All right, [snorts] there it is. [clears throat] At 6:30 on July 28th, calling to order the July 28th, 2025 meeting of the Lake EML Planning Commission. And our first order of business will be to rise and say the pledge of allegiance. [clears throat] I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] >> Thank you. Uh the next item, I guess, is to approve the agenda. Before we do that, I would like to make a motion to change the agenda for an introduction to our newest planning commissioner. >> Second that. >> Second. Sorry. >> All in favor? >> I. >> The eyes [clears throat] have it. So, our newest planning commissioner, please introduce yourself, Danielle. >> My name is Danielle Sorrow and I live here in Lake Elmo in the Inwood development. My husband and I have been here for about seven years and we absolutely love it. >> Yay. >> Awesome. Welcome. >> Welcome. >> Thanks. >> And with that, uh, motion to approve the agenda. >> I move to approve the agenda of July 28th, 2025. >> I'll second it. >> All in favor? >> I. >> The agenda is approved. Next item on the approved agenda is to approve the meeting minutes for May 27th, 2025, which feels like a long time ago. [clears throat] >> What was the date of them? Sorry. May what? >> May 27th. >> Well, then I will move to approve the minutes of the May 27th, 2025 meeting. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> the meeting minutes from the 27th have been approved. All right. Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for High Point Crossing. All right. Uh good evening chair, members of the commission. Hope everyone's having a good summer so far. So uh this item is called the Highpoint Crossing and OP LDR comprehensive plan amendment. I do want to provide an overview and we'll provide some more background for [clears throat] for why we're here. So, if you'll recall, uh, last September of 2024, the city did approve a preliminary and plat and open space planned unit development for the High Point crossing project. So, uh, summary of that project is on the screen. We're the the site is I think you all are familiar in the city. on Inwood and um the property itself is just over 78 acres. Uh there are six wetlands on the property, one existing homestead. Uh there's uh approved on the preliminary plat and opud. We had 65 residential units with um over 50% of the property being preserved as open space. The the development would have city water. It was proposed with the community septic system and it would make a required roadway connection from Inwood to Imperial Avenue. Um, in the time since the September 2024 approval, the developer has done additional due diligence on the site and had additional soil uh testing done and the developer can speak to all of the due diligence that they have gone through. Um but at the end of the day they found that the community septic system which they were initially proposing for the open space PUD um wasn't going to meet the state standards. And so instead of trying to push forward something that wasn't going to work, uh they kind of explored their options. We brought the options to a recent city council workshop and talked about what uh the alternatives were for this project to move forward. Um the alternatives would be either individual septic systems which have a lower threshold for um operation. There's less standards statewide that individual systems have to meet or uh the city could explore serving this parcel with public sewer and effectively allowing for the uh development that was initially approved but just with public sewer. So after a discussion uh council provided guidance to explore the creation or explore basically providing sewer to this development and the creation of a future land use category um was discussed and this is something that we we'll talk more about throughout this presentation. Um just to refresh your memory, this is the High Point [clears throat] crossing development. So again, 65 units uh including that homestead unit which would be preserved. There was open space which is shown in green uh that included storm water ponds, preserved wetlands and trails. So what's proposed this evening? It's kind of described in the report, but uh effectively we're looking at a comprehensive plan amendment that would create a new future land use category, reguide the High Point crossing property with that category, and then also u change the city's Musa boundary. Musa is the um metropolitan urban service area. That basically means Musa is just that there's sewer in that area. So when we say Musa, that's that's what we're referring to. So uh to talk a little bit about this new future land use category. Um staff have put you know a fair amount of thought into this initially before it went to the city council and the developer has worked with staff to understand um how a future land use east category could be created that would not only just serve this project but also serve as a tool elsewhere in the community in the future um where it's found to be acceptable or um maybe a good a good tool to explore. So in this new category called the open space lowdensity residential district, we'd be looking at a density range of between two to three units per acre. And we would also be looking at a requirement for any new project to dedicate at least half of the land area or provide at least half of the land area to the city as open space. So that would be a city-owned area um where it could serve as a trail corridor, parkway, greenway corridor, or generally just open space. So that's a little bit about the category. Uh the Musa amendment is just at this point to extend this the sewer or the MUSA to just be around this parcel in order to provide uh that public sewer option that is needed to move forward. The future land use category would only be located within the city's MUSA. So if um the Musa district is not covering a certain property, you wouldn't be able to have that future land use category there unless you also extended the Musa boundaries to include that whatever parcel it is that we're looking at. In this case, we're just looking at High Point Crossing. That's the only thing that we're looking at right now. So uh yeah, as I mentioned, the use of this new district would be really, I think, considered to be very strategic. Uh we'll be looking at where can we where can we um throughout the comprehensive planning process as you know we have a 2050 process like already starting in the next couple of years as we get into that new comp plan update um the idea would be to say you know this maybe is a helpful tool for us and we can talk about in what applications it might be useful. I would also just as a um bit of information share that we have met with the metropolitan council staff to uh discuss this amendment and um they've had an opportunity to um ask us questions and we've done the same and we feel comfortable at this point with how this would conform to the regional requirements that Lake Elmo has to meet as part of the metropolitan council area. So, um, a little bit more about the future land use category. I kind of just went over it, but, uh, to get into the purpose, uh, the idea here is to enable, uh, a new type of rural development that isn't currently allowed by any of the future land use categories within the city's sewer areas. So, in this new category, uh, we would create publicly accessible open space. That's a keyword. It has to be publicly accessible. Um that open space could be used for a variety of different things. It could be as conservation areas just kept restored and as open space for you know natural purposes or it could be used as greenway or trail corridor whatever is really um part of the city's comprehensive plan for for a particular area. Um, this is important also because it allows for us to work around issues that the community has had with community septic. In some ways, it allows the city to be proactive uh and use this category where this type of development is seen as acceptable. Uh, some of the main features of this category include the fact that as I mentioned it would be uh within the Musa area. The density range is two to three units. housing would be primarily single family homes [clears throat] and as I mentioned we would have at least 50% open space um and that open [clears throat] space one thing that we're discussing right now is having that to be um owned by the city but maintained by a developer long term so the city doesn't incur those maintenance costs