Um, I'll please stand for the pledge of allegiance. approved. >> Thanks. Are there any changes to the agenda? >> There are no changes to the >> Okay. Anyone want to make a motion to approve the agenda as written? >> So moved. >> Anyone want a second? I'll >> second. Right. All in favor? I. I. >> All right. Um, public comment. This is the opportunity to comment on items not listed on the agenda. No. >> Okay. Announcements. >> Um, we do have one announcement and that is that Jake has accepted a planning position with the city of Prior Lake. So, his last day will be next week. >> Well, congratulations. >> Yes. >> And thank you for all you've done. >> Thank you guys. >> Yeah. Good luck. >> Stay in touch. It's a small world. Stay in the county. So, >> excellent. So, um, Warren, I think one time you were here and talking about and I think one time you >> No, sorry. >> I forgot where my >> usually like this. >> I understand. I think uh one time Warren was visiting with us and he was uh had a land use application at the city of Prairie Lake and he said, "I wish you guys worked in Prior Lake." >> So now you know. >> Yeah. Jake is going to Prior. >> Oh yes. Probably won't take that one, but maybe a future one. Not yet. No. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Great. Um, consider approval of the, uh, minutes for May 27th, uh, 2025. I didn't notice anything. I don't know if anybody else did. Nope. >> No. >> I'll make a motion to approve them. Anyone want a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I Okay. Public hearings. Um a Boulderpoint 8th edition KJ Walk Incorporated applicant consider application to zone property PUD and this is a continued public hearing um for the preliminary plat approval. >> Thank you. Um let's see. and kind of skip through it. Uh we don't have anyone new here in the audience from last week, so I'm going to skip through a lot of the background information. Warren Israelson, one of the applicants, is in the audience. If we have any questions afterwards, um he's here to answer them. So, basically, what they're looking to do is take the pool lot um and move the property line for the clubhouse and transfer that into two residential lots. Uh it does meet density requirements for the city. The only hangup was that they did not meet um the city's minimum square footage for lot size or uh lot width. Um since then they have changed that. So now they do meet the city's required lot size for square footage. Um they are still seeking PUB approval for lot width. um that does not meet the c city's minimum requirements and also sideyard setbacks which do not meet the city's sideyard requirements. Um so as you can see here we get to it skip ahead to the table. Uh so the minimum lot width in the city's R1 district is 85 ft. Uh the proposed lot width for both of the residential lots in Boulderpoint 8th edition are both 77 feet uh proposed. Minimum side setback for R1 district is 10 ft minimum uh proposed 7 ft for Boulder Point 8 edition. The city's building officials commented saying that he would uh suggest nothing less than 7 ft for sideyard setbacks uh for building code and fire reasons. So staff recommend approval of the applicant's application to reszone proposed lots one and two Boulder Point 8 edition to a new planned unit development district due to the following reasons. The development of the property uh is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed development containing two residential units on 59 acres meets the intent of the city's 2040 comprehensive land use plan which guides the property as low density residential. The required density is 2 and a half to five units per net acre. 3.39 units per acre are proposed as part of this project and noting those uh differences from the city's R1 lowdensity residential district as pointed out below. The plat shall be developed in accordance with the following plans uh and the city engineers redline plans dated 52025 um and also staff's redline plans. We have the same 14 conditions from last time that are imposed as part of the um the applications for preliminary and final plat. And I will read those conditions back into the minutes. Um and then here is the updated plan that shows the larger lot west uh with the property line shifting a little farther towards the east. Uh, so the public hearing has been continued. Notices were mailed to all the property owners again within 350 ft. Notice was published in the newspaper. Um, nobody is online, so I'm not going to go through the Zoom stuff, but we can open the public hearing whenever you'd like, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Thank you. I will open the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. So, if anyone has any comments or anything they want to ask, please approach the podium, state your name and address for the record. I'll ask again if anyone has any comments or questions or anything regarding um Builder Point 8th edition. Um, please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. City engineer has something to say. Yes. >> Okay. >> Then I will ask a third time if anyone has any comments um regarding Boulder Point 8th edition. Um, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. All right, I will close the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. >> So, I was just wondering, Jake, if you c I I think I copied you. I got her question from who's your guy in the office? >> Patrick. >> Patrick about storm drainage. And so when I looked at it, I sent back, they either could run up run a line up to uh along Glenboro over to the next catch basin or go down and drain in the golf course, but they can't just drain onto the neighbor's property. Did you capture that in the those options in the comments? >> Yeah, I believe so. I'm just trying to find it. Uh, so number seven, approval subject to conditions and recommendations contained in your comments stated 520. >> Yeah, they weren't in those comments. It came after that. >> The construction plans must be revised to include rear yard drain tile systems. >> Okay, >> that'll do. >> Perfect. I'll put this back on in case you guys want to take a closer look. But yeah, the plans really haven't changed much except for the the lot lines, the lot size, and the width, I suppose. But the tree plan's the same. Uh general layout's the same. Any questions for the developer? >> I guess I'm just looking at like the lot size compared to the other lot sizes adjacent to that that property. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. They're definitely going to be a little more narrow than the surrounding houses. >> Sure. >> But, uh, they should be the same style like Luke said, beholden to the covenants of the HOA. So, um, it shouldn't stand out like a sore thumb. I don't think I think it's going to be actually kind of hard to pick it out after a few years. >> That's what I was thinking. >> Um when that area was around it was developed, the minimum lot size was uh 85 foot lot width and 12,000 square feet. And um so these are >> 12,000 square feet 77 >> 77. So slightly narrower but not like 65 like the new new developments. >> Okay. So, it won't be like a drastic change. Think so. >> It'd be hard to notice, especially driving by it. If you're walking by maybe Plus, it's they're oriented differently than the neighbors. >> And with the golf course being open on one side, that will maybe seem more open as well. >> Great. >> Side by side. And the seven foot setbacks and it's on both sides or >> just on the interior side setbacks. Okay. So seven and seven on the sides and then the the outsides do meet the minimum 10 ft. >> So we got wider towards the neighbors in the clubhouse. >> Okay. Questions if anybody else has any. So the two um outside lot lines will still be a 10 foot setback will be imposed >> a minimum of 10 ft. It might >> be seven. >> Yeah. See if I can go to the green plan. Show it a little. >> Anybody have any other questions? >> That's too blurry. I think it says 12 on that side. Even though No, that's 10. This side I think is also 10. It's hard to read. >> And there's no concerns with keeping the pool or anything, I'm guessing, >> on the city side. Is the planning commission ready to make a recommendation or >> Yeah. So, do we want to do them separately or together? Does it matter? >> I think either one works. Together's fine, I think. Okay. >> So, the recommendation to zone the property PUD, right? >> Approve the PUD zoning. >> Yep. And then >> approve of the preliminary plat. >> Yep. >> Or recommend approval. >> Recommend approval for the preliminary plat. Okay. >> So, I'll make the recommendation to zone the property PUD and the recommendation to approve the period. >> I'll second. >> Right. All in favor? I >> Okay, >> thank you. >> Thank you, >> Warren. It passed. Happy birthday. >> It is his birthday, by the way. >> Happy birthday. >> It'll go to the city council. It's planned for the second meeting in July. >> Okay. Thank you. Um second public hearing consider amendment to zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures. >> So this is a carryover from last meeting as well. We discussed a few changes some resident requests uh concerning accessory structures. During that process we uh found a few things in the city ordinance that could be amended or outright removed. um following the last update to the ordinance. So, we've incorporated feedback from the city attorney into an updated draft ordinance as of today, which has been included as an addition to the planning commission packet. Uh so, here it is. So, the first two section or the first section is deleted in its entirety. Um there's a few sections that were deleted in its entirety just dealing with conditional use permits. the intent of the city being that conditional use permits will no longer be needed for accessory structures due to the increased standards allowed. Um third part of that kind of the biggest part of that the reason we started this was to increase the height. So height has been increased in all districts to at least 24 ft 26 ft for industrial. Uh the land city's land use table has been amended to reflect the actual um code and the intent of the code for moving the conditional use for accessory structures from several districts and adding them in as permitted accessory uses in several districts as well. Um, other than that, it's basically just clean up of the language concerning uh conditional use permits or language concerning conditional use permits being deleted. So it's a lot of cleanup basically increasing the height clean up and then um there is that exception that we talked about last time that accessory structure shall not exceed the height of the primary structure except for lots greater than 1 acre. So, for acreage lots, uh they could have a 24 foot accessory structure and say a a 15t house, um if that's something you're open to. And that would just apply to lots greater than 1 acre. So, now you're being asked to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance amending title 11 of the city code concerning revisions to the zoning ordinance as presented. >> Okay. Thank you. I will open the public hearing um regarding the amendment to zoning ordinance regarding accessory structures at 7:20 p.m. >> And there's no one online, right? >> Double check. Don't think so. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um I have to ask, right? Three times. >> You don't have to ask me. >> Nobody's here. Okay. All right. Well, I'll close the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Then any comments, questions regarding this update? >> No, >> no questions. We've talked about this a lot. Thank you. >> We have. All right. So, make a recommendation to amend the zoning ordinance accessory structures as it's written. Mhm. >> presented. >> Okay. I'll make the recommendation. Anyone want a second? >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Um public hearing. Consider request to reszone 641 Main Street property from urban reserve to institutional. item. Um the city purchased the property um surrounding city hall 6 um address is 641 Main Street in 2021. The property contains approximately 5.3 acres. In 2008, um, in a facilities plan identified the area, uh, surrounding the existing city hall campus for future expansion of the municipal campus, and that was the reason that the city council moved forward with the acquisition. Um, staff and the city attorney recommend that the property be reszoned um, at this time to institutional. All um properties that are city-owned are typically um zoned institutional. Um title 1138 of the city code and Minnesota statutes um 462 357 allow for s uh city initiated zoning amendments. Um so the current property as or the property is currently zoned urban reserve which is that kind of preservation district that um for lands that are retained in a natural state or an agricultural use pending development. Um they typically sit in a urban reserve um district until um the property is developed. Um at this time however we're uh proposing to reszone it to institutional. This is a zoning district that is um provides uh uh specifically for facilities devoted uh to serving the public. It's unique in that the primary objective of uses within this district is the provision of services to the public. um frequently could be nonprofit, a church, a school, city hall, a library, um things like that. So, um we're just trying to clean this up at this point. So, this is the current zoning map. You can see in blue uh the properties that are undeveloped to the east of city hall are um that blue urban reserve and what is being here's the zoning map that's being proposed. Um just kind of combining it with the city hall zoning district. Um any uh zoning ordinance amendment or zoning amendments uh zoning map amendments require a public hearing and um ask you to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council regarding um the proposed zoning map amendment. >> Thank you, Renee. Mhm. >> All right. I will open the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. regarding reszoning 641 Main Street property from urban reserve to institutional. Okay. Thank you. And nobody's present. Um so I'll close the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Any comments or questions from the commission? No questions. >> Okay. All right. Anyone want to make the recommendation? >> So moved. >> All right. You want a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. All in favor? >> I >> I All right. Thank you. On to general business. Um consider draft ordinance amending title 12-5-9-1 of the city code concerning street standards. Okay. And I'll handle this one as well. This is the item that um has not been introduced to the planning commission previously. Um the subdivision ordinance contains minimum standards for street construction that are typically part of development, new residential or commercial industrial developments. Um upon review of these standards, um the city engineer and the city attorney and myself are recommending um certain changes to the street standards. Um amendments to the subdivision ordinance do not require a public hearing and they actually don't require planning commission recommendation. Um however because uh this um deals with development and things that you deal with I u we did want to review this with you. Um so in the in your packet there was just the existing street standards. I've copied um only the ones that are proposed for change into this um slideshow. So first of all um temporary culde-sacs. Our current code states that um when you have a situation where a temporary culde-sac is constructed pending future extension, you know, when the next property develops, our code currently states that um we would collect a financial security from the developer who is constructing that temporary cons uh culde-sac for its eventual removal. Well, it could be 20 years um before that street is extended. We don't know. And um we don't want to be holding that financial security. And also the city attorney um believes it's um a violation of some certain case law that has uh it's called referred to as the Hearthstead case which um really limits the city's um ability to collect certain fees for streets, street improvements. So, um, we're just striking that financial security requirement for future removal and instead the next developer who would develop the next property uh, would be responsible for removal. Um, street centerline gradients. This is purely an engineering item um, design issue that uh, Rich has recommended. In addition to our subdivision ordinance requirements, there's also this engineering manual that gets much more detailed. So, um that is commonly updated by the city engineers office um and guides uh the engineers designing improvements, vertical curves. Uh similarly, Rich has suggested um an addition to that standard. Um half streets are um an area when um you would dedicate only a half of a rightaway on a property line and then with the intent that the next developer would uh dedicate that next half of the rightway. We typically don't allow that. Um half streets are prohibited except in extenduating circumstances. Um there's a reference to uh collecting an escrow. Um and the city attorney has also stated that this is in violation of a more recent case law that would prohibit the cities from collecting a fee for this. So states in such cases when a half street is platted a developer shall provide an escrow and an amount uh to construct the full street. And um the city attorney said that's just clearly not not legal. So that is being struck. Um