commissioner Sandu here commissioner r here Mr here uh second item tonight approval of the agenda are there any additions or subtractions to tonight's agenda no you do not thank you oh and if I can speak um I forgot commissioner foresight but he's not here so yeah and should be on there yeah Mr Robins we have Robins but should not have sorry okay up here thank you sorry Start yeah all right I will entertain a motion then to approve the agenda so I'll second all those in favor I I any opposed all right that passes third item is the call for notorized affidavits proof of neighborhood meeting and signin sheet can confirm that perfect thank you uh fourth item is the recognition by the board of adjustments and appeal feels of interested citizens are there any interested citizens here tonight that would like to discuss something not on the agenda all right seeing none we will move to item five which is our consent business we have the minutes from January I will take a motion to I will move to approve the minutes okay I'll second the motion to approve the minutes from January okay um I will abstain I was not here in January and I will abstain too I was also gone I was not here either oh perfect how do you feel about the minutes for January all right I'll take all those responsibilities all right we will move to close the consent business and then num item number six General business we have election of officers for 2025 well Madam chair commissioner I'd like to nominate Ashley sovo for chair of the board of adjustment and appeals I'll second oh well that was quick uh do we need a roll call vote um assume so no I think we're good as long as let's let's do a all I or nay okay um all those in favor for me remaining the chair chair of the board of adjustments and appeals say I I any opposed okay that passes I will retain the Gabel uh all right so now we need nominations for a vice chair and a second Vice chair we'll start with Vice chair do we have any nominations for vice chair that's fine I nominate Victoria for SEC for vice chair okay second all right all those in favor I I any opposed okay commissioner ranua as Vice chair that motion passes uh now second Vice chair do we have any nominations I will move to nominate Mr Wier second commissioner Robin seconds any opposed anyone for I all those in favor I okay all right commissioner Wier will'll be second Vice chair of the board of adjustments and appeals and so I believe that covers our general business item seven Mr Noble is there any other business there's no other business okay um then I will entertain a motion to adjourn to Thursday I'm not sure what the date is in April thank you at 7 p.m. all those in favor I hi any oppos all right all right my turn all right I will call the order to call this meeting for the Planning Commission on March 6 25 at 705 we will move with the roll call please commissioner Robbins here here commissioner here commissioner ring here commissioner R here commissioner foresight and commissioner Sandu here we'll move with the item number two approval of agenda is there any addition or subtractions in the agenda we have none all right so move item number three call for authorization of any Aid D proof of neighborhood do we have anything over there can confirm that has been completed all right item number four recognization by the Planning Commission of entrusted citizen anyone from the crowd who would like to speak something about not on the agenda anyone from the public would like to conf front and talk about which is not on the agenda all right move item five is a consent agenda to approve the meetings from January 2025 can I have a motion on that so moved anyone second thank you all those in favor say I um I will abstain since I was not here in January also y so just the gentleman voting I think that's just me then all right our next item on the agenda is the election offs for 2025 so we will start with the here anyone want to nominate someone Mr chair I nominate Josh foresight for chair of the Planning Commission I will second okay all those in favor say I I I posed because Mr force uh is not here so I'm still the vice chairman so I will continue for the vice chair um do we have any n nomination for the Vice chair of Planning Commission okay well I will nominate commissioner santu for vice chair of I will I will second Board of adjustment all right all those in favor say I I so so I think I will be the wise chair again now we need a nomination for the second wise J Planning Commission um Mr Ken or wer I will nominate commissioner Robbins as second Vice chair of the Planning Commission okay all second um point of order um um members need to serve one full year before they can become officers and don't count even past years don't count this would be a new it resets yeah yeah interesting okay sorry nomination sorry I would nominate commissioner reading as second CH I'll second that all those in favor say I hi hi hey so we have a new committee now so we will move the item number 6B which is public hearing amend the zoning map and rezone property at 6100 Co Road 101 East from Highway business B1 to heavy industry do we have a presentation from the staff yes good evening Commissioners and thank you thank you so as stated this first public hearing is for a zoning map Amendment and rezoning for property at 6100 County Road 101 East the property owner and applicant for this request this evening is the Metropolitan Council the subject property which is outlined in red on the screen before you um is approximately 5.8 6 acres in size and is located along the south side of County Road 101 East um again just east of Valley Fair the site is improved with below grade sewer and water infrastructure as well as a gravel driveway the Prior Lake Outlet Channel runs through the northeast corner of this site the property was previously used as a sales lot for manufactured homes the current Zoning for this property is Highway business also known as B1 the proposed zoning um is heavy industry which is I2 and Illustrated in Gray on the map before you this evening the property owner intends to install a sewer air venting and treatment system on the property the system would be partially powered by ground mounted solar panels development of the site will be subject to the review comments that were received as part of this rezoning request from our engineering department as well as other agencies and it would also be processed as part of a building permit application in the future and that building permit application or grading permit would be required to meet all city code requirements including setbacks impervious surface Landscaping fencing Etc prior to the issue of any building permit or grading permits upon the review of the initial Concepts cuz they are still in the concept stage for the design of the facility itself it appears as though um the proposed structure and equipment is going to meet all of our requirements so we don't anticipate um the need for a variance or any other land use approval um when the time comes for development of the site unless something dramatically you know changes um from the applicant's perspective the proposed structures which again are still being designed would be used to house the equipment and would be a maximum height of 20 ft again that would be the maximum height Allowed by our code but the applicants have assured me that at this time their designs um certainly do not reach 20 feet in height it is anticipated that construction of these site improvements would start in 2026 after they complete their designing here in 2025 so the city council can grant a rezoning when it finds that one or more of the four criteria that are on the screen are being met and I I won't read through all of the criteria and findings but essentially it's asking whether or not there's an error in the original zoning which in this case staff does not believe that there was um it also addresses whether there have been significant changes in community goals or policies and in this particular case the staff does feel that there have been some changes in goals and policies because this proposed odor air treatment system would be installed to address some historic odor issues that have occurred at the site and so it' be considered Ed an improvement and these types of structures which would include the equipment as well as the proposed ground mounted solar array which would power some of the equipment on the site are considered kind of industrial uses by nature and what they're asking to do is actually regu the property to heavy IND industry which is I2 and our 2040 comp plan actually guides this property for industrial so by going through this rezoning request they're actually bringing the property into compliance with our 20 240 comp plan so as a result of those factors staff feels that more than one of the criteria before you this evening are being met with this request so again staff is recommending um adoption of ordinance 02025 d007 which was included in draft form in your packet which would amend the zoning map and then rezone this property at 6100 County Road 101 East from Highway business B1 to heavy industry I2 depending on the planning commissions um actions this evening the item would be placed um if moved forward to the city council to their next meeting which would be on March 18th we do have representatives of the application in the audience this evening who can certainly come up and answer any questions you may have and with that I will conclude my report and available for questions Madam chair M Schwab do you have any idea or perhaps the applicants can tell us what kind of employment this development is going to um create how many jobs are there at um Commissioners um commissioner Robbins um my understanding is that this particular site will not have um on-site employees on the regular basis rather um staff will be coming to the property for maintenance reasons or to monitor equipment there um but there will not be any on-site employ es and I can look to the applicant to to clarify that further when they um join us here at the table all right thank you madam chair Mr chairman I do have one question for staff can you explain hopefully why it need why this particular effort project needs to be classified as heavy industrial certainly um chairman Commissioners so how the staff um is viewing these sorts of projects is almost along the lines of like a utility service structure um again not the same as a lift station or things of that nature but the nature of the equipment here along with the existing Water and Sewer lines that currently BCT that property make it um most usable again for industrial uses such as this as opposed to maybe more commercial related improvements um we also do have the Prior Lake Outlet Channel like I mentioned that bcts the northeast corner of this property so there are also setback considerations impervious surface things um because it's considered to be within the Shoreland overlay District so there are some other factors that are unique to this property that may limit you know more commercial development of sorts um whereas this particular Proposal with the Metropolitan Council seems to be a a good fit it's um not super visible and the improvements that they are proposing um and I do have a couple elevations if you'd like to see them um are fairly um unob Rive to anyone passing by so so I looking at the the zoning code uh 1517 it seems like utility services and utility service structures lift stations are both permitted in um the existing zoning and what you're proposing so I I guess I was kind of had the same question about why why it's needed when it's an allowed use in the current zoning certainly chairman and Commissioners that's a great question part of Y staff was when we met with the Metropolitan Council to discuss this project part of why staff was encouraging the rezoning was to bring it into compliance with our 2040 