for open open areas. So, as part of that conversation with the Met Council, we looked at the implications of this new category. You're not expected to look at the, you know, all the numbers on the screen here, but these are just to say, uh, we've done some homework on the impacts on density that this would create with the High Point crossing project. The city would be going from about 3.15 units per acre to 3.11, which is actually down citywide in density. Um the city's current requirement is three units per acre citywide. So we're still meeting our Met Council regional policy goals. Um but we are getting down closer to that 3.0 number at 3.11. Um on the top side of the screen, I just have an analysis. Um if we use the current low density residential category, uh this development would not be compliant because in that category, we cannot net out the open space. So we would be looking at 086 units per acre. Whereas with this new category, we're looking at uh currently as proposed 1.86, which almost meets that two to three range that I just told you about. So getting I'm getting a a question. Look, so >> I may have missed it, Nathan. The two to three range is driven by. >> So this is what um a after looking at this idea staff are proposing a density range in this category of between two to three units per net acre. [clears throat] >> And that's based on Met Council's guidance. >> It's it's based on >> partly um so the city's obligation is to go three units 3.0 units per acre citywide in the sewer areas >> within the MU within Musa >> within the Musa. And so if we create a new category that allows development to be uh be below three units per acre, >> it needs all the Musa area needs to average. >> We have to average out above three units. >> And I just think that's important that you clarify. It's not citywide. It's just within the muses within the city. >> Correct. >> Musa equals met council requirements. Outside of the Musa were not tied. >> Correct. And so yes, that's that's correct. And and one of the things that we have to be cognizant of is is not going below that 3.0. And so that's part of the reason staff are proposing we set that density range between two and three because if we set it lower than two, >> which some might might, you know, want as lower density, >> it would uh have a more I guess downwards impact on the overall density. So trying to balance >> things a little bit. >> Ask a question later. So with no other questions, I'll keep moving and then you can get to your questions um after the presentation. So a little bit about the Musa amendment. High Point Crossing. Uh this proposed comprehensive plan amendment would add the subject property to the Musa area. That's the sewer area. Um we've already talked about the density impacts of that. The sewer connection for this property uh would actually have to come from the south. So in the southwest corner of the city there is a Met Council regional line that would be connected to and so the alignment of the sewer that would serve the High Point crossing property would be along inwood corridor. Um having said that there is an ongoing engineering analysis to identify okay we know it's going to generally go down south along the Inwood corridor but what's the precise alignment precisely where does it connect in? Some of those questions are still being reviewed by engineering. So, we don't know them [clears throat] those particulars right now, but we do expect them before this item is goes to the city council. Um, generally speaking, as I mentioned and as we clarified here, the this new category called OPLDDR would be located within the Musa. So again, we're we're having to kind of do that math game or balancing act of of meeting the city's um minimum requirements of the Met Council. Uh and and to that effect, uh we we really as as a community have to be very careful and and I think um comprehensively consider um where this category would be employed. So that is something that staff are are definitely um thinking about at this point. So uh a little bit about the application of this future land use category. So as I mentioned and as we clarified again the OPLDDR would generally have a effect of decreasing density citywide. Um so we have to be considerate and so application of this new category would be based on areas of transition primarily where we're seeing um development pressures but also we have to look at areas that are approximate to urban service. So it could be employed as a kind of a strategic tool to transition gradually um from larger lot rural development to the more urban sewer development that is already present in the community. It's important to know that you know development in in historically in lake has paid its way in terms of connecting city sewer to their you know particular development or other utilities. So there's a cost factor for developers and I think functionally it would preclude a lot of land that it doesn't make sense from a cost standpoint to to request [clears throat] to extend sewer to. We also have to be aware that the city does have sewer capacity restrictions. And so part of that engineering analysis that's going on right now will be to make sure that there is actually capacity in the city to handle the the waste water from this particular proposed development. 65 units added to [clears throat] the system. Um and so that that's part of that review. As I mentioned, the uh city does go through the imagine 2050 process in the next year or two. So um as part of that process, there will also be a comprehensive sewer study done at that time that will really help inform, okay, we know a little bit more about this corner of the city, but what's our utility capacity citywide? That's something that will be uh studied at that time. [clears throat] One last point from me on uh some of the impacts here. Um, looking at the next development cycle, the Met Council's policy is that cities meet a density citywide of 3.5 units per acre across the city. So, in other words, the requirement is that density in sewer areas is required to go up. That's in the next cycle that begins in 2030. But that is something that we do have to plan for. So, okay. So, next steps. Uh the next steps for this project would generally look like what's on the screen. Um generally it's presented in a chronological format but not necessarily strictly. So uh first the city engineering team will complete the sewer analysis to understand again the alignment capacity those types of questions. Uh at that point the city council would be reviewing this item with that study in mind to help make a determination on to whether to approve the comp plan amendments. Uh the Met Council would then uh after the city if if the city approves the requested amendments, then the Met Council gets their review, provided they uh review and approve the amendment. Uh the city would then be looking at um probably a revised version of the High Point crossing project that would instead of having a community sewer. Uh we would be seeing that preliminary plaque come back which is what again when we do that really detailed analysis um we would be looking at at the development with a sewer connection again if that Musa amendment were approved. So that's generally the next steps. There are also there is also a requirement to do zoning as well as compound amendments. So, we would have uh some zoning ordinance amendments to basically ensure that there's consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. So, uh what are the options the commission has this evening? They're generally summarized in the report on the screen. Um this planning commission can recommend approval or denial or table the request. Although, um staff are recommending as we'll talk about an approval of this particular request. So um to that end we I do have findings on the slide here. They were also in the report. Um generally speaking the idea here with these findings is that the project can um you know appears that there's capacity in the sewer system that's being reviewed. But um there this amendment is is seen as kind of a tool that can help realize some of those goals that are already in the comprehensive plan. uh some of those things about making sure that you know lower density development is possible thinking [clears throat] about things like open space and greenway corridors. So the recommendation from staff is on the screen here. We can certainly come back to this. Um that's all I have formally prepared