There we go. Right there. Think we're good now. Should I wait for him to come back? Probably wouldn't heard. Yeah, we want to make sure the public can call the board of adjustment and appeals meeting um open at uh 7:04. Um and we're ready for roll call. Commissioner Seovva, Commissioner Ranowa here, Commissioner Wiler here, Commissioner Foresight, Commissioner Sandu here, Commissioner Reading here, Commissioner Robbins here. All right. So, looking at the approval of the agenda, I'll entertain a motion. So moved. I'll second. All right. All right. So then we have call for notorized affidavit, proof of neighborhood meeting and signin. We need a you just need to have a voice a voice vote on approving the agenda. So we don't we don't need it. You do need a a v a vote on to approve the agenda. So um a voice vote. So all in favor say I. I. And all in favor say nay or oppose say nay. All right. Motion carries. Now we're ready to uh call for notorized affidavit. Proof of neighborhood meeting and signin sheets for appropriate public hearings. Yep, we're good. All right. Oh, you can't hear me. Oh, there's that. You heard me before when I was like I think if you pull the mod forward the worse yourself. Yeah. Pretty close. It's supposed to be close. All right. And can you hear me better now? Yes. Can you hear her now? All right. Thanks. Um, and so we have recognition by the planning commission of interest. It's not planning commission. It's on the agenda. It says planning commission, but recognition by the board of adjustments of interested citizens. I don't think there are any. Can you confirm that, Mr. Krisky? There are no interested citizens. No, not for the board of adjustments. All right. And then our consent agenda um which contains the January 2025 minutes. Um I'll entertain a motion. I'll move approval. Second. All right. And um all in favor say I. I. I will abstain because I wasn't here for the January meeting. All right. And all oppose say nay. So motion carries. And so now for general bish. Um h did this agenda. You have this one. Oh, no, I don't. Right. So, your next would there's no other business. You' be Okay. Yes. No other business. And so, now we'll move to adjournment. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion we adjourn. I'll second. All right. All in favor say I. I. I. And all opposed. Motion carries. We're now adjourned. Thank you. I will call the order to Shakabe Planning Commission meeting Thursday, April 3rd, 2025 at 7:07. Can we have a roll call, please, Mr. Kurski? Yep. Commissioner Foresight, Commissioner Sandu here, Commissioner Reading here, Commissioner Solovo, Commissioner Wiler here, Commissioner Ranow here, Commissioner Robbins here. Item second, approval of the agenda. All those in favor say I. We have to make a motion. Oh, can someone make a motion to approve the agenda? Make a motion to approve the agenda as we have it. Okay, I'll second it. All right. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Item three is recognization by planning commission of interested citizen. Anyone in the public who want to talk about something which is not on the agenda? Anyone who would like to speak something about which is not on the agenda. Okay, moving on. Item four which is consent agenda. Then we have the meetings from the previous meeting. So I will make a motion to approve the meetings of the minute from February. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the consent item, including the minutes from March. I'll second. Okay. All right. All those in favor say I. I. Oppose. We're moving to item five, general business. We have two items there. 5A. And as I believe last time we opened this uh discussion, but we didn't close it, Mr. Kursky. So, we don't need to reopen it. The public hearing for the item 5A. Right. Correct. So we'll continue that. Uh the public hearing, excuse me, just a point of clarify. So the public hearing is open. Yes. All right. Go ahead. Do we have any presentation? So again, commissioners, this is a public hearing, annexation, zoning, and Musa amendment to properties located within the Jackson Township. City of Shakipi is proposing annexation, zoning to agriculture preservation and amendment to the Musa service area. Properties in question are all located north of County State Aid Highway 78 with several east of Old Brickyard County Road 69 and several others just east of Highway 169. There are 11 parcels consisting of approximately 61 acres with a potential development that generally consists of a mix of commercial, residential. City staff have provided a certified notice of intent to annex to Weber, Brigamin, and Melture properties as required and approved by the uh orderly annexation agreement. Staff have met on site with Melture family to share details of the proposed sanitary sewer project. Staff has had multiple discussions with some of the families to share details on what might occur with upcoming developments in the vicinity and some of these details were included in the notice of intent to annex. City council may consider abating and phasing in the city's portion of property taxes on a case-byase basis. So that's not under your purview. That is under the city council's perview. So here are the uh annexation parcels. There are three residential parcels here. There is a vacant um parcel here that has a large piece of bluff on it. There are two parcels here and then um the parcels that are currently owned by Scott County for uh retention ponds. So C comprehensive plan guiding um is the parcels in red are the proposed MUSA changes because they're not currently in the MUSA. And then the orderly annexation, we're allowed to annex property um as a city automatically in areas A, B, and now C, areas uh D if we have proximity. Areas E and F are restricted to 2050 unless the property owners propose annexation. So these are well within the areas um that were allowed to under the orderly annexation. So, C Scott County zoning is kind of a mixture here. There is some um urban reserve area which is this slashed color here and then there are some general commercial which is down here on the corner. Shakapi comprehensive plan for this area. So, it's open space for the uh residential areas. The larger parcel part of it is also considered to be deemed open space but also is for mixed residential. There are three actions required uh on this item and need to be voted on separately. One is to recommend approval to the city council of a draft resolution 20253035 approving the annexation of the property. The second is to recommend approval to the city council of draft resolution R2534 which is approving the comprehensive plan amendment to figure 4.60 to increase the Musa to the three parcels uh down along 169. And the last is to recommend approval to city council of the draft ordinance 2025008 approving the zoning of these properties to agricultural preservation zone which is our uh AG zone. It is a public hearing. If someone would like to talk about on this topic, we need to ask if they have any questions first. Do you guys have any questions for the staff? I figured. Anyone from the public would like to talk about? Yeah, please come forward and uh make sure you write your name and um on the sheet. Good evening. Can you hear me? All right. Yes. You'll need to speak right into that mic. It doesn't carry pardon. You You'll have to speak right into that mic. It doesn't carry well at all. You can pull forward. Yep. You uh Oh, it even has a note here. Uh commissioners, my name is Paul Meltchure and I'm here representing the uh my