expressed a desire to maybe explore higher maximum building height um with the higher RVs and stuff people are seeing these days. Staff have researched other city standards. Um city of Elcon market is comparable at 15 ft. The research demonstrated a range of anywhere from 12 to 20 feet. That research has been compiled into a chart below. Um so there's those are the cities there. Uh the only thing staff would like to add to discussion about the building height is the definition of building height right now in city code is in the highlighted. It's kind of a contrived definition. The vertical distance to be measured from the grade of a building line to the top of the corners of a flat roof to the deck line of a a manser roof to the point on the roof directly above the highest wall of a shed roof to the uppermost point on a round or other arch type roof or to the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. Uh staff believe that this definition could be condensed a little to make it easier for residents and staff alike to understand. Staff recommend that the building height definition be amended as follows to just the vertical distance to be measured from the finish grade of a building line to the highest point of the roof. Uh so staff are recommending the planning commission to consider the following amendments to the city's detach accessory structure and accessory dwelling unit ordinances. Uh staff are specifically seeking feedback on the following recommendations made by staff in the planning commission so far. The first being uh kind of the biggest one, the maximum square footage size allowed without conditional use permit for 1 acre and under and over 1 acre. City council feedback initially offered was that it should not be at the high end of 1,000 square feet for lots 1 acre and less. They didn't seem too much concerned with the the larger lots. Um, so we can discuss that. Number two, we've already kind of set this one in stone. There shall be no more than two detached accessory buildings per lot and residential zones. Uh, we decided not to enact any access or driveway requirements for certain size structures. ADUs um are currently our recommendation is to consider them attached or consider them with the detached accessory structures. Um, staff would recommend considering them separately. That doesn't mean keeping them at 250 square feet, but just keeping them separate. Uh then maximum building height for detached accessory structures. Staff is recommending going with 20 feet. Um this is kind of at that high end too, but it must not exceed the height of the principal structure in any case. And that's pretty common with a lot of these other cities we looked at. And then finally, building height. Uh the definition amended as follows, just to that simple definition. vertical distance finish grade to the highest point of the roof. And if changes are recommended, staff will draft an ordinance amendment for further discussion at the next meeting and then public hearing after that. Um so you want to just start with go through the list one two three four five six. Um we can sure um so number one detached accessory buildings um shall comply with the following limitations and it goes A, B and C. So let's look at A. So, an acre and under. Um, we suggested just a thousand square feet. Sounds like the city council doesn't like that number. Yeah, I was at the meeting. So, I was the one that just, you know, let them know that the planning commission was in um early discussions and that, you know, you had gotten this far in reviewing the ordinance and I would say it was kind of a high level. There wasn't a lot of discussion. I think their initial feedback was sounds a little big. that doesn't mean that that can't still be your recommendation, but I wanted to carry that back to you that um I can't reme remember I looked at the initial research that you did before we sent out the packet so I don't remember what the ranges off the top of my range was off the top of my head. I think it was anywhere from 250 to a,000 square feet was kind of the range of the other cities that Jake had researched. Mhm. Um, so the only feedback was like, well, I we don't think we need to be at the high end of the range and you can continue to recommend the thousand and the 2,000 100%. Just know that, you know, they might cap it at 900 or or something like that when they when it gets to that point. Okay. Thank you. How do other commissioners feel about this one? what the I guess how the the house size and the lot size determine how big that structure is going to be the detached one. So I mean a lot of times this is probably going to be like a 600 square foot shed. Sure. Depending on Yeah. Depending on how size and setbacks and things, right? Exactly. So I mean if allowable, right? You have a smaller house and you have a oneacre lot and you want to build a thousand square foot building detached. Why not? Why should we limit that? And this is total, correct me if I'm wrong, this is total square footage. So it would still include like if somebody has the 250 Yeah. square feet, then they're limited to that. Yeah. Okay, that's correct. Does it factor in the attached garage if that's the case or not? No. Attached garages are completely separate. They're a maximum of 1,000 square feet for attached garage. could have a thousand square foot attached and then up to a th00and square foot detached uh based on your re sure recommendation and I guess just reading the packet and not to jump ahead um with the violations and things looked like 64% of the violations were with um trailers and things like that and okay so this might mitigate some of those violations would