for you, but I imagine that you have some questions for me. Um I would remind you that we also have a public hearing, so there may be folks that have comments. And then lastly, um, the developer is here to talk a little bit more about their, you know, their decision- making and and kind of how they've come to this point as well. So, I'll pause and, uh, see if you have any questions for me. I', I've got just one here. So, if I understand it right, the more um, of the OPLD parcels of land that we would do, it would actually since it' be lower than the 3 point soon to be five. >> Yeah. It would it would then put pressure to increase other areas to make that average come out. Right. I don't know how many of these we would expect, but we would probably see that pendulum swing the other way too in those other areas. >> Yes, that that is generally correct. Um it's, you know, the conformance with Met Council policy is a little bit of a math game um in some respects. So it's how how does it you know communities can make decisions about how they want to meet that policy though and so some communities that um kind of value some of the lower density rural character development will prioritize some lower densities in certain areas and then >> yeah little bit higher densities um certainly not super high density I mean >> but I get it >> 15 units per acre in Minneapolis is not high density but in in >> excuse me in Lake Elmo you know is considered the high density district. So, yeah, to your question, yes, [clears throat] >> I've got a quick question. Um, whenever this new was area was developed, did this come from the developer? Because you're saying it's primarily for single family homes and yet whenever I look at the schematic, it's pretty much all town houses. >> That's a great question, Commissioner. So, um, yes, the developer was was analyzing their their options as far as meeting the the goals or requirements of this new category, and they put forward two different concept plans, I'll call them, in their narrative and in their submitt. One had single family homes, still in the kind of the same format that you saw with the first version of High Point Crossing in their preliminary plat previously, and they also had one that had twin homes. And so, um, after some review and discussion, the twin home concept plan is not supported by staff. It doesn't really, um, meet the the what's written at this point for the OPLDDR is proposed. >> And if I number two, this is 2025 and we're working at with a 2040 comprehensive plan at this point in time, right? >> Correct. >> That's correct. And I looked back at what was approved on um November 5th, 2019 and it shows this as rural residential. So I was just wondering, you know, what what happened? I mean, can you just kind of change things? I'm looking at the map and it shows emerging suburban edge and everything else in the city's green as root rural residential. >> So it it's uh the thrive MSP 2040 designations from the lake Elmo comprehensive plan 20 240. So I think your question is based on community designation which is a part of how the Met Council classifies communities. The Met Council classifies communities in with and generally in this in in the in the period leading up to the 2040 plan. The Met Council classified communities based on their location in the metro, but also based on whether areas were guided for sewer or not. And so in areas of Lake Elmo that were guided for um that weren't weren't currently guided for sewer, it was called rural residential. And in the areas of Lake Elmo that were sewer, it was called emerging suburban edge. and everything primarily was below 10th Street plus a little bit in the old village that there was that's my that's what I recall and I'm sorry I wasn't here last year when this was first develop discussed but I'm just trying to comprehend why we would want to shoot something up in wood whenever they're just redoing the road there and so on right now but it just something doesn't seem quite right to >> [clears throat] >> I don't that's all for now. >> Any other questions right now for Nathan? >> Yeah, I have a question. Um, you wrote here that if this was approved, the new future land use category may be used elsewhere in the city where um found appropriate. Where would those locations [clears throat] be? >> That's something that, you know, I mentioned the city is not yet gone through that. It's called imagine 2050. It's the next round of comp planning. I think that's part of the discussion at that time is where's a appropriate place for this category. It certainly seems like there could be some opportunities uh in the community probably. It's hard to say because, you know, I'm not going I wouldn't be making the decision on behalf of the city about where it would be appropriate, but we think, you know, there are certain areas south of Stillwater Boulevard that seem like it could be an appropriate future land use category where there's where there's sewer that's approximate. >> Anyone else? >> I I've got one more question on I believe I brought this up to you whenever I called and talked to you the other day. I really miss the maps that we used to have in our city council chambers because right on the map on the wall it showed soils of Washington County and you knew the soil types by looking up but there you didn't have to have this oh we thought this however we did some more borings and it wasn't any good. So, I was wondering if perhaps there just wasn't the due diligence done ahead of time that should have been done. That kind of puts us in this situation which I find very uncomfortable and not very very nice for our city. So, the maps I mean why why wasn't this caught in the beginning? >> I guess I'll share if there's a question in there. I think the question is, you know, what due diligence was done in terms of soils? Um, [clears throat] you know, part of that that question I would have to have the developer answer and certainly the developer is here and has a presentation that they'd like to provide to give more information. >> We'll listen to the developer. >> Listen to the developer. >> We'll listen to we'll hear from the developer and then we'll open the public hearing. >> All right. I'm going to pull that presentation up if there's no other questions for me. >> Not right now. Nathan, thank you. [laughter] >> [clears throat] >> Good evening, chairman, planning commissioners. I know none of us want to see me back here. I get that. Uh and uh you know, I didn't want to be back here either, and I will address some of these questions during my presentation. I think that um you know, they're good questions and uh I think maybe when I as I go through it um I can help answer some of them. So if you I'm going to just go through the timeline a little bit. So about over a year ago, a year and a half ago, we started on this project and looked at uh all over the city and I I regret actually not having a number of slides I took out because I was trying to make this presentation short, but now listening to your conversation, I wish I had them. But uh to kind of go through if you go if you remember this is an RSF property and it's only one of two in the city that's guided like that that have any kind of acres left. you know, two that are over 20 that could actually qualify for an OPUD. And so I had a land seller that actually really liked the idea of doing a conservation subdivision on their property. And so that was really right off the bat we started talking to the city about doing an OPUD. One hadn't been done for almost 18 19 years. Nobody did it. And so I tried to figure out how we could get one and I spent quite a bit of time going back and forth with the city to try to come up with a plan to to make a successful OPUD. And that's and and so it started with this sketch plan uh a while back and then um [clears throat] once we had our first plan, we held a neighborhood meeting. Um and you know there's a bunch there was quite a bit of public opinion about it and I mean even tonight you don't see that many people but there were 30 or 40 people at those first meetings. Um the planning then we had a planning commission here you know the public hearing a year ago on our preliminary plat. Um the city council then eventually approved it in September and then we spent the next we started to work on our um septic system design in October. But and you know that's where I'm going to tell you a little bit of the story about the testing because I