parents, Tom and Sue Meltchure, and their trust. My sister Mary's is here as well. Um, I had some some things prepared, but I had a nice discussion with with Michael before the meeting that clarified a few things for me. But, uh, I I do want to get a couple of things on the record. Um, my parents have owned that property. Uh, we call it the Melture Woods for almost 60 years. My brother and I are both biologists. Um, I'm a college professor and but previously worked with a lot of land use issues professionally uh with SRF consulting where your city engineer came from, I think. Um, and we've worked diligently to preserve the forest area in that woods. Um, because it is a very special piece of property. It's never been cut, never been grazed. It's a very rare subtype of Minnesota hardwood forest. It only exists on the bluffland forest right now of the Minnesota River. And our goal is to preserve it indefinitely uh very likely by eventually uh eventually selling it to to Mike or the city of Shakipi, I mean, or the county or perhaps a nature consery. Um, we're in a bit of a conundrum here. Um, when we saw that there was a sewer mane slated to go right through the dead center of this property, it was very disconcerting. um uh Michael and uh a couple of other city officers came out and we had a nice visit about it and talked about our concerns and the concerns of my parents about uh increase in property taxes if they're next. Um and I'm sure that our neighbors have the same concerns. Um we know that the planning commission doesn't have anything to do with taxation and tax abatement. Um perhaps you you recommend that uh to the city council. Um we'd prefer that the the city or the Met Council or whoever will be putting the sewer main in would go around with a lift station. We know that's much more expensive and and technically difficult. But uh in our conversations out at the property in March, uh the engineer and Mr. Kurski discussed the option of of doing a lateral boring and putting it underneath the wood so as not to disturb that landscape. And at bare minimum we would we would ask that that would be the case. Um trenching it would be absolutely catastrophic for that ecosystem. Um, the conundrum that I'm in is that I know that the city council is who makes the final decision on on the annexation and the tax abatement and the engineering plan. Um, and so if I knew that those things were in place to protect the property and to abate the taxes for my folks as long as they want to live there, I wouldn't be opposed to the annexation per se. But you can't promise me that as I understand it. And so I at least want it on the record that that is part of your recommendation when when the time comes or suggestion or some assistance in that regard. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. So, chair, under state statute 414- or 0.035, um it does allow municipalities when they're annexing in property and township. They can either phase it in for six years or um their duration until such time that there are city services provided to the property. So staff's recommendation when this goes forward, there'll be a separate item prior to the annexation to enter into uh the city council into an abatement agreement until such time utilities are to the property which won't be anytime soon. I think um as the speaker pointed out, the city engineer went out there and they had originally before his time planned on doing a uh cut and fill sewer. He's agreed that when they comes time to do the design in the sewer and to build it, it will be a drill bore um sewer probably about 30 ft down which will have no impact on the block and the city administrators also agreed to that. U Mr. chair, unless you're I'm trying to get my my hands on this. If we go ahead and approve these things tonight, do I understand that there isn't any immediate action or activity that's going to take place on this land? So, chair and commissioners, what'll happen is you only make a recommendation to the city council. The city council would then annex it in. That sewer, for instance, won't be built for a number of years. Um, the adjacent property has just been closed on and the property next to that has just been closed on to build homes. They'll be bringing that sewer over the next two to three years to this area and that's when the city would then have a project to bore it under the bluff because that sewer eventually will serve uh Louisville Township. So, it comes down through this area, crosses that, it'll get bored under County Road 78 and goes very deep all the way to I think it's um the Jackson Township, Louisville Township line. So, we have a kind of a dual sewer that's what really started this. The other thing is the city is in the process of acquiring. We have out for an appraisal, also appraisal on the three residential properties right now. Um we are we've already acquired the easternmost bluff. We're acquiring the second piece um as part of the adjacent Bluff View development and this will be the last piece. Um so the Brigammen Trust has is selling the residential piece and we have an agreement with them to buy the rest of the bluff. So the last piece of the bluff would be these three houses. Can I follow up, Mr. to share just for me. So if this all goes through, if the council approves it, um when do you anticipate that there would be any development on this land? There will never be development on the three houses, the parcel down below. Um Dr. Horton is doing that project and they plan on bringing um 17th Avenue to this parcel. the county highway system um needs to get to Old Brickyard Road, County Highway 69. And so they're working with the state to actually expedite completing that little last little section because that's the only true east west road in the city. I mean, it goes all the way past out to the um easternmost portion of the city and they can't just leave this last kind of 800 foot piece. So, they're participating in bringing the road to this blue piece and they'll bring it through so that there will be an intersection there. Um, there's no plan plan anytime soon to put that sewer in because we have to wait for the development to get built out over the next few years. Um but as part of the AUA for this area which we're in the process of updating that was done 5 years ago and the master plan before then it was always planned to preserve this bluff because it was identified as a ecological resource area because there are two endangered species that occupy this area. When we were out the other day before we met with um the Melture family, there was a big buck standing on in the bluff and there were some wild turkeys that had gone through there and coyote scat. So, it's a very active area. All the developers understand they have to stay out of the bluff and uh we had a discussion at the city council the other night. We're actually pushing the trail even further away from the bluff. So, there'll be a um a trail on the flat side of the bluff in the subdivision part with signs telling people it's a conservation area and it's not that, you know, don't go put a fire pit or something in that area. And eventually there'll be a trail on the lower bluff kind of on the industrial commercial side and on the piece the city already owns. Um so there'll be kind of a lower bluff trail and an upper bluff trail, but neither of which will really go through the bluff. Right. Mr. chair. Thank you. So, what uh Mr. Meltchure was looking for was some more asurances that there's preservation, but our our plan already plans for