comprehensive plan thank you would this would this be like a fact in the future too like mean someone else come around and say Hey I want the i1 um zoning too so would that be in line with this Orin us too chair and Commissioners I'll pull up the the zoning map that we had up earlier you can see that there are I think four Parcels total including the subject property that are still in B1 along this area and they are surrounded by I2 so I think it would be reasonable to think at some point in time in the future upon Redevelopment those sites will also come before you requesting a similar resoning to be in compliance with the comprehensive plan any more questions for the staff right I will make a motion to open a public hearing second right all those in favor say I I I okay so any oppose all right it's a public hearing and anyone want to come up front and talk about on this issue or it's agenda anyone from the public want to come up front and talk about it any concerns Mr chairman I do have a couple questions for the applicant okay if we could ask them to come up is anyone representing this could we have a paper over there so sign signing sheet sorry okay please introduce yourself and uh also write down your name uh for the minutes thank you uh my name is Jeff Schwarz I'm the project manager your for the Metropolitan Council okay I will go first um can you help us understand what the goal of this is it sounds self-explanatory and great but I I it's a bit over my head as to what the actual like function of it is sure um this is a part of a um comprehensive look we're would you don't mind like pulling this mic a little bit closer to you sir here we go um the uh goal of the project is to uh mitigate corrosion of the pipe Upstream of the facility as well as treat orders that we've had uh issues with the um sewer line comes from chasa and goes all the way across um shaki and historically we've had issues with um with orders and corrosion both in the Met council's pipe and the city's pipe and so over the years we've been um making repairs and we're looking at um uh issues Upstream to try and mitigate what's happening Downstream and so by pulling air out of the sewer the air is corrosive to the concrete pipe and so what we do is keep the air flowing through that to get rid of the not only the corrosive atmosphere but the also to treat the odors that are coming out of there so we've had Upstream of this site or the pipeline runs like six miles up to jasa and um not to get too technical but where the river is at our pipe goes underneath the creek there and so the it's underwater and all the air in there gets trapped so the cros of air comes down gets stuck there and then it just eats that pipe and that we've seen that in the um Upstream areas again in the council and in the um City pipes so one of the ways to take care of that is to ventilate the pipe get rid of those the bad atmosphere in there and then we need to treat it so we don't become a nuisance to the neighbors so all of that is happening within this facility great and then the air is clean and doesn't smell anymore and is released um right it's that's a really ideal um way of putting it but but yes you know we're the right okay well the system is going to pull about 10,000 um cubic feet per minute and so that flow rate pulls a vacuum on that pipe so the fresh air will come in from Upstream as we pull the bad air in and that'll get rid gets rid of the corrosivity in the pipe but you know we need to treat it so it's there's a it's going to be a bof filter that the the structure or the buildings that we're looking at are going to be utility buildings for a biofilter then that's what you pass the air through um to treat the um odorous air so the um it's not going to smell perfumey but you won't smell it outside of the property boundary or anything like that so it's the it's designed to um remove the odors and it's uh we're really trying to be good neighbors and we don't want to create any nuisances but it's really a um it's a asset preservation type project thank you that science was never my strong suit um okay one more I have one more question and then I can hand it to Mr Robins uh where is the funding for this coming from is it funded by met Council or is SHP contributing well the we um the Met council is a regional area or it's a regional agency so everybody that uses the sewer pays for things across the region so so it's coming from met Council funds which are that we've collected from the users yes okay mam sh um let me just understand I'm going to follow up with what commissioner sovo did is this does this handle all of shaka's sewer waste does yes so all of the waste from Shaka Finds Its way through this facility and then goes up to chasa right uh actually comes from chasa so we've got the we've we' got a pump station in chasa that collects water from chasa and then we pump it through the Force main to here and then along the way Shak pumps into that pipe as well so we've got there's three different interceptors as we call them that's our main pipelines um one heads straight south of this facility and then one heads straight to the West towards Shaka or I'm sorry towards chasa and then the other pipe is on the other side of the Highway which goes north of the Interceptor plant there so this is a pretty big area that we collect a lot of water there um the what we're doing is treating the water before it gets to the um wastewater treatment plant across the street so that's where it all ends up eventually right if I could just follow so let me just repeat that so you're treating all of this and then it goes to the the waste plant right right yep and we're treating that just the air so the what the the water gets treated at the W at the treatment plant you're just treating there with this project right right yes thank you m'am any more questions from the staff thanks sir all right thank you again it's a public hearing and anyone want to come up front and talk on this agenda last call all right I will make a motion to close the public hearing move all those in favor say I secondos any questions for the Commissioners do you guys want to discuss anything about this okay I feel great about it someone want to make a motion so I'll make the motion to reone this from sorry you don't have it in front of me um B2 or to B1 to I2 there's an ordinance number second all right all those in favor say I I I oppose voice I'm going tooll roll call v v um commissioner Robbins hi commissioner Wier hi commissioner s commissioner ranoa I commissioner reading I commissioner Sandu I is passes by six so move to the item number six C public heing annexation zoning and mosa amendment of multiple properties located within Jackson Township give a presentation from the staff over this um this as stated is a public hearing for three items there will be annexation uh zoning change and USA Amendment for properties located within Jackson Township the city is Shak taking the lead on this request and again they're proposing those three items the zoning at this point they're looking to Zone the properties to agricultural preservation and then Amendment of the Metropolitan urban service areas properties in question are all located north of County state aid Highway 78 with several of them located east of old Brickyard County Road 69 and several others just east of US Highway 169 there would be a total of 11 Parcels that comprise 61 Acres with potential developments on some of these Parcels generally consistent of consisting of a mix of commercial and residential projects the the map on the screen now identifies highlights the areas that we're looking to Annex um this parcel here up in the north west portion of this the triangle piece that is Scott County property um as are the two other properties further down at the corner of 78 and 169 um you go further east there's two Parcels that are on the east side of Emory Way north side of 78 those property owners have expressed interest in developing these properties and then we shift further east starting from the south going north um there's a parcel that's owned by the bower family and uh north of there is parcel owned by the the mil chores and in between what's considered 125th Street half of it dedicated public RightWay and half of it is owned by Jackson town ship and then the Northerly two Parcels the easterly one is is owned by the bregman family and the West piece is owned by the Weber family as I mentioned before we're looking to do comprehensive plan guiding the Musa expansion um the areas that would require the Muse expansion are the areas I identified in the red I'm going to go to an enlargement it would be those Scott County parcels and then those Parcels adjacent to Emory way they are presently in the 20 40 comp plan area they need to get moved up to um mua in the 2020 so that's the purpose of this amendment um the other Parcels that are part of the annexation are already in the 2020 Musa area so they would not need to be amended the screen identifies uh the the city and Jackson Township have an orderly annexation agreement and development within areas a b c and d and c is just off on the bottom you can see a slight green and that goes further south those areas are areas that are available for annexation at this point there's two other areas areas e and f that are further south and east that are um are scheduled potentially for annexation not before 2050 unless the property owners were to want to come in and pursue annexation but the city uh with agreement with Jackson Township would not actively try to go out and Annex those areas um there are a number of things that staff still wants to look at a little bit more detail um so we're not providing you a lot of detail tonight CU we're we're asking that you open the public hearing take comments because we did post this um for open um for public hearing and but we also ask that you continue the public hearing to the April 3rd 2025 Planning Commission meeting and we'll have more information for you and citizens at at that point any questions for the staff no just so we're clear we're not making any decisions tonight we are simply opening the public hearing if there are members here that want to come and say something we will listen but that is the extent of our action that we're taking this evening that is correct we ask that you continue the public hearing to Mr chair yes sir do you want a motion to open the public he yes I'll make a motion to open a public hearing for the next session zoning and MOA amendment I will make a motion to open the public hearing thank and I'll second that all right well it's a public hearing and it's a public hearing if anyone want to come up front and talk about on this item yeah if you can sign in please introduce yourself and sign in your name on the sheet my name is Cheryl Weber so I live on 125th Street this is part of the three Parcels that have existing homes I live right on the corner uh my neighbors are here there's three of us we have lived in that neighborhood for over 50 years uh we've been approached about being annexed before and we're in the same situation now we have been told over the years that the 2040 comp comprehensive plan would make our area a park or Green Space there will be no Services coming down our road there is it is a dirt road right now there will be no nothing basically and I believe that my other neighbors feel the same way that there is really no Advantage for us to be in the city eventually these houses will be destroyed it'll be a park I realize that the the way that the city wants to do it is they don't want to leave uh Jackson Township with Islands that's been said many times we don't want an island it's you know for whatever reason some kind of rule but our situation is unique we're not getting Services we're not going to uh change anything in our neighborhood for us it just means our taxes will increase and there's there's no benefit to us Mr chair