mean it isn't that we didn't do any testing. So we have probably 40 to 50 infiltration tests all across the site to determine where was the best locations. Uh we did double ring infiltrometers. We also did uh these soil uh tests where you actually dig through and you create a trench and you go and you identify the soils through all the stratosphere. That was all standard testing that had been that's normal for all of the community septic systems ever done in this city to date. But you know that there are a number of failing ones in your city as well. And the person that I'm that I hired to help me is actually repairing some and building some in the city right now and has quite a bit of experience with this. But because of what's happening out there with community septic systems, the state is starting to modify and change the way they review these systems and it's it's just happening real time. I didn't go out and spend several hundred,000 just to throw away because I thought I could on a wing and a prayer get a septic system. I thought I had a solid uh ev, you know, solid evidence to show that I uh had an area that could work. It was only once we got into the um the final parts of our of the design when we our my septic installer met with the state and the state said, you know, we're starting to require some of these additional tests. We'd like you to do a couple more things. Could you go out and do a few more infiltration tests? So, we did that. Then they asked us and they said, you know, we're starting to require now what we call a mounding study. And it's still kind of a new concept. It's been out there, but people do these mounding studies. And to do the mounting study, we had to get a better read on our hydraulic connectivity. So we had St. Anthony Falls Laboratory from the University of Minnesota do our initial um infiltration testing. Uh but then we ended up hiring Braraw to do this hydraulic connectivity testing, which is a special you take a core sample and you let the it's it's a little more um accurate than an infiltration test. It actually they takes several weeks and they take a sample and they let the wa water pass through it and then get an a gauge on what the what what that is. And so so we completed this mounting study. I got the results right after Christmas. So like New Year's E time and and it showed that in a couple years the system would fail that there was too much water for the system to handle even if we doubled the size of it and made it even huge bigger. It was just really the characteristics of the soil in this particular location. It wasn't something you could see on a soil map. Uh I've been doing this for a long time, 25 years. I was city administrator for 10 years before that. I' seen a lot of this stuff. And we we did all all we could to try to figure it out and it just happened to be that, you know, we couldn't get it to work. And you know that's that was a shocker to get you know in the first part of the year after spending the time and getting everybody on board with this particular project which we were really excited to do. So um we spent a couple months researching you know what could we do um what are what are what other steps could we take? I I I actually spent I and I'm just taking the time only because I can see the questions about it, but I spent I called soil scientists and septic people all over the country and to try to come up with a system that might be able to work because what we proposed was a package plant, which was actually like a municipal treatment plant. It was a much more sophisticated type of uh treatment system than what's out there in community systems today. Still didn't make a difference. And so um without you know trying to spend some time with my wife and children I decided to stop that and we you know worked on with staff on the on a couple of the options which we discussed with the um council last month. One was providing a san city sanitary sewer to the plat that was approved pretty much uh or looking at a rural development. So we proposed both those options. So, a large lot rural development or uh one that was attached to the sewer. And so, the guidance we got from the council was they like the idea of, you know, coming up with a a new uh category in the land use to uh to provide sewer for this property. And they I think understood to some degree that it is does feel like it's isolated, but again, this piece was an RSF piece. Um RSF guiding allowed up to two units per acre. You know, we're coming in now. or being asked to get up to two units per acre. So, even under the current guiding, it could have gotten to two units per acre because that's what's in your comp plan today. So, uh uh Nathan went through this uh but basically this is the 65 lot plan. There were 70 foot wide single family lots, 10-ft sideyard setbacks. The minimum lot size was 11,200. There was over 50 acres or 50% open space. There's also a this was because there's a lot of rules in the OP and one of them is a 200 foot buffer from all the adjacent properties. This has a 200 foot buffer from all the adjacent properties and then and so under that scenario it's at 1.8 units per acre because you can net out all of the open space. So then um the that led into the next step of just trying to create another zoning or another guide guiding and uh plan. And so here's the legend of your comprehensive plan and you see all the different categories and there's some that are very small and there's some that you know encompass large areas of the city. We would just add a new one that kind of yellow one OPLDR or something like that. we would guide the property that we're working on, OPLVR. And then, [clears throat] as Nathan mentioned, this is basically it's a it's a it's a land use that has similar uh you know, same or similar principles to the OPUD, but with but with city sewer and that fits within that two to three units per acre. I initially suggested one and a half to two and a half units per acre. Um, you know, there's many cities that just have their regular lowdensity residential starting at one or one and a half. I could I provided in my narrative I think a bunch of examples but I think we're okay getting to two units per acre and I'm going to talk about that a little bit more in a second. Um one was just like how do we get sanitary sewer and again you're right I mean they just fixed up inwood. It would have been a lot nicer to built it this year. No doubt right? You know I get that but um we're talking about putting in we would put in a lip station and then there would be a force man. Right now, our initial indication was that somewhere down in the Inwood development, there'd be a potential for connection. So, there'd be a force mane that would be installed down inwood and into one of the developments in that in that area. Um, as Nathan mentioned, you're completing a sewer study to determine, you know, the right the best connection point there. Um, but that would be a that's a force man. And a force man is generally smaller, four to six inches in size. And they're generally I've done two of these in the recent history and they're both were directionally drilled. So to unless you need an air release manhole or just a couple maintenance manholes, that's the time when there'll be some disruption. But for the most part, it'll be drilled underground. So, it's not going to be something where they're digging up, you know, inwood that just got got fixed and um to install the pipe. So, options to get to 2 point two units per acre. So, the first was just we could just we we had I'm going to say 40 to 50 foot backyards. If we took those backyards down to 30 feet, you know, so we just kind of shave off some of the backyards of all of the all of the homes and take some, you know, we're still looking at where we can do it. So, there's maybe some other options in here, but for the most part, if we reduce the lot size, and we did enough work to just understand that we could do that. Um, you can just shrink the size of the lots, we can get up to that two units per acre. But if we do that, we still have the same house on the same lot. And if we shrunk the lot, we're going to need a little bit more impervious, at least in the calculations. So, we need 55% impervious instead of 50. But it doesn't change the actual impervious on the site, right? It's the same amount of impervious on the site. It's just that we shrunk a lot. So, the percentage goes higher. But overall, you're in the same spot