hope Yeah. Right. Yeah. My thought was the same as Casey's as well. Um I believe that our setbacks and our current um requirements would dictate the size of the um structure as well. So I am confident in keeping it at a thousand and Okay. And I think that's part of the reason that Jake went through that exercise of taking cert, you know, surveys and sketching in different size buildings on those surveys so you could see get a visual of what those different sizes would look like. And in fairness to the city council, they didn't have any of that background information when they made that off-the cuff recommendation. So, um, just wanted you to to let you know. Sure. So, so it sounds like at least from three of you, you're consistent with the initial recommendation. Yes. I'm okay with the initial Okay. I don't Brad thoughts. I'm fine either way. I I just thought that it's a lot of square footage, but if your house is 2,000 square foot or whatever that uh if you don't have a yard, then I guess you won't be putting a thousand square foot garage. If you got a thousand square feet attached, so you know, it's like she said, it's just going to be relative to what you can fit. I guess I would assume that any of these detached structures would require a building permit, right? Absolutely. I think that's going to eliminate a lot of people trying to bend the rules. If it's over 200 square feet, it requires a building permit under the building code. Mhm. And I don't know if we can touch on it at all, but the accessory ADUs that that is part of the same thousand square foot or not? Well, the way the ordinance is currently written. So that's we'll get to that. It's another one of the bullet points. Yep. So, it sounds like we're all fine sticking with the initial recommendations for number one. Yes. Uh, number two, I don't think there's any discussion here either. We're still okay with just limiting it to the two structures. Yes. Okay. And three, I think that's the same as well, unless somebody had a change of heart there. Uh, number four, ADUs can be considered separately from detached accessory structures when determining a maximum allowable square footage. So this basically means we just amend the ordinance to speci specifically lay out that adus are not subject to the maximum square footage of detached accessory structures and that should there be a separate limit. So I'm going to give you an example. So most building permits that we issue for houses in let's say Boulder Heights uh probably 75% of them are two-story houses with a footprint r of the house ranging between 900 and 1,200 square feet with the twotory. So if you can have another thousand square foot the way the code is written today if we increase the detach accessory or I'm yeah accessory structure size to a thousand then the ADUs could also go to a thousand. So, if you have two,000 square foot dwellings on one property, um the point that I think staff is trying to make is that the principal structure um we're we're still trying to portray a single family uh detached neighborhood with the the home being the principal structure and the ADU being the secondary structure. Yeah. What if you had a thousand square foot garage on top of that? So, you'd have three You don't no the 80 would be considered counts as that's what I was asking earlier and then you said no so that's what I was asking apologize okay so the thousand square foot includes their building if you have a combination of two it's one's a 500 square foot the other one it's 500 yeah that's correct so should there be a maximum size to the ADU that's front and the intent is not for renting out for people other than family is that I mean it's not be like California rent we didn't limit we didn't limit it under our ordinance it is you could uh rent it out as a when we were going through the ordinance amendment uh and decided to allow ADUs it was to increase affordable housing. Uh really it uh some cities do limit it only to family members but our ordinance does not the cost of infrastructure is quite high too, right? And so, um, our family has been looking at, um, possibly doing an attached ADU at our home for my aging parents and my disabled sister and, you know, limiting them to a,000 ft. It's like, wow, I, you know, I need them close. So, I'm kind of struggling with this myself. So yeah, cuz again as aging parents and as I said a disabled sister, you know, having them, they live in Burnsville currently in a split level home, it is becoming dangerous. It truly is. And so we're really trying to explore what options are affordable. And we have been trying to figure out this ADU route, but 1,000 square feet for three of them next to us isn't isn't large enough. So, I I I don't know. Let's be creative. I'm I'm open to suggestions and I can't be the only person that's considering some type of change like that. I mean economics I don't know if you all know about the market but um yeah I I think families are also going to be need going to be creative in the upcoming years and I think we should be creative and flexible too but I don't know what that looks like so I think what 33 building or 33 by 33 building isn't it or roughly or for a thousand square foot. It's like a three plus car garage. Yeah. Yeah. It's between like a three and four car garage. I think what I heard you say, Melissa, is that you are actually advocating the opposite of what my point was. Yes. Um, you know, I'm looking I'm going back to the accessory dwelling unit. The purpose as stated right in in the code, the purpose of the section is to provide for construction of accessory dwelling units to accommodate the housing needs of residents. The specific purpose