we do have a provision or ordinance that uh has a maximum length for a permanent culde-sac of 500 ft. I just wanted to add on to here that sometimes you have a street that is a temporary culde-sac will eventually be extended. So uh that streets terminating in a temporary culde-sac pending future extension are exempt from the 500 foot uh requirement. It's intended for permanent culde-sacs. Change regarding um the soil investigation section recommended by Rich. Um boulevards. This really is what started our analysis. Um, currently our code requires that uh when a developer puts a street in, they have to sod the boulevard. Um, it could be several years before the homes are built out. The sod would often die uh not getting watered. So, um, it's our feeling that seating and blanketing is equivalent to sod and maybe superior and some cases. So, we're adding that detail to allow seating and blanketing. the boulevards and then street lighting. And this is um something I might ask Rich to explain. We have a a street light spacing requirement in our code currently. And it currently states that street lights uh need to be placed at least every 350 ft. And um Rich has really been uh requiring street lighting at the intersections rather than um throughout the street. Yeah, >> we had a conflict between this code and the engineering manual which is geared towards traffic safety which was a decision made quite a while back. So, um the engineer requires lights at every intersection and at some curves and then no more no more than 600 feet apart. So, if you have a super long block, you might have a light in the middle. Um, in case you're interesting interested, the thinking is not that we're trying to light things. We're trying to highlight things. We want to announce here's an intersection. This is important. Pay attention. It may help illuminate a pedestrian or a cat or something in the intersection as well, but the headlights do that, too. So, it's really they they're um they're almost performing more like a sign that you don't have to read. It's just that's here's something different. You probably notice it yourself. You come in where things are lit, you just feel different. And that's the idea. So, putting them every 350 ft would add quite a few street lights that we'd have to pay for and charge for. Um, so the real key is the intersections. There aren't too many stretches actually where there are 600 foot stretches where you, you know, have an intermediate light, but there's some. But it's just uh you know a happy compromise I guess to you know here's the street but the real key is the intersections. So, I don't know if you have any opinion about any of these items, particularly the street lighting um one, but if you have any input that you would like me to carry forward to the city council. Um we're just asking you to provide feedback and a recommendation on these proposed changes. >> Um I for one appreciate the limiting of street lights. I understand the whole light pollution thing, too. You know, we do live far enough out. It'd be nice to see more stars. That's one of the benefits of our community. So, thank you. >> Yeah, I don't have any additional comments or recommendations. All of them seem pretty straightforward. >> Okay. So, I'll make the recommendation. Sure. >> And anybody want to do we have a second? Sure. >> I'll second. All >> in favor? I I Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Miscellaneous. Uh uh community development updates. Um I am not extremely prepared, but I thought I would just let you know about a couple of things that we think are going to be coming up. Um, we have been contacted by the developer that built the apartment buildings uh over by the firehouse. Their building is full and they have a waiting list and they would like to immediately move into construction of the second building. It does require a platting of the second lot. Um, so that will likely be um at one of the next two planning commission meetings for a public hearing for a onebot plat. And we have also been contacted um a couple of years ago, the planning commission reviewed a concept plan for 80 acres that was out near the school. Um Joe Sullivan was the developer and I believe it came to the commission for review. Um so it would be just immediately east of the parcel that's getting developed now as the Highlands at Eagle View. Um they share a property boundary and uh they and Joe Sullivan is also the person that in um the developer that entitled the Parkway Meadows Plat. Um, so he has requested a meeting with the city to re um initiate uh development of that parcel. So I expect that he'll be moving into an application for preliminary plot this fall on that 8 80 acres. Um, however, it does require annexation. So that could um hold it up a little bit. But I think maybe uh we would we usually only review one concept plan, you know, if possible before the planning commission. But since it has been a couple of years since the commission has looked at it, um maybe we'll run another concept plan through potentially. The city um did recently uh close on the two single family detached homes right on Main Street near the gas station. So um nothing will change there for the time being. Renters I believe will stay. And I think that is all I have. You have any updates? >> No. >> You have any questions? I don't really have any questions. >> Okay. Um I know that, you know, since we're in summer and vacations and everything, if anybody knows that they're going to be not at the next meeting in July or August, it would be helpful to know. It sounds like you might be gone in August. Okay. For sure. >> I'll be here. Okay. >> Right. Okay. All right. Anyone want to make a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> I'll make a motion. >> Anyone want a second? >> Second. >> All right. Meeting adjourned at 7:36 p.m. Thanks, everyone.