you were before that was in the approved PUB. Um the the other option that I had just thrown out there, and it it we we'd have been going back and forth over several months. So, there was some some initial discussions about well, could you do smaller lots for a portion or twin homes to see if you could get the density? And so we did shrink the amount of development area. So so we reduced um so we eliminated three lots but we added seven and we could do it to five which is five or seven. We could get to up to the two units per acre leaving all the lot sizes the same. We still would need some help on impervious and you'd have to come up with new standards for twin homes. As you heard Nathan say, you know, staff's been thinking about it. They're no longer really supportive of that. I I said it was kind of our preferred option, but that was because I thought that's where things were headed. We really were it was a tossup for us. We like either option and if the if people want to go with the single family, we're fine with that. That's good for us. Um so, so here under the OPLDR, I know this is kind of looking ahead, but so to shrink those lots up, we'd need at least a lot size down in that 9,000 square foot range. The lot width would stay the same at 70 impervious. I talked about [clears throat] the setbacks could all stay the same. I think we would ask to maybe go seven and a half on a sideyard just to give a little bit more flexibility on the front facade of the house. And with that, we can get to the two units per acre um for this for this particular plan in this particular guiding of the comprehensive plan. And again, we have with that we ended up increasing the open space. So now we're at 50 acres of open space almost 64% of the site. So, some other considerations. So, all that red area that you saw up there, that was the community septic system. It was huge. Um, that's gone. That was one of the biggest complaints we had from the neighbors was just they didn't like it that close to their properties. One of the things that that does actually is it frees up. So, all the burming was actually behind the homes. We can move that burning burming now closer and actually move some of that landscaping up and actually provide probably a better buffer to the north than there was previously. um the o all the open space and trails we we had it as private and we were going to have it it was all going to be a private HOA at this point now it all goes public the HOA is still maintaining it as far as the open space but now the trails are actually open to all the neighbors to use and that's the just in red the trail system the this I've mentioned this already because just seemed opportun earlier point but this is just the point about the current guiding at RSF versus this proposed guiding you, we could end up in both of those categories and come at the same units per acre. And so some of the benefits um you know, same plan as approved. So you've approved this plan already. So really nothing's changing besides what's going on underground. Um we're saving 60% of the open space, public trails and open space. Kind of the best of both worlds. You're getting allowing some development but really protecting a significant area in open space permanently. So you got 50 acres permanently into the public realm. Um and it and it's it's kind of this mix of open space with some development and this rural character still all mixed in together. Um and also eliminates the concern about future failing septic systems which did come up quite a bit during our discussions earlier on. So that's the end. Appreciate you giving me the time. Went a little longer than I was expecting but was good. If you have any questions, I could take them now or I'm happy to do it after the public hearing or whenever you have them. [clears throat] >> So, what if you don't get sewer? What's your other option? >> I think we'll have to see cross that bridge when we come to it. So, I mean, at this point, if we don't get sewer on the property, we might um I think we'd have to come back with a a plan that uh is meets something in your guy in your zoning districts, >> right? >> I mean, at this point, we've put so much effort into it, I don't know. We'll have to see. >> Sure. On [clears throat] one of the items, it said primarily single family homes, not the twin homes. Somewhere in there, the word primarily was there, but it is this >> this particular plan is all single family. >> All single family. >> Yep. Yep. >> Villas. >> I I think every property obviously is going to have different characteristics and different, you know, like we have a a pretty steep slope through the middle, right? We have some different wetlands and different po points. So, anybody taking the challenge on to get 50% of the open space and still get up to two units per acre is going to have to look at each property a little bit differently. And so, I think we made it work, but it might have been that we might have needed a little bit more density to get to two units per acre. So, maybe some of the lots would have had to been 50 or maybe you threw in 10 twin homes, you know, like you may have to find some flexibility [clears throat] on different properties. We're showing right now we can make it work with 70 foot wide lots. And who's the um who's going to be the builder and what's the price point of the single family homes? They're not villas then. You're building single family. >> I mean it's >> single family homes. I think there's a lot of things >> people are going to call them villas. Okay. But these are, you know, >> 2500 to 4,000 square foot single family homes that are main level living villas. villas >> and and and [clears throat] 30 years ago when I I tried to do a comp plan in Madina and I put villas on the comp plan thing and I came to a public hearing and people were yelling at me because they didn't want to live in Mexico. So I mean like [laughter] villas has taken on a lot of definitions and terms. In this case we're really talking about main level living homes. >> The it's Charles Cud Company would be the builder. We may team up with some other builders just only to kind of because there's a lot of units here and to in this particular part of town, but it would be uh I mean we've spoken to very high-end same category builders that you know might so we could team up with one or two other builders like a Wooddale or a you know type that kind of a type home builder you know and the price. So >> I'm gonna you know um they probably are going to start in the 11 one3 range, something like that. It's going to be a really beautiful neighborhood when it's done. >> It looks beautiful. >> I see you did a lot of work. >> We're going to have a nice entrance amenities, you know, do a lot of landscaping. It's going to, I think, be a very nice feel. I think I think in I think over time when this as it matures, people will go, "Yeah, yeah, I want more of those." you know, but >> have you ever done or are you aware of any developments here in the metro that have 7 and a half foot sideyards? >> Oh, I mean I'm doing multiple developments with five >> single family homes. >> Mhm. Yeah. I have one in Cottage Grove, 377 units on the Mississippi Landing golf course or Mississippi Dunes golf course. >> Okay. That just it just seems extremely tight to me. But >> seven and a half is about right. 15 ft between homes. Don't put windows >> and Yeah. >> Don't try to carry 2x4s back there, [clears throat] >> right? And stuff. >> It looks like >> I mean it was it was when I did a pro I did a project called Eastbrook and Cottage Grove maybe eight nine years ago and it was the first time they had gone down to like 50 foot wide lots or 55 and it was you know communism was coming. >> I understand your challenges. [laughter] I understand your challenges with the open space. It's what you have to do to make it work. It's just it seems real tight to me. >> Yep. I I understand. It just provides a little more flexibility. It doesn't necessarily mean that it gets all used up. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Yeah. One more. Um, just looking at your drawing here, and I do see the twin homes are on this drawing, but >> there's an A and B drawing. >> Okay. Um, are all of the homes going to pretty much be at the same like you have the setback, but will they all be right up to that setback from the street or are you going to stagger them a little bit with those tight side yards? They're I mean they're going to be similar to each other, but there will be some staggering if you look I mean there's quite a bit of unique kind of lot sizes as you come around the curves and look in different spots. So there's going to be some staggering, but generally the line you see there that this is the grading plan there, that's the break of the lookout walkout. That that kind of dark three lines in the grading plan, that's kind of where the middle of the house lands. So, you'll be able to get walk out lots on all of these, it looks like. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> That's nice. >> Anyone else? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. [clears throat] >> All right. Uh, next would be to open the bul hearing and we need a motion to do so. >> I move to open the public hearing. >> Second that. All in favor? >> I motion's passed. We will open the public hearing. Uh at 7:16, is there anyone in the audience who would care to speak? If you do so, there is a form in the back we need to fill out. So, I should have mentioned that before, but we do have one public comment that got emailed to the commission, and I will read that for the record. Planning Commission Chairman and Commissioners, I would like to commend comment on your agenda item OP item. Let me start over. I'm sorry. I would like to comment on your agenda item OPUR comprehensive plan amendment that is scheduled for tonight's July 28th, 2025 discussion. I urge you to urge you to deny the proposal plan amendment. And after that denial, you will then be able to discuss the high point crossing application, which I hope will be amended to tabled. The particular land owner did not look up the readily available soils map prior to attempting to develop their property. This is the landowner's responsibility. It is not the city's responsibility to remedy their problems. The proposal is attempting to place a higher density of development between two developments that are at a lower density. The surrounding area has one home per acre, not two to three town homes per acre. It does not transition to any new density. This is not consistent with the rural character of the city. The new development zoning would not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods. This area does not use sewer since it is 1.7 miles north of the proposed area of sewer. The city went to great lengths with many well attended city-wide meetings to determine what areas of the city would be in the Musil area and it is not. It's almost two miles north of the boundary. This would be seen as an arbitrary and capricious move. What are the goals of the city? How does the city want to have a rural character or who wants to have the city become an urban center? Has the city projected the total population of the city after completion of the approved developments of the city at this times? We have haven't we met our population goals for 2030 already? The proposal you would constitute spot zoning in Minnesota. Some people refer to spot zoning as the practice of reszoning a small parcel of the land to a different use classification than surrounding area often to benefit a specific property owner while potentially harming the public interest or existing zoning plan. This practice can be deemed invalid and it is considered arbitrary, capriccious and unreasonable. Spot zoning is not simply a matter of size. It is about the unjustified preferential treatment of particular property that undermines the broader zoning plan. In essence, spot zoning is a concern because it can lead to uneven development and undermine the predictability of a zoning regulation regulations, creates conflicts between property owners in the community, and undermine the public's trust in the zoning process. It is for these reasons I feel denial is necessary. If you approve this new zoning, it would be placed anywhere in the city and it would definitely con it could be placed anywhere in the city and would definitely constitute spot zoning and would create many conflicts. After denying the new zoning new zoning, I hope you will suggest to developers of the High Point crossing they might want to consider one home per acre with private septic systems for each new home. As noted in your background information, the homes with individual septic systems versus community septic systems. The likelihood of failure is low. Many people would find this development attractive and be welcome in our community. Signed, Ann Buchek of 2301 Legion Avenue North in Lake Do we have anyone else who'd like to speak at the public hearing? If >> you can give your name and your address for the record. >> Sure. >> I'm Rosemary Armstrong. I live at 82915th Street North in Lake El. >> Thank you, Rosemary. You have about six minutes and five minutes. >> I won't take six minutes. >> All right. Let you know. All right. This uh these um [clears throat] these villas are not typical of Lake Elmo getting to be like that, but where this is located is more of a rural character. And this would really be adding too much traffic and too many homes into this neighborhood. And Avenue is already very congested at rush hours. And uh right now, of course, we talked about it being worked on. Um I couldn't get to the meeting here on time because I was trying to get work around through Oakdale to get to this meeting. Um the council doesn't have an obligation to provide a profit to a developer and it seems like going from the original zoning for this this land which would have been a nice attractive piece of land to make it into all these villas um is we have to do what's best for the city and not worry [clears throat] about a you never have to think about a profit for a developer. That's never our consideration. The traffic [clears throat] is bad. Um I think that it's a they have a lot of G to ask the city to move the Mucus line from 10th Street, which we worked on for years to plan that. I should point out I was nine years on the city council previously. So I'm [clears throat] very familiar with all these things. uh to let to move the line from 10th Street almost two miles up to the north to to facilitate this one single development which someone asked the question how many more times can we even use this and would we even want to use this a new line is for creating planned unit developments planned unit developments mean you can put in just about anything you want make all the changes you want and not go by the zoning code around it planned unit developments really are kind of a wild cat. [clears throat] So, um I just wanted to say that uh with this Musa line we've worked on for many years, there's still plenty of land there that's available to put sewer uh sewer homes, fewer businesses, whatever you had in mind. Um there really isn't a reason to go beyond that. Um this is uh it doesn't fit in with the neighborhood, doesn't fit in with the real character of Lake Elmo. And I would ask the planning commission and council to not to vote for this. I know they already voted to to look at a preliminary plan for this, but I think that was a mistake. I think we just take a step back, match this up to the neighborhood that's there, and it'll look really nice. Thank you. >> Thank you, Deborah Rosemary. >> Anyone else? All right. Do we have a motion to close the public hearing? [cough and clears throat] >> We close the public hearing. >> Second. >> The public hearing is closed at 7:23. Uh next we need a motion for that is uh >> can I can I ask one more question of Nathan? >> Sure. >> Can I ask you a question Nathan if [clears throat] I may? >> Yeah. >> And I'm sorry I you know you have to kind of get elementary with >> all questions are fair. Thank you commissioner. [laughter] Um, if this the whole septic and it not accepting the soil not accepting the septic and so forth, [clears throat] um, if it were to be less units, would it be able to have the septic? >> Yes. >> Like she was mentioning, I'm sorry, like she was mentioning, the neighborhood behind it has bigger lots. So, what if these were bigger lots and there weren't 65 units on it? What if it was 30 or 40 units? Would the soil be able to handle that? >> Um, I'm [clears throat] going to actually have the develop ask the developer to speak to that question just because they've done more of the analysis to the on the soils. >> I'm asking if we did that then wouldn't have to be considering the MUSA. >> So, I I'll let the the developer answer your question. And I think you know the question just to summarize it is