could I did you say that somebody from the city said that there would be a park told you that there would be a park um it's on your 2040 comprehensive plan it's in the 20 240 comprehensive yes it is it has been there for many years many years it's all Green Space they may not call it a park it's the green space that goes up from um old Brickyard Road basically it's the bluff um I don't know if you're familiar but the trees on the bluff they want to have that be green space all thank you Mr chair I guess that's all I have thanks for your feedback can I just briefly talk about that just to go into more detail um she she addressed it well but 2040 comprehensive plan identifies that bluff area as open space SLP Park um in the city further to the east with some subdivisions um Palamino court or I'm sorry Palamino Trail and Bluff View are some subdivisions to the east that the city has been negotiating they have purchased some land and are working to negotiate additional Bluff land and the intent is that that bluff land would continue um that the city would own that bluff land and would use it for open space um not 100% ident you know there will be Trail systems through there and other uses but it will be open space for the public to use so and the intent of that with the guiding includes um Weber's property and the bregman property in that open space um so the and also some of the meltor so the intent is at some point that would be looked at as open space consistent with our guiding at at some point at some point yeah we we have shared we are not forcing these residents out of their homes at this point um they're they can live there but the city needs to with annexations there's development plans to the South at the bower piece and there's some other needs in that area um for the city to make some public improvements and if we were to Annex those properties to the South we'd be creating an island which is frowned upon by the Met Council so that's why we're bringing all of these properties in at this point right thank you Mr Noble could you refresh our memory at a high level the terms of the orderly annexation agreement um when you say terms what in a in a nutshell what what was the agreement okay um the city and Jackson Township had an orderly annexation agreement back in 2002 and Reed did it starting discussions in 2016 and completed in 2018 um to and I don't have the [Music] full area map but it was these were certain areas within Jackson Township and we're looking at areas a then B and then C and D as areas for for development trying to do it in an orderly fashion as development comes to those areas then we would look to Annex those areas um and these Parcels that we're talking about tonight are the last ones in area a um we have across the street um I'm sorry um the majority of the North or the central part of B is is already annexed in um and some development has already started to occur as you can see the two large buildings was Opus development so um development is already kind of started it's it's it's coming we have to do it an orderly fashion we can extend Services we're not going to reach too far in Annex if we can't serve those sites so and then also as part of this agreement we we there's a an agreement on amount of taxes that we would be reimbursing to the Jackson Township for the loss of their tax line and this was an agreement between the city of shaki and Jackson Township I is it fair to assume that Jackson Township residents were aware of the term terms of the agreement um there were I said this started in 2016 and it went um until March in 2018 so there uh a series of meetings with Jackson Township we we had to do some public um hearing notices over that time um I can't say that everybody here um has all of that information as aware of all of that information but we certainly have that agreement the signed agreement by both City and the Jackson Township available I think it's part of your packet as well so the hope and the assumption would be that Jackson Township would have done their D due diligence to speak with their residents and inform them of the terms of the agreement and make sure they understand them because it does affect them yeah and I'd like to say I think the city and Jackson Township tried to do a good job in really studying this going through it thoroughly I mean we took two years of time to to come to that agreement so that wasn't something we just just brushed aside real quickly it's it's a lot of study a lot of lot of meetings with them so um we we feel we got a pretty good agreement both parties signed it in agreement to it so I'm good anyone else have a question for anyone from the public would like to come up front and talk about okay hi my name is Mary zil I'm a melter originally which is some of the land that you're um talking about tonight and I know after talking to Mark about this a little bit that we're not making loads of decisions tonight but I just want to let you know the impact that it might have on our family and uh our neighbors that are here as well um so our land is is part that was slated for the Green Space um it's 10 10 acres of wooded land that for many years had um all different kinds of wildlife that lived there as um you know building encroaches we see a lot fewer um of those animals one of my concerns would be um there's there's a can you tell me again what's what's proposed to go through that um based on excuse me the development to the east of their Bluff viw there would be utility um service lines that would be extending south and west of that bluff property and it would um it would go through or would need to go through some of the mure property the eastern most portion of their property and my guess that that is going to impact again the you know what what kind of Wildlife can even a lot of them can't get there to begin with but if we're going to be building houses right on the other side of that property and if we're going to be putting this line through the property it's going to affect um a lot more I think than maybe we've thought about environmentally and you know according to the just keeping that Wildlife going out there there are very few places where the animals can cross at this point anyway um so it's happening but I think for the amount of time and if that's going to be a green space I think people might want to see something that's alive out there too you know besides the trees and the um the pathways um my parents are in their 80s they would love to um remain out there for the rest of their time um they have been amazing citizens of Jackson Township and the City of Shaka been involved in many things along the way I think Mr Robbins I'm not sure if you know my parents but the name sounds familiar yeah they know who you are um anyway we just have a lot of questions I know that you might not be able to answer all of those right now but if um if there are Taxation and things that start to impact them financially they might not be able to stay in there and and I also have a question about the um we're not making anybody leave at this time is that what you caught too yeah we're not making anybody leave at this time and that is a pretty terrifying sentence um because I'd like for them to have that and and I think they wanted that for their kids um so it is going to have an impact on real people and real right Mr chair could I ask uh ask her go for when when you say Wildlife M can you be a little bit more specific I mean I have an idea but just for the record are you talking about deer deer Fox owls turke T wild turkeys coyos I mean all of it squirels rabbits y all right thank you Miss manyy make sure you write down your name on the sheet for the record oh sure I started talking without even I guess we would like to just keep the conversation going please and that is the goal so we're we're hearing comments and then there will be continued conversation we're we're not making any decisions great we appreciate that thanks anyone else who would like to speak question I have one quick question for staff that tax has been brought up a couple times have they been given any guidance as to what that might mean what the differences may be and how that the size of that potential impact chair members of the commission thank you um that's part of why we're continuing it we're going to get some additional information out to these residents tax one um services to some other items so um that's part of the reason for the continuance we want to get some more information to them so they they know what what the change um may or may not be sorry to interrupt go ahead uh I'm Brian breaman my parents live on the North side of 125th Street on the farthest east little corner or little square um I grew up there my whole life neighbors knew all them so these new buildings they just put in you see the white roofs they put in that must be annexed in correct there is nothing there there's no movement there they maybe plow it there's no business there I don't know why they put the business why they built the buildings there but there is been no action there at all so I mean they want to continue to push this stuff this direction but there's I mean I don't I don't see the need to have to go through their property to get to get uh you say utilities through um I know the Breakman Farm to the east of the green spot or the had sold so why can't they run the line down around if they had to I guess I'd want to see more maps and see more what what exactly is going on and I don't see the need to have to Annex in these properties that's all I got to say thank you thank you anyone else who would like to speak please introduce yourself and write your name name's Frank Weber I live on the corner 125th Street in County Road 69 the little square on the left hand side up there the city saying they don't want to leave us as an island well if that's the case then where them those buildings are that were built last year north of there on uh cobr and drive that's not annexed into the City and that's an island how come we can't be an island I me there's we're the youngest people on this of the three properties I'm 75 my wife's 72 we're not going to be here that much longer if they want to take it as a park that's fine with us we'd love to have it as a park but why why are do they need to push us out cuz basically that's what they're going to do and Mark told my wife that what our property taxes from Jackson Township to the city are going to go up 250% 250% that's crazy because we're not going to get anything nothing city sewer and water no fire department yeah we've already got the fire department don't we uh uh police department we've already got the police department we've already got our garbage being picked up my hand sitting right at the end of my driveway right now there is no benefit for the three properties to be annexed into the city benefit for us the only benefit will be to the city as our taxes go up that's all I got to say thank you thank you sir any questions no thank you I guess I have some questions after that so not for you for the city so um I understand like for it to be like if we do want this to be a city Green Space um like why aren't we purchasing that as Parkland so that they can have value and they can stay in their home until we use it as Parkland instead of like he's saying we're um you know we're annexing it and then you know their taxes go up and then if we do purchase it later the price is just going to be higher later so why AR why isn't the city purchasing the land now for green space at this lower price um Mr chair members of the commission um excellent question U certainly something we can discuss with the property owners if they're interested in in selling now I I don't think that's the intent so that's why we're saying you know we're not forcing people out of their homes they've been there for a while um but if they want to sell um the city would certainly be um