of the section is to create new housing while respecting the appearance and character of the single family neighborhood. I think that's my point is not to have the ADU potentially um be larger than the actual home by look like there's two home two single family homes on the property. So is that one level? Would you do like a attic level that's not included in square footage or total square footage of the deal? So they have to be a minimum of 200 minimum of 250 square feet. And then currently the maximum is tied to the maximum of the detached garages or detached accessory structures. Not just the all the standards. So the height ADUs can't exceed 15 feet as of now. Still going to be a twotory ADU. Okay. Um and in no case can the ADU exceed the um size of the principal dwelling unit. So you could have a th00and and a th00and if so if the house was like 900 ft only the ADU can be 900 feet. Yeah. Yes. Like the footprint. Correct. So the ADU can be bigger than the house but it could be equal equal. Sure. Right. And then is that the purpose of the ordinance is it's the accessory is where I think and and you're advocating you know an opposite which is well family circumstances too you know I um I I'm advocating for flexibility. Sure. Um so the code as it's written today I think it does allow bigger through a conditional use permit. That's what I was going to say. So it goes on and then it'll just go through the review process to make sure that it fits with the character of the Yeah. So as long as the mechanisms are still in place and it's not a hard no. I I just that there is an avenue to for that flexibility. Yeah. Correct. I mean housing is housing is housing and everybody's needs are different. Mhm. You just know in California it's a little different out there because of real estate costs that are crazy that they're converting their little single garages in the backyard into a house so they can rent them out to whomever. Yeah. Like that. That's how I travel with my daughter and it's so interesting and I think it's fabulous personally. But um you just quietly kind of sneak in and let yourself into the shed and leave the next morning. But um yeah, our or that's a totally different topic. Our ordinance does not currently address short-term rentals. So that might be something that we should revisit at some point or visit. So the main question here first, right, is separating them, right? And then is do you want to separate them? Okay. You need to I mean I don't understand you don't need to. Do you just do you think an a thousand square foot ADU is too big or not? Or not? No, not really. I mean I'm looking at what our apartment layouts are right now. two bedroom can range from 870 square feet and that includes one bathroom a living space or it can be up to 1,200 square feet and that's two bathrooms and two bedrooms. Mhm. So, I mean, yeah, right now, if you look at it, a standard 250 foot ADU, it's basically, sorry, a small bathroom, a little bedroom, and then a combined kitchen, living room. That's Yeah, pretty small. Because I have a 250 foot shed in my backyard and I couldn't imagine, right, fitting much more than you know what I have in there. It's not a bed. You don't want your mother-in-law to live in there? No. No, I do not. Okay. So, it sounds like we're leaving it at the initial recommendation. Consider them with accessory structures. Okay. Are we okay with that? Yeah. I think so, too. Okay. Um, and then the maximum building height. I did want to explain why staff is recommending going with 20 feet, which is on the high end of the scale. That's just due to that next uh number six, the definition change. So currently I don't know the best way to visualize it. So that measuring from the midpoint of the roof. Yeah. Yeah. So right now you measure at 15 ft. Oh, it used to be. Okay. And if we change it then we'll measure from the top of the peak. Um everyone's got like a 812 or 1012 or you know they're they're not 412s anymore on the roof. So yeah. So this will it it's not a five foot increase really, but it's just a different way of measuring. It's easier measuring to the peak instead of the midpoint. So raising much easier to follow. Yeah. Mhm. So those two kind of go hand inand. First we'd ask if you're in favor of uh increasing the maximum building height for the accessory structures to 20 feet and that would also include ADUs. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I agree. Agree. Yeah, it's notreasing but yes. Yeah. And then the building height definition, it sounded like kind of all in favor of that as well. Yes, makes sense. Okay. I think that's all the feedback we needed from you guys. We can start drafting that ordinance amendment unless there's any other comments from the planning commission before did you want to discuss the size more of just leave it as is and then okay if it comes down further down the road look at it again. I have a um we had a meeting with a potential developer today and I just thought of this question that they asked about the uh rooftop. So it was a multif family housing developer that was looking at maybe doing a rooftop patio. Um I don't know if there's just uh you know railing just make making sure that we wouldn't measure to the top of the railing or something on the roof. Well, this is just for detached accessory structures. Um, yeah, you're right. So, in our maximum building height though for changing the definition, so that applies to the building height in all of the other zoning districts like 35 ft or 45 ft. Sometimes they have a notch out at the end of the like Burnsville there's some of those that have patios outside of apartment buildings. Yeah. They just taken I think this was like I guess what the way I would have interpreted his question today was like a complete rooftop patio and wanted to make to see if that was an exception but okay but wouldn't it be the parapit wall the measurement the tall wall? Yeah the the knee wall or whatever the handrail wall. Well, most of those are I mean, you got to have a little stairwell coming up that's going to be higher than the rooftop anyways. So, they're just going to have to account for that. Okay. Off topic. Sorry. It's okay. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that. We'll bring back something to the next meeting and keep going on that ordinance amendment. So, at the next meeting, there'll be an actual draft ordinance. Um, do you So, should we review everything one more time before we go to public hearing? That was my thoughts. Okay, sounds good. All right, thank you. Y All right, we'll move on to miscellaneous citywide sweep recap. My screen share here. You're just sharing again, I think. All right. So, citywide sweep. Um Jake and I did this a few months back. Um so, essentially we just drive every street in the town and look and try to do our best to make sure we hit every house. Um and just look for common code violations. Um, so this includes mostly exterior storage, which is anything pretty much outside of any structure. Um, and recreation vehicles, which is a interesting definition, but essentially it could be a boat, it could be an RV, anything that's, you know, not a not a car really. Um, so we did that and here's a comparison of the years. So, city staff issued 122 violation letters in the first year. Um, and 10 of those were handed over to the police department. In 2021, we issued 78 violations and only five of those were sent. And in 2022 was 44 violations and only three were sent. Um, in 2023, we failed to continue the positive trend. Um, and 58 violation letters were issued and um, which was an increase of 14 from the previous year. And out of those 58, um, six of them were sent to the police department. So this year I don't have the numbers on the exact number on this slide but it was like 70 something and only two of them got sent to the police department. Only one citation was issued. So here's a graph showing the breakdown of the different violations. Supposed to say 2024 up top. That's on me. Um, but yeah, so as you can see, it was because of the rain this year, there was an increase in lawn grass and weeds, especially because we did this like late May. And I guess this is my first year in the profession, but no mo May is a thing, I learned. Uh, so for that, Yep. That's why that lumber's so um inflated. It was super wet and it was May. So good combination. But yeah, other than that, um the clear and cut winter was the exterior storage. Um which is a lot of times just like a ladder on the side of the house or a bunch of bikes in their yard or you know it could be anything. So that's kind of why I think that's the highest one is because it's such a general uh violation and then there are quite a bit of recreational vehicles. So the compliance breakdown, I forgot to change the year on the top on all these slides, so just know that it's 2024. Um but most of them are resolved after the first letter. Uh like 23 were Yeah. 25 were the second letter and then two of them needed the police department to get involved. So pretty decent actually. Yeah. So I don't have any any questions I'll field, but that's kind of all I just wanted to let you guys know that we did that and I think it went well. So thank you. Um and then we have the comprehensive plan overview. Chapter six, land use plan. So yeah, we're just continuing our little education on the comprehensive plan. This time we're doing chapter six. It's the land use chapter. Uh the land use plan guides and directs future land uses within the city of Elco New Market through the year 2040. The land use plan is a narrative and a graphic description that provides background and rationale for land use designations as represented on the 2040 land use map uh plan. The land use plan also holds educational decision-making functions by helping to improve the general understanding of how continued city growth I'm sorry is expected to occur. Uh so some of the section this section outlines uh the following growth management existing land uses future land uses land use category descriptions guided land use calculations housing and employment. We're not going to go through all of that. I'm just going to hit the high notes on kind of the most important parts. Uh the 2040 undesated metropolitan urban service area or MUSA for short is an agreement between the mun municipalities in the MET council to help manage existing and anticipated growth within the area. Uh when the Met Council extended the Musa line to Elco Market years ago, the city had to enter into an agreement with the Met Council. Uh the agreement designates the Musa area and development standards. Uh, average residential density must be three or more units per net acre as dictated by them and contiguous development. So, you can't just spot um infill develop properties around the city. It has to be contiguous with some exceptions around I35. The thrive MSP 2040 policy plan um considers us a r a rural center which serving the rural areas as small town centers of commerce. Uh here's a whole bunch of requirements regarding rural areas. Uh so shooting for overall average densities of at least three to five units per net acre. Uh really just work with the ad adjacent jurisdictions to execute orderly annexation agreements. Um work to forecasted growth in areas with existing infrastructure capacity to protect existing farmland. adopt