you know what if the development had fewer units could the septics the community septic system work right in that >> so they could still have a development by using >> I'll I'll let Paul the developer answer that question for you. You know we've been through this for a while. So the you know part of the whole equation isn't just the septic right. So we have a public street here. We have a requirement for um to provide city water. And so at some point you have all of the infrastructure and unfortunately at some point you have to pay for it all. And so when we were doing the math of just even trying to pay for everything [clears throat] that's kind that's the process because we started trying to find a way to do this with fewer units um and do the opud and keep all the open space and we couldn't just find a way to get it to pay for itself. And so we tried to find a way to pres preserve the 50% open space as the OP PUB guideline was um but yet find enough units to be able to pay for all of the infrastructure improvements that were needed before there was city sewer. Um and so we didn't do when when you get down to 2030 units, we already went to the city council. You know, if you look at the last meeting, we went with two options to the city council. This one and one that was a large lot rural development with individual septic systems. And they were more encourage they were more inclined to to pick this one than the individual septic system one >> with fewer lots. That's what we So >> yeah. No, I but I want to know for me. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I the community system would run out. >> City council says I want to know for me because I live here, >> right? >> I care about the community. I just kind of want to know. I want to >> No, I appreciate that. I appreciate that. I'm not trying to be smart, Alec. I'm trying to answer your question. So, >> yeah. >> Um, the I I we didn't do like a like a test to see how few units we could get to to still do a community septic system that would work. I think the mounding study would still fail even with probably half the amount of units. I don't know. We just didn't do that calculation. Once it failed, we had to restart. So, >> but I mean it's a good question. I mean, but I just don't we didn't do that analysis. I I'll follow up on that too because I'm I'm knowledgeable in perk tests and that type of thing. >> Okay. >> And and I looked at this and I kept thinking, you know, what number of single family homes could be accommodated safely with a private septic system and and that was not even on any of these maps. You might have discussed that with the city council, >> but with the planning commission, it's kind of nice to know what's going on so you have the continuity. >> No, for sure. >> So, that section was never presented to us. >> So, I also live in Lake Elmo >> and uh I'm also in this area and I have a real concern about something new when we have our 2040 plan and we're kind of jumping to 2050 already and on and new land uses and so on. And I just need that little bit more understanding on in order to make this type of a development go, why couldn't it be more like what's around it? Why does it have to be so intense? So I I too would like the actual numbers. >> Okay. Was okay. >> Any other questions? >> I question. >> Was there a question there? I'm sorry. I just like to >> yeah not what what actual numbers [clears throat] of of res of single family homes would fit on that line. >> I mean I could tell you that I did take another the person who did all the septic systems for um the the the project to the north and the south or majority of those I can't remember his name sorry but >> um pardon >> Brian. Yeah. And uh and he did perk tests because the perk test is a much simpler test and it's a much easier test to to um to to to pass because it really only takes in account a very narrow stratosphere of water at the top and so we found 30 or 40 places for perk tests to pass on the site. So I mean so it isn't that we didn't you know there is a there is an option for and that I think I don't remember how many units I had in that but 222 or 23 something like that. So, just to clarify, 22 23 single family homes with individual septic. >> Yeah. Okay. >> That's something I already showed. So, that's Yeah. >> Yep. I don't think that that was never presented to us. >> Oh, for sure. And it's because >> not on you, >> right? >> No. All right. >> And and again, I I this was kind of where we got into trouble last time, too. I should have come to you guys with the concept plan, but remember I went the sketch plan review process went to the city council and I I I thought about that a little bit and I thought but it but I mean we're at kind of very unique territory with what we're proposing and I'll go back to the idea of your guide plan. I mean if you look at your map and you look for any big spot parcels that have RSF on them there are not very many and RSF goes to two units per acre and there's nothing even close in your zoning district that would come to that. So, I mean that's so there's there was always a disconnect and that was the conversation that that the landowner had with the council and the mayor at that time was that >> we'll do something for you in this RSF area. We know that it's going to have more density, but we don't know what we're going to do yet. Just have somebody come and propose something. And so that's the message that we did, you know, >> right? >> Um >> uh >> I have a question for Nathan. >> Yeah, so do I. Just real quick, what I see this commission is breaking down to is there's two issues on the table. And if I understand that's the beginning is the [clears throat] for the first page of the staff report is one is whether this development gets brought into the mus and the second one is the OPLDR uh designation and creating that. So there there are two issues here >> and the comp plan, [clears throat] >> right? And the comp >> goes along with the new land use category. >> Correct. Thank you, Nathan. I have a question. So if you're going to run sewer a mile and a mile, two miles north on Inwood, are you going to require or place capacity, would capacity be required within that sewer line to support all the developments that are along that or are we truly, you know what I'm saying? So there it is. I've got these developments with their own community septic which apparently is prone to fail. Is that going to be upsized to support the rest of the developments and who's going to pay for that? >> So, that's a good question. Um the question is yeah, do we oversize the sewer if this is approved along Inwood Avenue? And the answer to that question is sort of a policy decision I would say to a little bit is you know the city council ultimately would you know have to make that determination. Do we want to have this [clears throat] pipe size oversized in order to you know bail out potentially as you're as you're suggesting other community septic systems or you know for other u basically for situations like that. So that would be a city council and another council decision would be who pays. So >> right okay >> y quick question Nathan for you. Um but by the way to the to the developer I you've done a good job with what you kind of think had to do but um I would have preferred it been in reverse right that we come up with a strategy or a comprehensive plan comprehensive plan that says hey we're going to create this category versus I feel like it I just want to make sure it's not the other way around like okay we have this need so we're going to we're going to slap this. So maybe if you could just and I know that's not the intent but if you could just describe >> as briefly as you can because it's different form >> where do you see this falling this new designation >> our needs moving forward you know again I would have preferred it the other way around but of course work that way totally >> so I just want to make sure we're not doing a oneoff >> sure >> under the pretense of but we might do it in the future but then we never do and it becomes just a one-off. I think that's a great question. You know, um staff discussed this issue, you know, you know, as the developer came forward and, you know, obviously had the issues that they've dealt with. Yeah. >> Um and and and the developer had identified some of the different scenarios that they were considering. >> We took a look at um the context of this particular case being that um you know, the