not developing it. But his main concern concern right now is the for the resource is for the forest is that the sewer gets you know trenched or not not trenched in um bored in or avoided in a lift station. And so at this point, is there any like assurances that we can offer them on that? Um I think whoever if someone makes a motion to put that in the motion that you know the planning commission's recommendation is you board you all approved the CIP on an annual basis whether you realize it or not it's one of the documents you approve that as part of that CIP your recommendation is to be bored. I think the fact that the city engineer has agreed to it, the city administrators agreed to it. They've already had some discussion with council because it's going to be substantially more than cutting it and they realize we can't be buying the bluff and destroying the bluff. So, there's kind of a tradeoff and I think most of them understand that's where we need to be. Doesn't make any sense to buy and then cut all the trees down to put a sewer through. So, yeah. I mean, whenever we get to making the motion, I will put that in the the motion that it goes forward with that, you know, making sure the forest is preserved, recognizing we need a new we need a sewer, but we need to protect the forest. That's a much more valuable resource than sewer. And staff will be in front of the annexation. We'll have a we're working with the city attorney on what we need to do to meet the 414.035 statute on the property taxes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Your question, sir. Pardon? Did you get your answers? I did. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else would like to talk on this topic? Hopefully everybody can hear. Could you please sign the sheet for the minutes? And excuse me. Shy. All right, here we go. Good evening. Can everybody hear me? Yes. Excellent. Um, I'm kind of new to this. Give us your name, please. Excuse me. Give us your name. Patrick Bighamman. My parents here, uh, Larry and Barb and my brother Brian. Uh, we have concerns about you guys are talking about, uh, timelines. How about some decent prints to what you guys propose to do because you're the planning commission, correct? I haven't seen Is it public information that's out that we can get a hold of? It's on the city's website. It's a 2040 comprehensive plan. I showed one of the maps from it. I mean, we're not planning to correct to do anything. No, I I didn't get a chance to I'm just saying it's public information. All this stuff that you had brought up this evening should be able to be accessed via what's on this situation. It's it's planned and recorded. So, to give you an idea, the comp plan can't be changed. It requires a supermajority and then approval from the Met Council. The comp plan shows his land as parks and open space. Okay. Even even with that, is there a timeline adjusted to that? As far as the what was going to be happening there? It's the 2040 plan, but it has to be redone every 10 years. So, don't ask me why the state does that. So, the 2040 plan really in Chaki is we're already up to the 2040 plan, believe it or not. Um, growth has happened much quicker over the past eight or nine years than was anticipated. So um we right now we have retained IRR which is the highest level appraisal you can get who's appraising the bluff for the Brigamin family trust because we're the city's plan is to purchase the bluff portion of it and as part of that they also are appraising the three houses so the Melture property um the Brigamin house and um the other house that's up there. Okay. And the timeline on that would be because obviously we we you know there's a possibility it could be sold couldn't be sold. What's going on on the on the top end commercial in case another concern would be that obviously we have a holding pond that's supposed to be adjusted right there. Stormtrooer being driven right through the middle of the adjacent road that everyone uses to get there. And it's it's a concern of all of us here where it's going to go and what's what's it going to all disturb the storm sewer pipe correct right down the middle of it. Not my department but I'll tell you what I know. So I understand the storm sewer pipe if we annex this in it'll become city that will rebuild the road or whatever we have to do as part of that. Mhm. That storm sewer pipe will go into the culvert and that's the emergency overflow because most of the uh storm water today goes on the former Ty property down a ravine and then as part of this project there's another area where the water goes down on property the city's already acquired. So if it reaches if the pond the holding pond that's adjacent to this blue area overflows for some unknown reason even though it's designed for I think a 4 or 500 year event would go in that pipe down to the road so it would not flood the property. Correct that. Yeah. Could you bring do you have that map that you could bring up so we all could uh I don't have the storm water stuff because it's the engineering department but it's and it wasn't designed by the city it was designed by the people developing the Brigamin and property the bluff estates okay they have to meet the I'm trying to remember which wershed this is in but it's one of the Minnesota River watersheds and so that plan had to go be approved by them to ensure there was no property that got flooded but can that can that be shared with them those. Yeah, I can. This everyone's out because it's Easter week, but um the city engineer has those plans and I can have them emailed out. Please, please do. I will put my email on there. And then Mike, could you just bring back up the 2040 plan the map that you had up before so they can they can see it? And it is something you can go on the um I think it's called like envision chaki and you can get that that map so you can see trying to get what we're guiding it towards um the city's guiding it towards and so this is a really zoomed in portion of that map really focusing on that. So, you know, if you're looking at it in person, it looks so in this map um the house properties and the um I can't remember the name of the family that owns the piece down below there off the top of my head. The Bower family, the Bowers next to them. Yep. So, it's Weber Melture and Brigamin. And um Bowers own kind of the piece that's the yellowish color there. Correct. So that actually is mixed residential, but the upper pieces are park and open space. And then the piece down below is mixed juice center and business park industrial. Okay, that's all I have I guess until I get more. Thank you very much. Thank you, Eric. Anyone else from the public would like to speak on this topic? Could you please sign the sheet and state your name? My name is Frank. Can you hear me? Yes. My name is Frank Weber. I own a little piece of that property up there. Uh, I've been listening to what you guys they've had to say and we received this sheet from your office and I'm trying to figure out other than put that storm sewer pipe in which it's not storm it's the sanitary would be going under the Melture property. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the storm sewer pipe. Okay. That's come going to be for the overflow for the housing addition next to us. Correct. That's the only thing that I can see in this that is being brought to our little community. We are we are going to have our taxes which are on the back of here go up 319%. 