ordinances that coordinate development with infrastructure availability and identify areas that will accommodate post2040 growth as well. Um, one of the main things dictated to us is we we're required to deny any development or subdivision applications that qualify as premature based on the non-conformity with this comp plan. Uh that's infill policies as described earlier, adequacy of roads or storm water management, safe water supply, safe sewage disposal, uh support facilities such as police, staffing, fire, schools, parks, uh consistency with environmental protection policies, and consistency with the city's 5-year capital improvement program. So we might get this huge development in that's you know a really great deal thousand houses but if we simply can't serve that we have to deny that development. Here's a map of that ultimate service area boundary. Um so the what's in blue is what's our ultimate 2040 growth area. Um beyond that is the ultimate service area boundary. So think 150 years in the future that might be how big Elco market is. Then here's just a closeup on the 20 2040 boundary. Obviously not as big. The following land uses are described in chapter 6. Uh we have a couple a few different mostly residential areas. So low density residentials R1, R2, medium density residential R3. High density residential R4 and R5. And our town center is R5, B2, and B3. Uh we have several B commercial districts B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5. Um zoning districts B6, B7 and PUB are for our business and limited and industrial park. And I1 and I2 and PUD as well for our industrial zones. And then we have our institutional public and semi-public churches, city facilities, stuff like that. Schools would be institutional. Uh here's a map of our current 2040 land use plan. As you'll see, the colors represent the following uh land use categories from commercial, industrial, residential, um institutional. As described on the previous slide, all of these uh land use designations come with their own required average residential density. Um so 2 and 1 half to five for our low density single family medium density 5 to 10 that can be um a variety of attached detached single family housing and attached uh multif family housing up to eight units. Our high density are our apartments 10 to 30 units per net acre and our town center is also the same 10 to 30 units per net acre. The following is contained in the chapter six as well. It gives you a little future residential development um based on the available land what we have guided. It breaks it down um by the densities described to us. So total potential units for residential development uh within the 2040 growth area. On the low end it's 3,800 just over 3,800 and on the high end it's just over 8,000. Um, also for job growth, it breaks down the same thing by town, center, commercial, business, and industrial zones, the net acres, um, and then the typical number of employees per acre for those land uses. So, within the 2040 growth area, there's potential for 3,400 new jobs if we were to fill that. And just again, here's our current 20 240 land use plan. And that has changed a little bit um minor changes throughout the year since we adopted this. This concludes the review of chapter uh six of our comp plan. Is there any questions from the commission? I wanted to say bingo. Bingo. When you were doing B1, B2, B3, I refrained went through them quick. The Metropolitan Council is currently establishing its policies that will be um carried through our next comprehensive plan process. So, um it seems like we just adopted our comprehensive plan to me, but um we'll probably be starting to work on the 2050 plan within the next year to two years. Okay. We just got done. So, we were a little late, but All right. And then on to C, educational modules. What are zoning and subdivision ordinances? All right. So, zoning and subdivision ordinances. Got to get myself into presenter view. Okay. So, um, cities use zoning to guide development and to ensure that land gets used in a way that promotes both the best use of the land and the prosperity, health, and welfare of the city's residents. Um, zoning translates the land use goals of the comprehensive plan into ordinances and into regulations. It encourages orderly development, reduces conflicts between different land uses, and helps to regulate the development of individual parcels along with the land and buildings within a community. Uh if a use isn't supported by the land use plan but allowed by zoning, it's difficult to stop a developer from pursuing it. Um so zoning maps are a legal document. Um so boundaries of zoning districts must be created with care. Um so this is the pyramid of discretion. I like this tool actually a lot. It's pretty useful. Um so zoning and subdivision ordinances find itself on the base level of the pyramid of discretion. My little arrows pointing. And this is because cities have quite a bit of flexibility in crafting these regulations. But once they are adopted, um the ordinances are used to administer the upper levels of the pyramid. So zoning ordinances set forth um administrative procedures for implementing the zoning ordinance, the fees and the definitions. Uh its purpose is essentially to establish the legal basis for zoning code. Uh it sets performance standards that uniformly apply to all districts such as noise, property management, parking, fencing, lighting, signage, and more. Uh zoning districts establish the different types of districts and set forth regulations for each one of them. The ordinance may contain additional provisions or address issues such as natural resource protection, um flood