listening and would look to do that yeah and you can still sell it and then have like a a what is it like a leasehold interest where they're they can stay there for the rest of their lives you know as well so yeah I I think there's some options available we certainly can discuss if there's interest um by the the property owners um and you know the question is why through the utilities would go through the melore property why couldn't go further east and that's part of what some information we'd want to share with them the city has done uh an extensive study of sewer needs to the south and west of here and um I I could bore all of you here for 15 minutes with why why we're doing what we're doing but I'd rather show you than bore you so that's information we can have at the next meeting for you and information you'll share with the residents ahead of that yes definitely yep Mr chair uh is Stone Brook here tonight is the is Stonebrook engineering here tonight um they they're here for a different application oh I'm sorry all right not for this not for this all right sorry so yes they are that does answer so what I understood is like city is willing to work with the residents and they will make sure your concerns are being heard no one is getting pushed out no decisions have been made it's just the start of the conversation and there will be more to come and we really appreciate you guys coming up here and raising your voice and bringing your concern to the city we do want to work together thank you anyone else would like to talk from the audience anyone last call all right I will make a motion to close the public no we don't close it no we just move on all right we're moving on to the item I'll I'll ask that you continue the public hearing to continue second I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing second all those in favor say I I opposed all right we'll move to the item 6D public hearing preliminary plot for Richland Court do we have a presentation Mr chair and members of the commission as you stated this is a public hearing it's for preliminary plat of Richland Court Stonebrook engineering they are here I believe um heard you've been waiting for them and um or they're on behalf um they're the applicant they're on behalf of Matt Lo who is the property owner and they made application for this preliminary plant um subject property is located north of um County State a Highway 78 and east of Townline Avenue or also known as County Road 79 the applicant property owner have proposed a plat that would consist of 10 single family residential lots on 4.38 Acres um with two outlots that would um be comprised of a storm pond and a wetland this slide shows the preliminary plat um I had thought this mous Arrow was working but you can see there's 10 single family lots in the location of of uh storm pond on the north side of the new proposed Street and then there's a wetland on the south side of the prop po Street um this is an application um that we have um was submitted some time ago and we've had a lot of discussions um between the property owner the applicant representative and City and Scott County um primarily to talk about the access on to Town Line Avenue um to ensure compliance with Scott County design standards as it is a County Road the the county would dictate the access and as you can see um there is one access to this project and part of The Proposal I'm going to show on this screen and the next is is some Road improvements on Town Line um there would be a right in right out of the subdivision and I know this is really hard to see the the overall plan is on the left I tried to zoom in but not lose too much detail on the right side um the extent of the improvements um which include um one of one of the main features is there's going to be a a raise curb area um to to uh control traffic movements um to the north from leaving the site and also from the south coming into this site there would be no left turn movements coming from the north into the subdivision nor would there be any left turn movements out of the subdivision going south those were County standards and say we spent quite a bit of time um working on the design and details of what was needed um that has been completed so the plat is proceeding to the Planning Commission this identifies the the grading plan again you can see the the Wetland on the South Side storm pond on the North and just the the the the grading that would occur um for this subdivision should this be approved and move forward this identifies the utility plan there are some City Utilities um located just off the premise of this area so there's they would be able to stub into those existing um City sanitary and chak public utilities water main this is their storm water management plan again they would be addressing the storm water on site um the site does have some Flowage off site to the to the north but with this plan and again this will be detailed studied um again and again to make sure it's compliant with the city requirements but um um the the rate of flow off the site should not exceed what currently the rate is so that's you can see it's a pretty large pond um so it's being designed to to handle um that the storm water proposed as part of this proposed project I've also included a landscape plan's requirement that each residential property has have at minimum two new trees compliant with the city code requirements um one is that there be located in the public right away for one tree and then the other would be in the front yard um if there's no room to do that um then they could look to move them to the backyard you can see on the lot five the one most to the east is showing two trees in the backyard area just because it's it's problematic to get trees in the front yard um those trees um would not be allowed in any public drainage utility easement so final placement of of these trees would be um reviewed more detail at time of building permit should should this plant be approved um the developer has provided to City staff images of the proposed structures um several different Design Elements these are Concepts at this point we've shared what the city design and performance standards are um so there would there would need to be some additional improvements to these homes again should this plat be approved and houses start to be built um we'd look at window coverage on all four elevations and garage protrusion um so would look again if this is approved there would be some changes to these but these were plans that were submitted with the application here's a couple photos uh of potential Home Products and we have uh some floor plans this would be the lower level floor plan and this would be the the the main level floor plan um this this property has been Zone r1b since 2006 um we there was a prior property owner that had worked on some plating potential for this pro project um that that did not occur and we've been working with this property owner for for some time and they believe they have a plan that that works for them with all the necessary improvements that are required um also with the r1b the the city code states there should be a density of 3 to six units per acre um this site with those 10 Lots is compliant with with that requirement it's on the it's on the low end um and so it does comply with the density um which is something that the city requires but also met Council looks at that and they won't issue um sewer permits unless there's compliance with the comp plan which the site is compliant with so the the action sought from tonight is for the Planning Commission to recommend to the city council adoption of resolution R 20253 resolution approving the preliminary plaid of Richland Court I'll entertain any questions you may have Mr chair um Mr Noble have have you or stoneberg been out to the neighborhood and have neighborhood meetings on this project um M Mr chair members of the commission yes the the the process is uh City sends out a public hearing notice make people aware of this they also are required the applicant is required to have a neighborhood meeting um they have provided copy of the letter that they sent out to those neighbors and it goes out to 500 ft from the perimeter of this property also would be a sign that would be installed on site um so we as stated early on that we we've we've met the requirements um for for notification um um and I should add that on the table tonight you um there's a email and a drawing that I received from from one of the uh adjacent property owners who wanted to share that with you um believe they're going to be here tonight and they can go into that some more detail but certainly available for any questions you may have on that any more questions for the staff just out of curiosity what was it zoned you said a change changed in 2006 to r1b what was it prior to that prior to that it would have been rural residential which by today's standards is one lot for every 10 acres um which it wouldn't have complied with then and even the property um to the north is the properties to the north are are Zone rural residential there's properties to the east that are zoned r1b and properties to the South are zoned sewer rural residential and property to the West is in Jackson Township that's a residential cluster Zoning for the Jackson Township property Scott County enacts the Zoning for Township property so Mr Noble the the houses in the they're off of like Patterson Drive Patterson Circle raspberry Lane are those are all R1 zoned um to the E yes those are r1b the properties to the yes okay and then just to clarify um the recommended resolution this is just approval of the plat this doesn't mean okay construction can start this is a recommendation of city council to approve the preliminary plat should the city council on March 18th unless this is tabled um would take action on that at that time should they approve their preliminary plat the applicant property owner would then need to proceed with a final plat um and have that approved and recorded before they could start building permits and you said the applicant is here okay hi I I have questions for for him when he comes up if anybody else has questions for Mr Noble any more questions for the staff okay I'll make the motion to open up a public hearing for preliminary plot of Richard C Richland Court second all those in favor say I I hi opposed all right anyone from the public want to come come up front or talk about this item agenda I bet you that's Stone Brook please write your name on the paper and introduce yourself my name is Brian Mont uh live on 448 Hillwood drive just to the uh north of the proposed um plan here um I guess the from the standpoint of the notification this this happened pretty fast the community community meeting and notification I think was kind of not real um thought up well very well because the meeting was on December 31st New Year's Eve at 7 p.m. so we had very few people attending that's one concern second concern is this property has been we have uh all the the property surrounding this area is 2 and a half acre lots so even though it's zoned for 3 to six units per lot or per acre it does not fit in the area this was proposed 20 some years ago and we brought this back up to the city as a concern because of that they were trying to get um I think at that time they were proposing to probably put in 10 to 20 units and we expressed Our concern because it just not F did not in the area H Hillwood Estates there's 10 2 and2 acre lots beckridge Estates they 2 and half acre lots by deed um you go further to the to the to the West there's acreage there so again this this this plan does not fit into the area I understand the desire to develop it and I'm not against the development of it but 10 10 houses back there does not fit in two to three houses makes more sense it was approved for five to six lots and now we find out in January a month ago a month and a half ago that