319%. And nothing's going to be brought to us but a storm sewer pipe down the middle of our road. Nothing. They're going to leave us alone, which is fine. We've been We're the new kids on the block. We've been there only 50 years. So, we can't understand why we're being annexed. If nothing's going to be brought to us, there's not there's no benefit for us whatsoever. I can understand how the barman bower property wants to be annexed because they're going to build on it. The property in the field next to the Bregerman Beerman farm up there. But the US three houses properties are going to be only we're going to be left alone, which is fine. We like that. But then we're going to be turned into a park. And we like that idea, too. I mean, we really like that idea. But why are we why are taxes going to go up so high for no benefit for us other than we'll be eventually made into a park when when we all die off which probably will be happening hopefully not in the next few years. So, so I think what we've offered Meltchers and we've offered other people in the city is if we if the city were to acquire your house today, you could live there under a life estate and wouldn't pay any taxes until you either don't want to live there anymore or you pass away. Tell me that again. So, the state allows you can do what's called a life estate. You be a tenant in a life estate. So you would still live in your house, be your house, but the city would own the land. And whenever you pass away or want to move away to someplace else, you could do that, but you could stay there until that happens and you get paid today the money as if you were so selling the house and I would pay the city rent to live in. No, you just live there. You're still responsible for plowing your snow, paying for utilities, repairing your house, but that's it. That's the only thing you're responsible for. Speaking of snow, that's that's another thing that we we'd be benefiting from is the street maintenance, which has lacked from the township over a lot of years. If it wasn't for Larry Bergamman and his Bobcat, we probably wouldn't even be able to drive down here this evening. Uh, in the last couple years, we've had very little snow, as you all know. So, our streets been plowed maybe five times. last year maybe five times. So, our taxes are going to go up to help pay for our streets to be plowed five times a year. But I think what we're going to propose before the annexation happens at the city council meeting that so they don't deal with is the taxes portion, but we're but they can they can make a recommendation. Yes, we're going to propose that you all fall under that state statute where you don't get services so your taxes remain the same. Okay, that sounds good to me. that that could happen that would make all the families very happy. Very happy. Yeah, we understand you're the only benefit you're getting is probably the police department and who you're not going to ever call them. We already have that through Jackson Township. Yeah, you have the county sheriff through Jackson Township. And they they they seem to do a pretty good job, too. And so the other reason just for annexation is we're not by orderly orderly annexation agreement. We're not supposed to be leaving islands once this is done. We've already annexed everything across the street. This map's way out of date. So, we're all the way to 169 now. So, you would be this little piece. And the reason why the state doesn't want that to happen is for police services, you don't have the county sheriff having to come into the city to respond to your properties. Okay. Well, that's all I got to say. Any questions or I guess maybe just a quick question from you, Kerski. So, you had mentioned that you guys are getting the appraisals for those three houses and and all of the bluff and what? All of the bluff. All of the bluffs. There's there's numerous interrelated families here. So, another part of his family or maybe you're part of that. I don't know. We're part of the subdivision. There going to be three new parcels created administratively. the parcel that the subdivision is being built on the bluff and then the commercial industrial parcel. The plan is for the city to acquire the parcel that's on the bluff. So, it sounds like this this homeowner wasn't aware that there was a potential for that life estate, which is sort of the reason why you're getting the appraisal. Is that so you can purchase it now at today's prices and then you're not paying any property taxes and you're able to live there? So, it doesn't sound like that was communicated to them or was it and Well, it's not something you do until we get back the appraisals. We're going to like the first day of the process required by statute. They all got a letter saying that we've we're doing an appraisal. We're we hired WSB today. We're getting a proposal for them. They'll go visit with them and explain if they want to move. Okay. There are some incentives required by the state that we would have to give to them beyond purchasing their house. if they want to stay, they'll explain what a life estate is, but we're Okay. Yeah. And and someone asked about the appraisal. Appraisal, even with the bad economy right now, we're still really busy. And so they always tell us it'll be done tomorrow and tomorrow seems to always take about three months longer than they say. So, so what will happen is when we get the appraisal back, all of you will get a copy of it because it's required by state law. And then you can argue with our consultant and they'll readjust it accordingly. And as I explained to one of the members, we acquired a lot of property over time in the city and our appraisers our appraisals tend to be much higher than a standard appraisal that's done. Does that answer your questions so far? All right. If I got more, I'll call. All right. You know where to find me. I'm right here. I'm the only one here. Evidently, they are here for you, sir. Anyone else would like to talk about He didn't state your name. Thank you. Uh, I steal the pen. Who took the pen? It's Brian Brigamin. So, you see these appraisals. Excuse me. Did you say your name? Brian Brigamin. Go ahead. So, these address for the record just so we have it. I live in Jordan, but it'll be for the 1890 West 125th Street. Okay. for my parents. Um let's say these properties these people want to sell. Uh is there can they just sell to anybody? Yeah, you can sell to anybody but our preference is you sell to us because we tend to pay more and because of the state law there are other benefits you get that are not taxable on top of the sale. Okay. Because I I had heard through the grapevine that uh like my parents place say they were told that um if they were to sell or try to sell it to let's say just put it up for sale to sell it to anybody that wants to buy it. That that wasn't an option because it's supposed to be park later on. Yeah. I mean anyone that's going to buy it, it's going to the title companies are going to look and say longterm it's going to be a park. So it's a house today, but you can't really do anything beyond the house that's there. So you're saying that there isn't much of an option to sell it to anyone else? You can sell whoever you want to. I mean, we'll be one of the potential buyers. I mean, and we're going to, as I said, there are benefits that a private purchaser can't give you that that are taxfree that the we can as a municipality. Okay. And all this information will be sent to my parents. Yep. Soon as they know, yeah, we've hired WSB and they have a real estate acquisition person that will be happy to meet with any of the owners and explain all the benefits. Okay. Because it seems like they're left in the dark a little bit on some of the stuff. Yeah. I mean, I get paperwork and stuff, but and then we'll we're actually to be honest, we're waiting for the appraisal back because you get that first, then you can meet with us, talk about it, what you don't like about it or whatever. And typically people go get their own appraiser just to be comfortable. And typically those tend to be a little lower than our appraisal. So, usually they'll come back and go, "All right, the your appraisal is better plus we have some other benefits you get if you're moving off the property." So, you're allowed up to I think it's $50,000 by state statute in relocation benefits. So, that helps you know moving costs, having to do whatever beyond the purchase price of the property. Okay. And we and we don't have a realtor, so you're not paying any commission. So, you're saving whatever the commission would be also. All right. Thank you. That's all I have. Sure. Thanks. Anyone else would like to speak on this agenda? Anyone else? Last call. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make a motion then that we close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Do you guys have any questions for the staff further on this? I have a couple of comments if I could. Yes, please. You know, this is a what happened tonight is kind of what should happen. I'm not suggesting that we might have been a little bit more forthright, but as Michael's explained, we're in a process right now. Um, we we have to get appraisals. Um, but I think some of the answers that you got tonight were were not bad answers in terms of taxes, in terms of being able to live on the property really for as long as you live if you wanted to. And then the rec the the recognition that we understand that some of this has to be preserved, that that the Bluff area is unique in the whole state of Minnesota. And I think you heard Michael say that that the city not only knows that but is actively pursuing that. So um I feel like uh I'm going to vote to support the motion. Mr. Chair, thank you. Anyone else? I have a question for Mr. Kuski. So in in making the motion if we want to add the writers on of one one I'll add the writer of making the CIP recommendation for the sanitary sewer. is the term for you had mentioned the term tax abatement and then you had mentioned like the taxes if they weren't getting services is is that the same term as tax abatement or what so the state statute basically says that if they're not getting city services beyond you know so they're not getting sewer and water which are the main two services that the council has the ability to abate the city's portion of those taxes so as someone mentioned I think they go from, I don't know, $400 or $500 to $1,200. So that difference would be abated. They'd still pay the $400 they pay today, but they would not pay any increase whatsoever. Okay. So, so the term tax abatement includes not them not really extending additional services to them. Okay. Any more questions? So my question is like as we talking about it you could we can amend these uh recommendation. Do we have the ability to amend it for the tax recommendation as well? Because that's not our jurisdiction. It's not your jurisdiction but you can certainly you just recommendation to city council. you can recommend outside of the land use decision that you also recommend that the sewer um be boarded and the woods be preserved since the city would be acquiring it for open space eventually and that also that the council look at doing the section 414.035 abatement does uh I'm not sure I I Do you want to try making a motion? you've been writing down so why don't you go ahead I would love to make the motion if you're ready if you're ready to yeah go ahead okay so I recommend the approval to the city council the draft resolution R2025-035 a resolution approving the annexation of the Jackson Township properties with the recommendation of um prioritizing forest preservation um through CIP for the sanitary sewer um related to things that will um preserve the forest boring or a lift station. In addition um recommending that there's tax abatement associated for all these properties only for the there are some other properties that are not that are for the res only for the residential properties for the tax abatement for the residential properties. Yeah. And I'll second that as she read it. Okay. Can we have a roll call, please? Yeah. No, I I I heard it the first. I don't need to repeat it. I I I've got uh Commissioner Sandeu. I Commissioner Reading I. Commissioner Wiler. I. Commissioner Ranoa. Hi. Commissioner Robbins. I. And passes. All right. Moving to the item agenda 5B. Um we have to do two other Oh, sorry. There's two. Yeah, sorry. I forgot that. Okay. Can someone make the two number two motion? Well, I'll recommend approval to the city council of draft resolution R2025-034, a resolution approving the comprehensive plan amendment to figure 4.60 Metropolitan Urban Service Area in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Second. Okay. Can we have a roll call on this one too, please? Yep. Commissioner Sandeu. Hi. Commissioner Reading. I. Commissioner Wiler. Hi. Commissioner Renoa. Hi. Commissioner Robbins. I. And I will make the motion recommend approval to the city council to of draft ordinance 02. I think it's 0 to 20205. My bad. 02025-00008. An ordinance approving the zoning these properties as agricultural preservations AG zone. Second. Hey, can we have a roll call on this one, please? Yep. Commissioner Sandu, I. Commissioner Reading, I. Commissioner Wiler, I. Commissioner Ranow, Commissioner Robin, I. Thank you everybody. We'll move to the item 5B. Uh I will make a motion to open a public hearing of preliminary plot of rich code. I'll move that we open open the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. Who. Who seconded that? I'll second. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. So chair and commissioners again this is a public hearing for preliminary plat of Richland Court. Uh Stone Brook Engineering on behalf of Matt Legis South Oaks Realy Inc. property owner has made an application for the preliminary plat of Richland Court. Subject property is located uh north of County Highway 78 and east of Timeline Avenue, County Road 79. Applicant has proposed a plat that would consist of eight single family residential lots on 4.38 acres and two outlets that would be a storm pond and a wetland. This is a change from the previous plat which showed 10 lots with a smaller storm water pond and public easements. So the net acreage would be 2.23 acres with a density of 3.58 units per acre. So this is the proposed plat. So the total lot here is 4.38 acres. The total land area for the the new homes is 2.23 acres. Um the lot area that's left is 1.38 acres and then there's 67 acres of street rightway rightway at 0.09 acres. So the total rightway is 76. So that includes the sidewalk and the culde-sac and then the very complicated um county road improvements that they're required to do. So that's the 2.23 acres and that is the outlot area of 1.38 acres. The big change from this is they've gone from 10 lots to eight lots for larger homes. They also increased the working with engineering there was some issues on storm water overflow. That's why there's this notch now on this property. They made a larger storm water pond and increased the area for preservation of the wetlands. So significant time was spent in the design to access