plane provisions, and airport regulations. So, not a lot to say on this side. Just thought it was a cool illustration that shows some examples of different zoning regulations. Maybe not exactly particular to ours because we can't have two curb cuts, but it's cool. Um, so some mechanisms to relieve zoning pressures are shown on this slide. Um, a variance could be referred to as an allowed violation of a standard zoning ordinance. Parties are allowed to contest a decision or interpretation of an ordinance through an appeals process. And parties can also amend a zoning ordinance if they go through the proper channels. Um, so now we're in subdivision. Uh like the zoning ordinance, the subdivision ordinance also translates the comprehensive plan into law and it establishes the procedures for the division of land consistent with the comprehensive plan. The division of a parcel of land is usually broken into lots and blocks for the purpose of sale, transfer ownership, transfer of ownership, or development purposes. Uh, cities may require that a reasonable portion of a buildable land in any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use um as some or all of the following which include streets, roads, sewers, electric gas and water facilities, storm water drainage and holding areas or ponds, parks, recreational facilities, playgrounds, trails and open space and of course wetlands uh and platting. So the Minnesota Platting Act governs platting. Um that picture on the bottom right is an example of a plat. Um a plat is a scale drawing of one or more existing parcels of land that depicts the location and boundaries of lots, blocks, outlots, parks, and public ways and other data required by the platting act. That is all I have for you. So any questions? No. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. All right. And then we're on to community development updates. Um I do have a number of updates for you. Just uh starting out with the Niagara project. Um if you haven't driven west of town, the building is under construction. The wall panels are in the process of being put up. Um Park I35, the development itself, um has started some preliminary construction. I believe they are going to start underground on Monday. Yep. Um, so they'll start installing underground utilities on Monday. I don't remember the full time frame on how long they think that will take. They'll be there a while. Yeah, probably October. Yeah, they're hoping to get Buminous down on the street this year. Um, weather permitting. U, but that's definitely the goal. There's a temporary access into the Niagara site currently off of County Road 2 that will be closed once the internal road and the development is paved. Um the city uh sent out a newsletter article. Um you probably didn't get it in your mailbox today, but maybe today or tomorrow. Yeah, maybe. I think we got ours here at city hall. Uh but we did include a insert within the city newsletter this time which is informing the community of the Niagara project and the benefits to the city of the Niagara project in terms of taxbased jobs revenue, utility revenue and stuff like that. So I encourage you to read that article. Um the uh on Monday, August 5th, the city um will be hosting a meeting for property owners that have a potential well on their property located within two and a half miles of city wells to kind of inform them um about the city's proposed increase in pumping. Rich will largely um lead that presentation. I have a small part in it. Um but it is a non required meeting but we sent out over 900 notices. Okay. The meeting will be held here because we have the best audio visual uh within this building to record um meetings but it's available on Zoom as well. So did you want support? If you want to learn about wells, sure. 7 o'clock then Monday. 6:30. Uh 6:30. Yeah. Yeah. 6:30. Yeah. So, it's really um you know, not focused on Niagara. It's focused on you know, the city's going to be increasing pumping and uh more about private wells between our pumping and their wells. So just wanted to let you know about that in case you see any chatter on social media. Um we are hosting this at our own choosing. Yeah. Um um moving on. Uh the city or I received a concept plan for Dakota Acres second edition. This the remaining town home. There's a 3.19 acres I think that is available on the west side of the existing town houses. It's owned by a separate entity if you recall. There was an apartment building proposed there a few years ago before the developer passed away. Um that project was abandoned and um a concept plan was submitted that showed a continuation of town houses actually a separate townhouse development that didn't connect to the existing one. So just because there's separate ownership there. Um so we not sure if we'll see that moving forward, but they seem pretty motivated to get something going there. Um you will recall the pheasant hills concept plan that you reviewed where you recommended that the lots there maintain the R1 zoning district standards. Um the city council accepted your um recommendation and um concurred with it to the degree that well the minimum we have to meet 2 and a half units per acre. So um sounds like the applicant is going to continue to redraw the development to show the 12,000 square foot or the R1 standard lots. if that doesn't meet the two and a half units per acre, you know, then he'll he'll draw it at a, you know, a smaller lot size that is kind of right at that minimum density. If can if you're following me on that one. Um, but still really don't know if that'll be moving forward, but he seems motivated to at least take the next step and and uh redraw that. I