is approved for 10 how did that happen again notifying us for a public meeting or a community meeting New Year's Eve at 700 p.m. and now we're having a meeting to determine whether you're going to approve it is pretty fast the other concern is the drainage so the that drainage from that property goes across to the north and east and that goes across right through our yard my yard Tom W's yard to the north of that or to the west of that and that also feeds into the rest of their properties on Hillwood Estates um and if that drainage is not done right our yard could be even more wet or even more dry that that drainage feeds into a culvert going underneath the Hillwood drive and that feeds the other properties in Hillwood Estates that also have a pond on their their property so it's not just the the drainage through our yard it's the drainage and affecting the feature the ponds that they have on other um residence yards too so that's those are the big concerns I have again not opposed to development but it has to fit into the existing area we moved there 24 years ago for that reason for the lot the larger acreage and to bring this in and put in 10 houses right behind us I just I'm I'm opposed to it not opposed to development but it has to fit into the area thank you thank you um I think we do have the dper in the house would you like to shed some light on This concerns um could you identify your my name is Matt L I'm the property owner of um Rich Court here um I guess what what as far as the the density of the development we did have this approved originally in 2012 for six Lots at that time I did not move forward with the development um so I came back and we decided we wanted to get more units on the property and we're targeting we're looking to Target more of a retirement type um home here for the for people who are maybe looking to downsize is what we're looking to do you're talking about like two bedroom two bath kind of deal yeah right around there some could I think we could have some that will have three bedrooms but most of them will be two-bedroom yep wouldn't it be that expensive to build because the price is going to be the same for building the four-bedroom or versus two-bedroom correct yep so why you pick that option then it's not really sounds like a profitable deal to me for for building a a three-bedroom versus a two-bedroom um we I'm a custom builder so I build to whatever a customer wants so it's not going to be I'm not going to put up you know C cookie cutter homes everything that we do is drawn up from scratch with with the client in mind but the price point will be so high like let's say if I want to buy a house right the average price in the Shaka right now is a $420,000 for an average house correct and you building two-bedroom why would buy a two-bedroom house for $420 ,000 where I can buy a four bedroom house for $420,000 uh I don't know Mr chair if I could what is the price are you going to be at 425 a little above a little below what no we are I'm looking to build some um we do have a couple lots that going to be slab on grade those those would be starting in the 5500 to $600,000 range and then the other ones would probably be similar to that so all right thank you mhm Mr chairman I have a couple questions um so in the letter from citizen that was received last Thursday there was a statement in here that [Music] said there's already digging on the land we had to dig some test pits in the land to get the to determine what soils we had um the city required us to get soil borings done okay fair can you explain the choice of having the town or the the informational neighborhood session on December 31st at 7 p.m. uh that was we were trying to meet the demand or the what the city was putting for us we were trying to get on the January um meeting so we had I was out of town and I couldn't make it back in time to have a meeting you weren there I was there but I was I was out of town until the 30th of December so because you wanted to get on the January agenda correct you felt it appropriate to hold a neighborhood meeting on New Year's Eve correct okay I would have held it otherwise if we could have pushed it back I thought we were still going to get on the January meeting I only had one day to do it did you maybe not think hey instead of rushing to get to the January meeting I could have the neighborhood meeting in January and get on the February meeting I did not think of that at the time unfortunately I probably should have done that and how was the conversation at the neighborhood meeting uh it was they people were upset about having 10 Lots put on this and what is your response to that I I you know we're we're we're doing what the city has asked as far as what the limits are as Zone zoning property the the property being zoned as so I don't I don't really have a good response I guess besides we've we're meeting what the city has zoned for the property Mr chair if I could um would you ever consider building fewer hous I could I could probably do I would consider it yes to follow up you had considered and had approved and you chose not to move forward why there were other the previous owner had some other they wanted to bring in a lot of soils into the property which made it cost inefficient so that's why we didn't go forward with it at the time what was excuse me what was the prior what was the approved for prior uh two to three two to three houses per acre I think it was a it was for six we had approved six Lots yeah so you were approved for six correct thank okay all right thank you any more questions thank you thank you I do have a question for the staff um just to be clear you talk about about the trees being mandatory on the property right the two trees yes and are the cities going to provide those trees uh developer would provide those trees and who's going to maintain those the property owner okay so on on drainage is it is it fully on the developer to figure out the drainage or or is the developer giving the city the drainage and they're looking our our city water people are looking at that drainage to see you know and is that like stormw water Pond really just meeting the demand of um this development or is it taking in account the drainage that's already occurring off this property because some of those older homes you know that was maybe before because I think the other plat was the Breck Rich plat was made in 1992 and maybe they weren't looking at that drainage so maybe this site is being used as you know natural drainage there is that Wetland that is going to be retained in here but yeah I guess there is a drainage concern I'll attempt I'm not our storm laer staff person but um so as as I stated previously the the idea is is to ensure that there's no additional runoff post development than what there is pre-development um I also had mentioned previously that this was uh this item has been pushed back a few months to talk and get the details for the Road Improvement um per Scott County it also is for compliance with the city storm water and wetlands um regulations and that's as the property owner stated they were out there doing some tests to make sure because that was a requirement that the city had that they had to do some test work um so and those are conditions of approval should this application um go forward um that that they comply with the city's storm water management plan requirements um so I'm not going to say there isn't going to be any water running off the site but there there presently is some and it should not be in an increase in the rate um flow offsite so they have to design that pond to to capture the water that's required from our city code requirements and then just to address the concern of the the residents who you know are concerned about that drainage so if it is you know following the the city rules and then there there is some excess drainage and they're impacted you know what's that recourse for them to come back you know is it to the developer or is it to the city and or is everyone off the hook because you know they followed the design standards and yet they're being impacted like what potentially is that CU I I know that there are other City projects where design design standards were followed and there were still impacts so um Mr chair members of the Comm um certainly if there's issues um as with any projects in the city we we we do get a lot of calls from people with number of concerns and storm wers all one of them that they would contact City Staff first we would go out and investigate it look at it and then try to evaluate what ways we can make improvements um and that could be developer required um it could be something joint I it would be something we'd want to look at um each scenario is a little bit differently so I can't give you a concrete answer but it'll be something that we would look at to to address okay anyone from the public would like to come up front and talk about on this agenda please write your name on the sheet and introduce yourself thank you Mark bwin um so the homes that he wants to put in there kind of they don't really fit the neighborhood um the surrounding area is pretty like luxury homes bigger homes um to understand too I mean these things are just 15 ft apart here kind of an iore um and then one other thing about that too is we were told that I find this hard to believe that Med council is forcing their hand that they have to put three homes in there per per acre so I think maybe possibly it needs to be rezoned because I really the Fig it's it's a misfit and then there's the traffic issue too I mean to address that there's a lot coming in going and with the high school here and and all coming and going I think it's just too many homes you know as you see a overview you can see how bigger the lots are in this rounding area then you jam this many homes in one spot and be a such a smaller home crammed in like it is so thank you thank you you Mr Noble could you clarify that comment around um requiring a density of 3 to six units per acre and that's for that zoning so if it were rezoned back to a rural residential the requ Met Council wouldn't have that requirement but it has been zoned R1 since 2006 so with R1 it's that's the requirement yeah Mr chair members of the commission the property is presently Zone r1b which is a urban residential Zone it's a city served sewer water um type development um property to the north is zoned rural residential which is does not have city services it's well in septic sites um property to the South is rather unique in the city of shaki it might be only one of two that's a sew rural residential um that was something that wasn't in place when it was originally built but they um they did bring sewer into that subdivision um the city has had a number of conversations over the years with the Metropolitan Council um we with the guiding and the zoning um they monitor I think I as a mentioned initially that we need to be compliant with the zoning and guiding or they may not issue sewer permits so um I know the email said that it would city planner should have the last say what works best well that that didn't unfortunately never happens I'm low man on the totem pole so um we're we're dictated to certain things and whether we like it or not um that's what's required so we have to follow the rules as he from directly I feel City elected officials should always have the last word not that your there's there's no City elected officials here just to clarify that first of all if we're getting get comments let's come up and sign in and record the comments let's if you're going sir please come up and sign in if you'd like to speak thank you yeah I just wanted to this I'll sign in but this one uh document that Mark sent me earlier I found really interesting um it it it just shows all the rural residential around and then one little parcel that's this parcel that they zone for this r1b and I just it just doesn't fit