Townline Road, County Highway 79. Uh this access will be a right in right out with a bypass lane. Um here's the street plan and these are the county plans. So it's a pretty large section that they're going to have to rebuild u per the county specs. And here's what it'll look like in a much enlarged section. So there will be what we call a traffic island kind of pork chop here that will prohibit people from making a left turn out of here. So it's a right in right out situation only um along with the bypass lane that was required by um Scott County. So here's the grading plan again. This is now a larger basin. Um here's a new outflow arrangement on these lots. Um and here is the wetland that's being preserved and sanitary sewer line uh which goes out the back here and the new water man. So this be eventually a looped water man through this area. The storm water management plan and then landscape plan. One of the things um staff's going to recommend to the developer that some of these trees up here be moved to the rear of these lots to provide a greater buffer to the existing single family homes that are back here. So there will be a requirement as part of the final plat that there be additional landscaping placed across the back. So the property's been zone R1B since 2006 and received final plat approval for a six lot subdivision. staff has determined that the approval occurred prior to the 2030 and 2040 comprehensive plans. This plat is compliant with the R1B zoning, the 2040 comprehensive plan, and the design performance standards, which require a density of 3 to five units per acre. This plat is consistent with that density. So, staff's recommending the city council approve uh that you recommend the city council approve the resolution approving the preliminary plat. Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Kursky a couple questions? Mr. Kirstki, this is a re I mean this is a we've seen some of this before. Uh this is a revised plan. Am I right? Yes. Chair and commissioners. Yes. So this was a 10 lot subdivision I think originally. Um this is now a larger more expensive kind of home subdivision. um by the R1B zoning he could do I think we figured today probably 15 or 16 houses on here which would be really small tiny houses per our code but I think we've worked with the developer to do lots that are larger and um larger homes that'll be more um complimentary to the homes that are in the area and he had this passed almost 20 years ago so the zoning is well entitled. I mean, we can't take that zoning away. Um, and again, he's entitled to way more lots, but I think he understands some of the concerns. I think he understood the engineering concerns that we had. So, he made the outlot uh larger to ensure that there was no issues with the wetlands or the storm water pond. Thank you, Mr. Chair. thing it is a public hearing and if would someone like to talk about on this agenda please write your name on the sheet and state your name as Good evening. I'm Brian Mont. Um, I live in Hillwood Hillwood Drive just to the east of the property that we're talking about here. Um, as I mentioned in our last meeting about a month ago. Um, you know, we're not I'm not against the the property owner there wanting to develop that. I fully understand that, but it it just needs to fit into the surrounding area. And even with eight homes, it doesn't fit. We talked about last meeting you talked about the the previous property to the east the Brgerermanman's that that property. Last meeting you made the comment that you didn't want to have that piece of property sitting there as an island because that area is is going to be developed. So you wanted to ma match that surrounding area to have more homes and stuff in there. Well, what we're doing here is creating an island in reverse. We've got houses here that are one house per 2 and a half acre all the way around surrounding to the east, to the to the west, to the south, to the um to the west, but the east is a little bit more uh higher density, but three on three sides of that property, it's it's much bigger lots. one house per two and a half acres and you want to put eight houses on four acres, it doesn't fit. So, we talk about not wanting to create islands, you're creating an island in reverse. So, we just want to make sure that's stated and make and and I don't under I don't know for sure when um it went to R1B because I've got documentation here for back in 2004 when it was proposed to go to R1B and it was denied. And then I've uh got another proposal that came through later and we as the Hillwood Estates um development wrote a letter kind of objecting to the reszoning proposal from the rural residential to the R1B. So at that point it wasn't R1B yet. But now I guess about a year later we got a notice in the mail for the Crystal Estates approval which with RNB and six lots. So it kind of surprised us that this happened 20 years ago to be honest. So, we understand it's been R1B, but I'm not sure what transpired between 2004 and 2006 where it went to RMBB and we weren't aware of it. Maybe I missed it. Maybe we missed it, but it wasn't well communicated. None of us were here in 2006. So, I think Well, I've got documentation right here from ordinance 745 um passed the 7th of February, 2006 and reszone that property. correct to R1B and we were um in a meeting we wrote a letter December 20th 2005 from Hillwood Estates the the 10 houses that development objection objecting to that proposal and we never heard anything back and now it's R1B. It's been R1B since January the date I just gave you 200 2006. Yes, correct. And what I'm saying is we objected it to before that but we never heard heard word. So what happened that it was approved. You went to the plan I mean because I have all the minutes from those meetings. I went to the planning commission then I went to the city council and city council approved it and but we weren't notified is my point. You you don't you get notified the first time. The city council meetings, you don't get notified because the planning commission is where the public hearings occur. And the city zoning map in the zoning map was amended back then. And in the comp plan, both the 2030 and 2040 comp plan, it shows it as being R1. Yeah. I I just it's just frustrating as the property owner. Well, I understand that we we objected, but we never heard anything back. And then we find out that it was approved and and then we find out it was approved for six lots, which I can understand. That's probably a little bit more than what we would consider fitting to the existing surrounding properties and development. So, we're I'm just expressing my concern of the eight. This has gone on for 20ome years and each time it comes back they ask for more and more lots and we keep saying it needs to fit into the surrounding property. So even the proposal for eight lots I think is doesn't fit well. It was approved back in 2006 for six lots. Why not keep it at six? So was it was approved the preliminary plat which was never executed was approved for six lots. It was zoned R1 which today he could build five units in acres. So there's 4.38 acres. Take out the road. So theoretically he could build probably 18 houses. Correct. It needs to fit into the throne area. We don't want to create an island of high density within a low density area. That's my point. The other concern was expressed was the drainage. How are you going to guarantee or how is how do you guarantee that that drainage now with the two holding ponds that will now feed into our development