was hoping for a update on the number of units that have been rented at the apartments, but I was not able to connect with uh the ownership group. Um they have looks like they've completed most of the landscaping there, so it's looking pretty good. We'll try to get the there's a lot um on the east side of the apartments for the the next building. We'll try to get that cleaned up, but I think it turned out pretty nice. And then the final um update is uh the city was advised through the Met Council and the DNR that we need to adopt a shoreland ordinance. So there are certain waters that are protected by the DNR and we have some of those within our city limits. Not all waters are protected by the DNR, but we do have some in our community that are. Um and we if we do we are supposed to have a shoreland ordinance in place and we don't currently and we have been advised that we need to um have one in place likely within the next year. So um Brandon will be working on that over the next year. It will have a big impact on the potential development of property around wetlands such as um the Tom Ryan concept plan that you uh reviewed. Well, it was just a really high level sketch. Um, but that particular body of water is a DNR protected water and it would likely have a very large effect on his ability to develop lots there. So, um, we'll be bringing that forward over the next year. Do you have any questions? here. Uh the city council um approved the preliminary plat and they concurred with your recommendation to um eliminate a couple of the lots on the east side of the park and to add a temporary culde-sac on Riley Road, which was suggested by Brad. They um so they concurred with all planning commission recommendations and that was approved by the city council in I think at June 12th. Um I don't think it was Mr. Sullivan's intent to develop it himself. He was trying to entitle it and maybe entice another developer to actually develop it. Um we're he still calls pretty much every week or two to kind of check in on things. So I don't he hasn't sold it at this point I don't believe. How about on the corner? Nothing. No. From Bars old land either. Um it is under contract. We met with the two um business partners that have it under contract today. I guess it was supposed to close maybe yesterday or today and um sounds like it got delayed till later this week, but it is under contract with no contingencies. Um so I think that will uh be sold and they don't have any immediate development plans that are still exploring ideas and options and um on that uh one other update is the remaining phases of Boulder Heights um will were approved by the city council. So you approved that preliminary plat back in late 2017 I think and there was one phase left that had 23 lots I think. So the fourth and fifth editions will start construction probably within the next week or two and that then that will be done and all of his lots uh most of them are under contract with a national builder. Um, KJW Walk, I think, is retaining about a half a dozen lots. Uh, but the National Builder will be buying all of the rest of them. Um, Rich, do you have any updates? No. Okay. Um, do you want to unmute Harry? Harry, if you can hear us, we're unmuting you if you have anything to add. No, I've got nothing to add. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Oh, I uh related to that development that um concept plan for Mr. Mahhatache that you reviewed the Feeasant Hills development. So, the city council uh concurred with you recommendation on the larger lots um but they added a recommendation that I didn't really think of quite honestly. Um might be challenging, but they suggested that a trail be added along um Harvest Drive between Webster Street and Cedric Lane that goes into the development. Um It sounds like it's fairly heavily used for pedestrians and runners and um things like that. Uh we need to talk to the township board about that. It is their road. It's their rightway. I don't know how exactly it would get paid for or how it would present, you know, some design challenges that are little different than just repaving the road. So, I think that's a great idea. Do you use that route? Okay. I'm not optimistic. Just wanted something from the engineer. Yeah. Because the slopes are right off. What's a connect to anything? So, you'd have to build also a 5 acre wide lot is all it is. Be a road that or a sidewalk that starts here and ends there. Questions about whether because it's a township road. It would require township approval. So that's why we need to have that conversation. I want to talk to the township attorney um maybe before there's a potential I might ask to get on the township agenda for next Tuesday um just to bring the issue to them or let them know about the city council's recommendations. So there will be if the development moved forward, there would be sidewalks within the development and then that could connect to a trailer sidewalk along Harvest that would come over to Webster, but then there'd be a gap. There's a short gap from Aaron. Yes. Down to Harvest. So that's Rich's concern. And then it's because it's a rural section, it has ditches where g you place the trail would be. It's not just money. It's just Yeah. Right. Also alternative route that already has sidewalks which is really not much further. Just go down the hill and so on. Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without. All right. Anything else? All I have. Do you guys have anything? No. All right. Anyone want to make a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:54? So moved. Anyone want a second? All right. All in favor? I. All right. Media adjourned at 7:54.