the character of all the neighborhood around it when you're comparing it to the Patterson Drive and them that it's a quarter mile away you can't even see that those lots from this property so I don't know how they are comparing it it's it's just not Apples to Apples is is uh is my point so that's really all I have to say I I didn't know that you guys were volunteers um I just figured that city council would have the final say and they do they do okay so over met counsel so we the the city uses a met Council service so you know you're we're the city is kind of paying met Council to treat our Wastewater so we're a customer of met Council and they're driving you know they're telling you it has to be three per acre yep or they or they may not issue the permit yes okay it just yeah I mean I've lived there for 29 years we've looked at that open land and it just to to see these I'm the one that created this so just to I just thought that that was a better pictoral of what it's actually going what I'm going to be looking at the back of six houses now um and it's we already when met Council pushed the city sewer through behind our yard that's been a drainage issue since since that happened so um there on some of the Rainier months uh that can be a whole month before you can even mow your back the back corner of my yard it's just in standing water so that's yeah those are just my concerns is that it just it takes completely out of character for the rest of the the area surrounding it and that's that's just my point so thank you thank you I know this is 20 years ago but why was it rezoned to r1b some reason I hate to ask because it's 20 years ago but it is curious fair question um what was the intention or what was the purpose M miss Mr chair members of the commission I was doing a little research going back um to to just kind of read you know what what happened and um um there was I I I believe it has to do with with the guiding um of the property this zoning is supposed to follow what the guiding of the property is and and this was guided for the Suburban residential which is the 3 to six unit acreage so that is what they came in for the first the resoning excuse me was done by um cjm properties they were the property owner at the time and and they made the application and um you state all lots are one and a half times requirement um for the r1a zone and he's trying to appeal through the neighborhood so they they came in with a subdivision um that was six units or six Lots um and against from 2006 to 2025 um things have changed a little bit development wise you know the road improvements again meeting Scott County requirements um they have to do an extensive amount of improvements for that and with uh treating the storm water um so there's development costs um um um sack whack charges there there's been a lot of different changes over the years and and that might be driving why the the increase in the in the Lots um as well as complying with the zoning and the comprehensive plan requirements guess so when that brekr um plat was approved in 1992 that was it was lot one or block one lot one so it was probably meant to be at some point a home site and then you know somebody bought it and then um cuz it wasn't set as an outlaw or anything it was set as lot one block one so then the cjm properties bought it and then made six units and it seemed you said they wound up talking to the neighbors and the neighbors were favorable with six units no it it wasn't unanimous decision back at that time um and you're you're correct it was a it's lot one block one of that subdivision there's an out lot between this lot and the neighbors to the South that is owned by the believe it's the association um but the other lots are not as large as this lot I wasn't part of this so I'm not sure what the plan why they did that one lot um as as it is um but um again I have to go from what we have in place at Zone r1b if I say we're not going to let you do this you know there's there's always a challenge in in courts you know so we got to comply with our requirements y sorry we're we're just having a little conversation please introduce yourself and write your name and um I wrote my name I'm Cindy mon I'm um I live on the North side of this and yes when we bought the land 24 years ago the I don't even know what owner um they had a deviants against it to put three houses on it and then cmj whoever had bought it and that's when they wanted to put more houses and had it rezoned and went back and forth back and forth and fought that and I thought it had come down to that they had six lots and one had to be a drainage lot and now somebody else it's it's gone through a couple people and somebody else owns it and I guess the frustration that I have is you're buying a piece of property that you know how many houses you were allowed on it and everybody keeps wanting to up that and up that and up that I understand that the cost keeps going up and up and up but I'm sorry you know what you bought now that you have to do improvements to roads this is what he told us on December 31st because they have to do those improvements they need more houses to pay for it not my problem you bought it with six houses that's or five houses six Lots that's what you bought and now they want more and more and more and to me yeah it doesn't fit so but I guess that's my question too so if this gets approved it's approved for the 10 they don't it's because of the um zoning on it even though I thought the agreement was six Lots five houses now because they're putting in this new plan if it's approved it's automatically 10 houses or does that have to go through another are you saying the plan that was presented to you at the neighborhood meeting was six no back in 2008 when we went through this that last time I thought the approval was six Lots one of them being a drainage lot because that's under five acres Mr Noble zoning caps the upper limit of what you can do but you can always go under that can't you Mr chair members of the commission r1b has actually three to five units an acre density the the comprehensive plan is 3 to six units and I thought there had been in agreement when we went through this the last time that they they were capping it at five houses you and and I I the zoning has been r1b as we stated since 2006 it was real residential before that um the the three to five units an acre is been pretty consistent through all these years um that has not changed so um I'm not sure if the met counil or The Guiding changed why why they were allowed to go forward with five or six slot subdivision but I'm I'm going off of what our current zoning and guiding States and and that's what the application came in with and that's how we're proceeding could you please come to the Center thank you I just don't remember who I spoke to but I know I went to the city before I bought the property and they said there was zon for like three to four four or five horses or something like that but nothing like this so I was misguided too before I purchased I don't know who I spoke to but I mean just supporting what she had said with the the plan PRI prior to this thank you thank you well and that may have been the guideline at that time the issue in my mind is this was rezoned 20 years ago yeah mhm I so it's not that you were lied to it may have been the guidance of the time it was enry Zone sometime possibly after that sure none of us can answer why I mean that's the that's kind of the and I just bought it's been three in the house three years now so it's been pretty pretty recent whoever I spoke to but cuz I wanted to know before I bought there there's what development was going to look like I was a concern if I would have seen if I have seen that at that time I would have never bought I do think does bring drive to value of the homes down especially behind someone that directly right behind them I mean 15 ft is not very far apart doing these homes I just don't feel it's appropriate too much thanks thank you it's a bad chair get everybody that chair is like it's a chair hey good evening thank you my name is John Green I'm just want to ask a clarifying question because I'm not quite sure I'm understanding everything my question is um this project was approved for six Lots back in 2012 and I'm also are hearing that the zoning didn't change from 2006 until now so I'm just wondering if we should explore how it got approved for six Lots back in 2012 and that somehow today that is now different just feel like there's more information that we could use to just better understand it we may not know the answer tonight but somewhere this got approved by the Met Council and It just strikes me as there's a piece of missing information a gap I don't understand that it might be helpful to everybody to just understand that better that's all I have do we know that met Council approved the six either Lots or homes or whichever way it was do we know that met Council approved that it was my understanding from earlier that it was approved I'm trying to clarify that for you yeah thank later down in the process when you try to get your sewer access permit so like we do our stuff on our end and later we're getting that sewer access permit so we're setting stuff up to get that sewer access permit it's not like they Mr chair members of the commission what what you just stated has happened twice in the last few years where we had approved projects and uh met Council said we needed to change things to meet their requirements or and or we had to do um an areawide urban AAR for the entire West End of the community to make sure that that entire area is going to be compliant with these requirements so that happened at at time of Permitting building permit so you're correct there in those cases um to to to address um this gentleman's question Mr Green um uh can certainly look into this more and have information should you go forward with a recommendation to city council we could have have that it it does look like at the time back in 2006 when they're looking at resoning and Musa um that uh there also was with the Musa that's that's Metropolitan urban service area just to show that um those areas and we talked about earlier tonight that we needed ex um amend the Musa for that one area um to the 2020 versus the 20 240 as um they need to comply with the the the Musa standards which again is met Council standards that uh they can serve this property and um that was dealt with back in in ' 06 um I wasn't there um I I can certainly look into this more um in advance of council or whatever action that you uh direct staff to take thank you all and just to be clarified were we just recommending this to the city council the final decision is going to be made by the city council and so I know the the decision before us is just you know to recommend moving this preliminary plat to the council but I just want to go back to um rezoning it back to rural residential what what would met Council think about that if it was going to be a sewed rural residential um Mr chair member commission uh there's not going to be support okay from met Council even the the city we're we're we're trying to get off of um uh septic and well sites we we're not trying to introduce new ones yeah this would be the sew cuz the neighbors to the South are SE rural res Steward R residential yeah and and if directed that's something staff could look at um but again we're we're going with what the property is owned for now so that's why we're here tonight anyone else would like to speak from the audience yes last call anyone else Mr chair I move we close the public hearing so moved a second all those in favor say I I opposed motion moved do you guys have any discussion Mr chair I do and I find it hard to approve this tonight just for a lot of reasons um the metr Metropolitan Council does have power but so does the city of shaki we have heard tonight repeatedly six units at some point six