not impact our development and if it does who's responsible for fixing it? I think we did address that last time and I think they did made some adjustment in the plan. So mean definitely the developer is here. We can ask him those questions as well. But if the plan isn't done right, who's responsible for fixing it? So the the developer and the city. Okay. So all these holding ponds end up becoming public storm water ponds because it's all public water. So across the city when there's issues, the city's got to go in and fix it. whether it's your pond or the per your all the water eventually flows through all the ponds. We have to continually maintain all those ponds. Okay. So Mike for to kind of add to to him. So when when you guys are reviewing this this plot like the storm water gets reviewed by our storm water staff. So like they're reviewing what the developer is bringing in and so they're kind of like checking what the developers consultants develop cheer and commissioners. That's why not only the lots a little larger, but the outlots became larger because our staff had concerns to make sure that there were no issues with the storm water or the wetlands. So that's why that one lot one's got the kink in the back. They wanted to make sure that that homeowner didn't end up getting water if they had a basement in their basement. So they wanted to ensure the storm water flowed properly. And so none of us up here are like storm water experts, but I mean there is a city staff person that you can talk to, you know, about this, you know, about those concerns. And then yeah, I I guess I still don't know if what happens like who's responsible. There's there's often these drainage issues that happen later. But um I mean we have the city staff have a ton of resources available to them that um to check this stuff. So I don't know. Yeah. I I'm just expressing my concern about the current plan. I know it went from eight or 10 to eight. It's the right direction, but it's in in my opinion it's still high for that surrounding area. Especially when you have one house per two and a half acres and you're putting eight on four acres. It's just something six or something is more appropriate. I think originally it was rolling two to three, you know, 20 30 years ago. That's appropriate. So to be clear though, the storm water's been addressed, right? Your question was who's responsible if it's wrong and it doesn't work. And the answer, if I heard correctly, is the city and the developer. Yes, sir. Yes. I just want to make sure you've heard because I see a may still question. I want to make sure you're ready. It's still concerning, but at least you know I'm not responsible. You don't know until you know, but right at least you know that it's not you. Y Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to target on this agenda? Anyone else? Please write your name on the sheet and also state your name for smart Baldwin. I guess I don't have too much to add. It's just kind of disappointing. Never had a chance. I feel like the homeowners they're surrounding this development. Could you do us a favor and speak into the mic? Thank you. the property owners around this little development that they're disposing now. I feel like it's a little disappointing. They never been able to um I mean it went to R1 without being able to dispute it in any way. It just I don't feel like it should have been R they're trying to they can follow the criteria with R1 obviously. I mean that's a lot of homes but it doesn't fit the surrounding areas and never been able to dispute that R1 and it just kind of happened and I don't think anybody got to contest it realizing that this was was going to be I just feel like the the zoning is incorrect with with the surroundings homes it just it's going to it's a lot of homes still in that little space when everything else like he was saying earlier was large acre lots and people got these homes big homes and he wants to build these two-bedroom homes, two bath because they want to downsize their homes and we're kind of in an expensive neighborhood in my opinion, you know, with these bigger lots, you know, it's so I guess it's all I can say. I just put my two cents and it really doesn't fit. But it, you know, it's still a few home too many homes, but our hands are kind of tired. It's kind of up to you guys. Not much we can do. They can follow R1 and build what they want, but it doesn't doesn't look right in the neighborhood. It's kind of it's going to look kind of goofy. Doesn't really fit. Maybe I'll drive by and take a look at the place and kind of see the surroundings. I wish you could talk to Met Council and have them come by. Maybe they would have understanding, but push come to shove really comes down to the money. I mean, taxes, I feel like, and everything else. But that's what makes everything go around. But we understand he he's got to sell this property. He's got to he's got to put so many homes on it. so he can make a buck, so he can pay for this road. We all get it. So, just trying to find a happy medium. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Would anyone from the audience would like to speak on this agenda? Last call. Anyone would like to speak on this item. Mr. Chair, I'll move that we close the public hearing. I'll second it. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. Do you guys want to discuss it? So, I'll just give you since I had the joy of reading Michael Little a lot of history here. So, this passed the planning commission 3 to2 back in the day and it passed the city council four to one. So it was not 2006 six. Yep. Well, actually it started in 2005, but it finally passed in 2006. So it was not popular back then and everybody objected. But for whatever reason, city council agreed to do it. So if you all remember, we gone down this path before. We the city does not really have the power to pull somebody's zoning back once it's been vested for this long. I mean, it's not like this happened yesterday. And so I think that particularly if there were litigation he would say I could have built you know your honor whatever 18 homes or whatever the number is and I was at 10 and now I'm down to eight and I had six originally and this meets the minimum density required by the mech council who has to provide sewer this to this area. So we're doing everything we can to try and make it work. I think these will not be these will be pretty substantial homes. Mean I was going to ask what drives the minimum density is it the essentially the cost of the services from Met Council. I I I'm sorry. What drives the minimum density? Minimum density. So the Met Council sets up a minimum density for the city in general. So it's three dwelling units an acre in R1B is what the requirement is. So it's 3 to five. Um they can withhold sewer to the city if we don't meet the minimum densities. That's kind of their thing. And they have gotten in the eight years I've been here, it's gotten almost impossible to if you all you all approved the Arbor Bluff subdivision. So when you deducted out some of the rightway, it was 2.99 and so they would not give us a sewer permit. So we had to meet with the district representative and have a big meeting because we were like, "Come on, it's a whatever that is, a hundth of a percent." and they and they made the density up in the next phase. So, because the next phase was had slightly smaller homes, so it was only a moment in time, but they weren't willing to open the sewer permit even though because they said, "What if they never build the