units the developer said six units um I think we need more information um I don't blame the residents for being upset um you understand of course that when the Metropolitan Council does something Shaka does have to comply at some point that's just the way we're set up however there are always exceptions to that we can amend comp plans and I don't believe that public hearings should ever be held on New Year's Eve so because of that I'm I'm unwilling I'm I'm unwilling to approve this tonight now if Mr Noble Mr kiry want to come back at the next meeting with more information that's that's fine but there just too many things about this that don't make sense um I'm going to leave this meeting thinking six units so thank you Mr chair thank you Mr Robbins I find myself on the side of Mr Robbins I I'm struggling because our job here is to follow the regulations and everything that is set forth not put any personal bias or any kind of feeling of don't like it so I'm not going to vote for it that's not why we're here um but I too do not appreciate how the neighborhood meeting was handled I think if this is something that we don't approve tonight I I would recommend that you perhaps try again and have genuine conversations with the people in the neighborhood um and I to have I think more more questions than I do answers around how we got from one point to to today and so I personally am also very conflicted on this I will expand uh what my co-member said that mean I do believe that met counil is not an elected body it's an appointed body so they can't just mean I I as they mentioned we have to follow their rules that's what we sign up for but we still can go back and say hey it might be change could we do it differently that might show them we're willing to work together and maybe come with the different game plan which works for everyone else versus just imposing things on us so yeah I do agree with my other co-members as well so my comments on this is the reason we have zoning is to like you know have consistency so you don't have this these islands out here and I think when they rezoned it um you know back in um 2006 the amount of units you know may have been compatible is with the neighborhood but you know with what we're seeing today it definitely seems like it's a it's an outlier and it's like we're supposed to be zoning and trying to be consistent and what we see before us we're hearing loud and clear that it doesn't um meet that neighborhood consistency even though it complies with met Council and I understand on met council's end it's like they're having to put the money out to build the infrastructure and they want to make sure that they're recouping that by by these rate users so I understand why met Council has the um policies that they have but in in this case I um I would see if we can go at the the lower end and um to Mr Lo um you know you're not going to have to live with the decision of what you build that the neighbors are and so is there some way that you can come back to the table where you're able to make a profit on this property that you've owned quite a while and you know leave your neighbors or leave the neighborhood with something that they can live with so you know coming back and having another meeting where you can really hear them out and I don't know thank you CH I'm equally torn I think you know typically our job is to review the plans make sure they're following the guidelines they're following the zoning that's been established they've done the studies on traffic they've done the studies on Wastewater we have to presume that those people know what they're doing that's why they're in those jobs we're not here to question that so much I I think we all agree it doesn't seem to fit it's a decision that was made over 20 years ago and that you know if that decision were in front of us tonight I think it'd be pretty clear like that we we're not going to reone this to r1b like that's not what we would vote I think that's pretty clear unfortunately it was done over 20 years ago and that's not the decision that's before us um what they've proposed meets the requirements of what the city and met Council have laid out said it has to be that's not you know that's what we're voting on but I agree it doesn't fit it doesn't seem to make sense but that was a decision was made over 20 years ago that's just that's the part that I can't get my head on I used to have a lot of questions that I think maybe given more time we can get them answered yeah I don't know I me and I think the city meeting at New Year's Eve was horrible that's just poor just that just not well done at all but frankly it's not going to change the answer right have another me we'll say go ahead you have another meeting in a month and you know what you're going to hear right so that's not going to change anything it just it was just poor planning it doesn't help you any well it sounds like it was very rushed and I'm but every every resident is going to have the same complaint right there's too many houses all everything we've heard nothing's going to change so poor planning I don't think it well executed but it's not going to change what we're going to hear and what the concerns are it's pretty clear what the concerns are so that doesn't help anything I the issue is probably going to come down to as always economics right met Council says we need to put at least X number of homes here to justify the cost so that everybody can get paid that's where it's going to come down to that's the problem that my opinion but less really really nice homes well yep and I do appreciate the comment that at some point you bought what you bought and you got to deal with it that's that's that's the thing of the game man I guess over 20 years ago yeah Mr chair I mean all that I I consider all of that but we have different numbers we have 10 and we have six and um I don't know that we have the information yet about why not six I mean I don't think we even have the economics of that sure there's less but we don't know whether we can somebody can build six Lots on that and then it would be under the zoning but that it's fine you can go under zoning um I think um and I certainly for one if someone said six units would be willing to communicate with the Metropol console we have somebody from shaki that's on the Metropol console so we're not without ways to communicate with them Mr nubbles what is that minimum number for for R1 here but now it's like 3 to I think right so it's a 4 acre 4.3 acre parcel yeah for per acre so the Mr chair memb of the commission um r1b is 3 to five units an acre density and that's net density so we're we're excluding the storm water storm and Wetland so um I had a slide up I think on the preliminary plat one that showed you know this was a 4.38 acre parcel I believe but when you subtract out those two areas were down to 3.6 62 I think so if you do the math you're you're right at 10 for minimum um with the r1b zoning okay so you're we're already at the minimum yes okay W gets back to your comment if we say no it's because we don't like it I mean Mr no what are our options here I mean yes we can recommend or we cannot I mean is there an option three here um and and what happens if we don't recommend yeah Mr chair members of the commission um yeah you could recommend approval you could recommend denial um maybe you got a 33 vote that you forward to the city council I I I don't think they like to see that they'd like to have either a approval or denial recommendation um I'm not sure you do we continue what do we come back with um with r1b you know do you come back with less slots well then then we might have to increase some of those out Lots or something to make sure we're at that minimum density that the Met council is going to trigger so you there there's ways to be creative there's probably ways to do that um it would be something that we probably won't be able to solve by next month it would take the property owner and applicant and City staff to kind of look and see how this can be done um but again we're here at your direction so if you want us to to do that we can would be a recommendation um I don't know about going back to let's let's go back and and Zone this Ral residential I I don't think there's support that city council isn't going to do that um um SE rural residential I guess something we could look at that would be uh ruid and rezoning so we're starting basically over um if we do that that's an option and so the ones that were previously approved so the most recent approval was something in 2012 or what was the last approval it it started um before that and there were number of um extensions approved through the city council of the final plat for a number of years um six eight years worth of extension so um it's it's been a project that's been around for a while and you you can't go back to those densities because the guidance is what it is okay right and and we can certainly yeah we this is pretty fresh to us because we've had on some couple recent projects so we we know what met council is looking for um unless you were to go back and regu rezone yes it's a source bar right now I guess if we were voting right now um you know it's like your your decisions have consequences and it's like if we if I voted yes here I'm sticking this commun this neighborhood with can you yeah so you know decisions have consequences and so if we went forward today and like I voted yes on this like what what I'm sticking that neighborhood with is something that doesn't fit and so I don't know if we vote there I'm I'm not voting yes doesn't fit according to opinion or yes great question yes that's what I'm on right is like all of this at this point is based on feeling and opinion yeah not really so if I if I look at this itself the the plat itself you know yes for if for meeting R1 yes this but in context of the neighborhood where it's everything arounded is zoned rural residential sew rural residential it just seems like the zoning doesn't seem to fit in what the current when it was rezoned in O um 06 this wasn't the density that met Council had in ' 06 that wasn't what they were guiding for in ' 06 even is it now now the density requirement is increased since it was zoned rezoned in 06 Mr chair member of the commission I I can't state that that's the case I I I didn't hear that I'm sorry I I can't confirm that's the case with the Met counil we'd have to go and research that so I think what we can say is we don't agree with the way that it is zoned we don't like the way that it is zoned it is what it is so we can't agree or disagree it is zoned our one B that's a fact that's what it is we don't like it but that's what it is okay that's the problem we're all wrestling with well zoning isn't uh doesn't last forever the state of Minnesota gives cities the right to change zone so yeah yes you're right that's what it is now but it uh if somebody wanted to or if as Mr Noble says we would go back and look at that we could change that zoning but to do that we wouldn't do that we would need somebody to bring that to us and the applicant yeah we can't make that proposal no the applicant would you need somebody to bring that to us right Mr chair members of the commission that's good question I don't know my 24 years I've experienced that so um we'd have to consult with our legal staff see you really do learn something new every day Mr chair if I could Mr Noble what happens if we uh do we have an we have an option to approve or deny can we table um Mr chair members of the commission you certainly have that option um would want to get some direction on what you want us to look at um to come back with for the next meeting if we deny does this still go to the council yes it does all right Council have go straight to them without any further and they have the opportunity to either deny or recommend and if they deny it just stops if this goes to this I'm sorry Mr chair M of the