next phase?" And I went, "They're already grading in the next phase. It's not like they're going to stop." So, it's it's very difficult situation that we're put in. And so will you have to go through the same process for this development as far as going to the Met Council? So they they'll have to go to the Met Council to get their sewer access. Um, and they'll do the calculation and we'll have some arm wrestling because engineering made the outlets larger to meet the storm water concerns and also there was some concern from our consultant on the wetlands that he needed more protection and that whole area you can see is covered by drainage and utility easements. So nothing can be built there. So we're going to say to them you can't build on that. So you'd like a little bit higher density, you're not getting it. So right, Mr. chair. Yeah, I um I appreciate uh the people that came down here tonight. I really do. Um this been a long story. We're we're a a planning advisory committee. So, whatever we decide goes to the city council, you know that. And we're governed a lot by zoning. I mean, we that's kind of our bible. I would suggest to you, however, that since we were all here the last time this happened, um, and I appreciate that you may not think of that the difference is enough, but it's less than it was the last time. There are less houses now. They're big, but they're less. And as as Mr. Kerky has said, the R1 zoning allows more houses than that. We're building eight here. They're big, but we're building eight. Um, I'm inclined to support this. Um, because I think again things have I know you probably won't be happy with it, but things have worked the way they should. We had a a proposal, citizens came in from the area. Um, we didn't like that proposal, so the developer came back with a different one. Um, my understanding is that's kind of the way things are supposed to work when you're doing development. So, I'm inclined to support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a questions. I don't know if this is a solution or not, but I'm just thinking um if somehow we can build like say a tree line on the back of those properties. So, they don't need to look at those properties all day. Means I know it's going to take some time to grow those trees. Is that a possibility? So, chair and commissioners, I think staff's recommendation is when there's a house abudding in this area that they had a lot of trees planted along um the state highway that some of those credits be put to the rear of the homes. Well, I noticed that you mentioned that they're going to put some on the back. I'm just asking like can they increase the density so it's like kind of like covering the area. So, we have rules about how you because eventually someone has to cut down the trees that don't grow properly. So, which we're faced with in several areas in the cities. So that's why I asked the question. Just want to make sure. Um there's there'll be a mixture of um deciduous and evergreens that'll get planted here. Okay. Um I I guess I'll speak on just some things that were identified. So, I know that the reasonzoning happened in 2006 and so we don't have what those notice is that went out to the um the neighboring properties, but just, you know, hearing from the folks during annexation and um and this it's like, you know, can we improve our process so people really know what the whole steps could be instead of just the one window. So, I know you have like minimum statutes. You have to, you know, provide that notice, but can we let them know in those notices what the whole process could potentially be like, letting them know like there's a public hearing and if it gets approved, you know, then it goes to city council so they're not left thinking that there's, you know, something else. So, some of the process is different today. So, yes. No. Right. I'm just But today we, you know, before I came, they didn't even put signs up. We put up signs on the property now. We used to notify I think 200 back in when this was done I think it was 250 ft depending on the area we go 500 to a,000. Okay. So we have improved our process from 2006 and then and then the other thing related to um you know the these homeowners came with some historic documents um but like right now the city they used to have access to the archives for planning meetings and now that's not online anymore. So, like if I wanted to go look up that history, those stack of documents you have there, the only thing I have access to is the city council minutes and agendas, but I don't have access to planning commission anymore. And so, what what happened there? So, chair and commissioners, I have no idea. We're as frustrated main. Um, one of our staff actually had to go, I think, to the county records to get these through. We have one person on our entire staff has access to the county kind of back door. Yeah. We just hired a new clerk who started Monday. So, there'll be a new process, I'm sure, because he's just getting into this, but we can't control what the clerk does. He seems to be a little bit more modern and up to date. And like the software that we all changed to that you're using, literally, we were told it was changing under the old clerk and it just happened. And we have struggled trying to use it like everybody else. Like, you didn't get copied on it. sort of like I don't know how these things happen. So, so I do want to acknowledge the developer and I recognize that they didn't have to make any of these concessions on changing the the lots. So, um I I I know it's not an ideal situation how it zoned, but I fully acknowledge that the developer did not have to reduce the the number of um lots in there. And so, they also addressed the strong water issue as well because that was the concern by some of the residents as well. So yeah, Dapper is willing to work around it too. So we do appreciate that. Um but it's kind of like a tough situation here. So I mean he's not doing anything which is not um up to code. So we can't really stop him. That's what our job is here to make sure everything is up to code. And he's following the city guidelines and all that stuff. And he's following those. and he was willing to work with some of the concerns and he brought up the density down and he's also like working with the storm water which was the concern. So yeah, there is I think this is a win-win situations. I know it's not the ideal situations for both of the parties but I think we can work around it. All right. Anyone else want to have a discussion or we're good to go for the vote? Mr. Chairman. Um, I'll make a a a motion to recommend to the city council adoption of resolution R2025-00003, a resolution approving the preliminary plat of Richland Court. A second. Can we have a roll call, please? Y. Commissioner Sandu, I. Commissioner Reading, I. Commissioner Wiler, I. Commissioner Ranowell I. Commissioner Robbins I. The motion approved. We'll move to the item six. Is there's any other business? All right. Move to the item seven or during the meeting. Can someone make a motion to I'll make a motion we adjourn. Okay. I'll second. All right. All those favor say I. We're adjourning to we can amend that motion the next meeting. Okay. The next I make a motion we adjourn to the next meal. Hold on. Let me see. It's May something, isn't it? So I tell you when it is. Maybe at time we're getting resolved. It is May 8th. 8th. I make a motion we adjourn to May 8th at 700 p.m. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. All right. We are ajourned. Thank you.