commission if this goes to city council with a recommendation from denial the Planning Commission city council can um approve they can deny um they could um amend yeah um fraction but no keep going sorry no um yeah so from a legal perspective so if we all say deny and then it goes to city council and they say deny doesn't the applicant then have a right saying everything here was you know in compliance with the law I mean isn't the City of Blaine currently in a um similar situation where they're paying out $400,000 for not approving a development that was compliant with the law um Mr chair members the commission um certainly the property owner has some vested rights with the property but um there's some way we could discuss and look at some potential changes or again we'll probably be conferring with our legal staff to see what um rights are available Mr chair well is there other discussion I mean I have a motion commissioner go ahead before you make a motion go ahead my suggestion would be that we table it I'm not making a motion but my suggestion would be was that we would table it with the request of asking the city to come back with any and all plausible suggestions to reduce the required density right taking into account met Council requirements yes legal issues I feel like there should be a third B annoy land owner land owner willingness to you know lower the amount and land I'm frankly land owner rights I mean the owner has he owns a property there are some rights so I I think I just I would feel better knowing that there's been an exercise done to find other alternatives for lower density right and um commissioner I was going to just yeah but that go ahead I'll second it no it's all right um I I'm going to move that we table this to the next meeting with the staff Rec directions as Mr Wier has recommended them um I think it was said pretty well tonight by one of the residents they're not against development and we're not against development but I don't feel I have enough information tonight to make a vote now in two weeks or excuse me at in April not two weeks uh but in April might have enough information to make a good recommendation I think that's what you're getting tonight you're not getting anything that's violating Minnesota statutory law there's no vindictiveness here we just don't feel like we have enough information which is our prerogative we have a right to do that we have a right to say we don't have enough information we want more information we'll look at it the next step I don't know if we can hold them to a time table yeah all right yeah Mr chairman M of the commission there's a couple factors here and again I need to discuss with others um we are required to review projects within a certain amount of time we have to vote today and unless you know and the applicant grants a an extension of that review period um secondly if you're to say you're going to ask this to come back in April we might not have all the information we need in essentially two weeks three weeks from now um in order to put it together for a report packet for you for your April 3rd meeting so I don't know if you so I just want to share those are two um things we have to look at um well um would I'm sorry unless the property owner is willing to speak tonight saying they Grant additional review time for this application I think it's best that you make some kind of recommendation to the city council you mean vote Yes or no unless the property owner grants ex additional review time of this project I don't have the exact dates in front of me I know we've gotten some extensions but um we may be to to extend so you don't know if we're up against that deadline or I think we're we're there unless the property owner were to Grant an extension I'm just worried that we want be able to have enough information for the April meeting for what you're what you're looking for um just off the cuff just to require reduced density probably looking at um rezoning the property to se Ro residential or r1a we'd have to amend the guiding to be compliant with that because the zoning has to follow the guiding so so just real quickly that's that's what I'm thinking would be an action that would have to take place but we have a plat we're we're Beyond zoning um recommend denial city council recommends denial then they come forward with a rezoning reiding applications for Less St development or they can challenge this and other venues I do understand the Mr Noble's concern it's not just us we have to take it to the AIL and then there's another two weeks to go to the city council and then they have to vot on it and there's a further work into it so I get we're running against the time as well so well all right Mr Noble let me understand something I made a motion you're suggesting to me that that motion um would would take longer than the the deadline for when we have to react to the owner is that what you're saying yes just so I'm clear Mr chair members of the commission if I were to play it safe conserve it I would say yes because I I don't want to guarantee that we can do what you ask for within the time allowed and you don't know what that exact time is I well I know our next meeting is April 3rd um and and I again um might have to look to see if we even have time to to bring that back to that meeting I believe this unless the applicant property owner gives us an extension and Mr Noble is it possible if if we can't make that meaning that um we could call special meeting um Mr chair members of the commission certainly you could request a special meeting or I think we can also make some amendments or recommendation to the city council with our concerns and move on and maybe meanwhile in the two weeks period they might find something which they can present to the city and they can make a final call that's another suggestion I'm not recommending it but I'm just saying Mr Chim can I ask one other question can we forward this to the city council with no recommendation chair members of the commission um I think we staff and the council would prefer that you make some type of a recommendation all right well I'll uh I'll withdraw my motion if there's another motion I mean I'm willing to make it again but does anyone else have another motion so do you guys want to just go for the V or do you guys want to do a recommendation to the city I'm going to make a recommendation to the city council denying the resolution r225 d003 and not approving the plat because I do not feel that we have all of the information I do not feel comfortable approving it that is my opinion so that's my motion I'll second I'll withdraw my motion and second that with the emphasis on the fact that we are denying because of what commissioner Sao did because we don't feel we have enough information um okay Mr Noble can we have a roll call please like can we clarify for the idiot here uh so for so it's on the minutes correctly I mean yeah so I am recommending we deny it we do not approve it and so we're not approving it so a vote Yes means we agree with you or vote of Yes means yes yes means we agree with with the motion yes that we do not approve it and and just so somebody is writing the motion down and this is what legally gets required so required so or recorded So it's it's essentially that that we're denying the preliminary plat because we don't have enough information and that's just it not the extra words you know like opinion and stuff like that sorry like op because you used this is my opinion but that would not be in the motion okay my motion is to recommend to Council we do not approve resolution r225 d003 for the pmer preliminary plat of Richland Court do because we do not have enough information excellent so moved anyone second on it I'll second that can we have a roll call please Mr Noble do you guys have more questions well can I just make a comment yeah I want to go back we're not I hope no one including developer feels that we're being vindictive we're in a difficult position here because um our staff tells us that time may be running out we clearly have some questions about this development that are a matter of public record now and um we need more information but we don't know if we have enough time to get that so I think there are enough of us that have problems with approving it as it stands that's my discussion M Mr chair members of the commission before you go forward um feel a little more comfortable you so you do not have all the information necessary um I don't know if you have any specifics I I feel we need some specifics um so that they know and the council knows what what the concerns are this is a pretty broad statement I'm sorry uh I think one of the things that people want to know is is a little bit more about that met Council requirement on zoning I think we all recognize that it's it is zoned R1 and that it meets that density but is there any flexibility um there because it doesn't meet the surrounding zoning around the neighborhood so I guess the question would the more information would be like that ability to either lower the density or to rezone it I I don't know yeah Mr chairman of the commission that's exactly what one of the last subdivisions we were looking at they they said you're going to have to increase the amount of um non you know outlawed area something the fact that it's not part of the density or you're going to have to regu rezone the property um in that case the developer made some changes to their plat to be compliant that's the Met Council was directive that you can ruide rezone to lower in that particular case and maybe that other information that we don't have is is the applicant's willingness to to do any of that um and you know he's just receiving all this information kind of tonight and he needs time to digest that information as well do we have to pull back back the motion and start over again I the last comment I would make is it just feels a little I feel like we're pushed in a corner we have an artificial timeline on us that it just feels this just the whole thing just feel I feel like we're being kind of forced into approving this right now and I'm also not a fan of that we're not forced to approve it we're being forced to make a vote which we don't feel good about feel like I'm told I to approve this right now yeah you've mentioned extensions have been granted who ex who gave extensions to who who was asking for the extensions um we have to talk to the applicant and he needs to be agree with it Mr chair members of the Commission in the past when the final plat that was approved and wasn't recorded um the property owner could request extensions of that final plat um to the city council and the city council granted those extensions of their final PL so um it was something the property owner at the time asked for in the city council granted so we have a motion it's been seconded do we want to have a roll call vote y are we good for the rooll call yes yeah Mr chair let uh let's make sure we know what the motion the motion is to deny Yep this recommendation um because we don't have we don't feel we have sufficient information to make an approval something to that is that right yep all right if you vote Yes you're voting yes to denying it y can we have a roll call sir commissioner wer I commissioner reading I commissioner Robbins I commissioner ranua I commissioner SPO I commissioner Sandu I we will forward this recommendation to city council for their review on March 18th can I just add one thing um I don't I can't speak for my fellow Commissioners but if we need to have another meeting sooner then I'm certainly open to it all right motion passed by six so I will make a motion to close the public hearing now don't move all those in favor say I I I all those impose none is there any other business Mr Noble all right I will make a motion to ajent the Planning Commission meeting to April 3rd 2025 at 7 second all those in favor say I meeting urgent