city council's direction was to look, you know, try to make try to make this work. um which we we definitely looked at from that perspective with the guidance and um also considered you know we don't want to be creating new categories on a one-off basis for individuals uh you know when it's convenient for them uh it should be part of you know if it were in the cleanest possible form this might come about as you know after like you're saying you do the imagine 2050 you do the comp plan you analyze the city's needs the capacity of the sewer system comprehensively and then you create a new category and maybe it's used strategically in a couple of locations. Um in this case the order is reversed as you know that you know the development the developer is is really having to really critically look at their options and has you know requested um this to move forward ahead of the comp plan and so um you know certainly there is I I can understand concern on a one-off basis and and the same is can be said for a Musa adjustment and extending the Musa on a one-off basis that's >> that's challenging and staff you know do try to discourage that um for the most part and And there's a lot of conversations behind the scenes that, you know, don't end up rising to the planning commission where we're telling developers like we staff would not recommend you do this. You know, this is a really specific case where you've kind of, you know, heard the history this evening. And so, um, this tool, this this future land use category is seen as a tool for the city. It's not something that would realistically staff would probably recommend be used in a lot of cases, but there may be certain areas, particularly south of Stillwater Boulevard in the community, where it could make some sense. Um, I don't want to say which ones because, you know, that's a community kind of decision. Um, but this tool, you know, staff see as something that can be applied outside of this development. And there are other goals in the comp plan that it can help to support some some of the conversation in the city's comp plan around rural development tries to focus on open space preservation and the preservation of our uh natural greenways throughout the community. And you know this this is I think a maybe a pretty useful tool in some circumstances where we want to have trail connections or you know natural greenway corridors and open space. Um but we also have you know the the pressures of urban development and the desire for sewer and some some cases. And so this can be used I think I'll say again strategically um as part of the upcoming process. Uh but as you know and we've discussed there's going to be that that question about density and as we get to the 3.5 how do we get there? You we can't employ something like this everywhere. >> Okay. Thank you. >> My question is on the 2030 population target. Where where are we with that right now? >> That's a good question. So, um, we don't have system statements out right now for the the city which would help us understand more exactly where the population is. Um, I think the city the last population estimate that we saw from the Met Council, it seemed as though the city was tracking along with the estimate for >> we're not behind >> 2030, 2040. I just can't tell you exactly what that number is off the top of my head. >> Yeah, >> Nathan, perhaps I could. You done? Okay, Nathan, perhaps I could maybe help you a little bit. Um, back when I was on the planning commission many years ago and this new D sewer development came, the city started to track all the sewer developments by the number and the percentage of buildout and the zoning and everything. So, everything is here for the southern development and the northern development thus far. And some of the things that have been approved have zero haven't even started yet. And other ones are 100% done. And it's my understanding that we are almost at if not close to the 2030 population projections right now. So I don't think that really has to be one of the things that we need to be pushing more for, especially with our water issue. >> Okay. >> One one question for him real quick. I understand that the city council asked for new sewer development north of 10th street. Can you tell me where exactly that is for that water treatment plant >> in in relationship to this because that wants to Yeah. Is that something that's >> Well, the city council discussed >> a possible water treatment uh plant location just north of the current Inwood development. >> It's where? >> North of the current Inwood development. Could you show Could you show everybody on the map exactly where that is? >> See if I can get a closer image >> above that red marker. >> Let's see. >> Can you see my [clears throat] pointer? >> Yep. >> This is Inwood. >> Yep. >> Generally speaking, the water treatment plant was considered here. >> Water towers, not little >> where the water is. >> The little box is a water tower. Yeah. >> Plan north. Go straight north, Nathan. That's where the water tower is. >> So, yeah. Okay. >> Can Can [clears throat] you give me just a timeline approximate? Sure. What's When do we start doing all this? When start >> So, are you referring to a timeline for this development or >> the sewer, the development, anything? just >> so I think Paul summarized that pretty well. We this project initially started in 23, but coming up to today um we're looking at probably uh this this comprehensive plan amendment would probably get to the city council at some point into the fall as we have that engineering analysis to do yet on on the sewer complete. um pending an approval from the city council in um September or October or sometime in that area, we would be looking at um having corresponding zoning changes as well to make sure that okay, if we're going to, you know, create this new category, we have to make sure that we account for it in our zoning code. Uh we can do that generally on a similar timeline. Um, I think we would end up getting a preliminary plat revised and probably resubmitted by the developer maybe sometime in the late late um 2025, processed maybe some point into the new year, generally speaking, and then um potential for um construction to begin after a final plat maybe in in the spring of 26. So that's generally speaking what the timeline could look like, but you know there's a lot of variables in there. >> Yeah. >> And what about the timeline for completing the 2050 plan? [cough and laughter] >> So the city will uh receive a system statement from the metropolitan council in September. You know, knock on wood because that has been delayed in the past. But uh the Met Council will send that out in September of this year. And then really the heart of the planning process will be between probably 2026 and 2027. By June of 2028, the city needs a complete draft, a complete first draft of the 2050 comp plan. So that's sneaking up on us pretty quick here. Um, >> and then I think I we need to keep at issue here. And I get the 2050 plan is important but >> yeah I just am trying to get a handle on >> but this is >> timelines for this >> the issue on the table right so it's easy to >> I think it's a factor though in the timeline for the >> look forward >> um so I would ask if there are any other questions for Nathan >> uh that we if anyone would like to propose a motion I think there are at least two three issues within that motion that could be separated out, [clears throat] but I'll look to the commission for that. >> I'll make a motion. >> I move >> Go ahead. >> Okay. I move to recommend the city council or that we table this plan um for future review. I'll second. >> A second discussion. >> Okay. Um I guess where I'm coming from is I'm looking at this. There's we're just a little bit too ahead. I love the plan. I I love the open space. I love the idea of having a quality builder and the trails and all of it. I mean, it's beautiful. I just think it's premature where we are with our planning. Um when you look at that Inwood, you've got an egg preserve, a very significantly large uh agricultural preserve site still on that street along with RAD rural area development. So how is that going to be impacted by bringing a sewer up there, you know, and then you also have the park reserve directly across the street from this property. And so shouldn't that be taken into consideration if you're going to run the sewer? I mean, it just doesn't seem to me to make sense to be running sewer in a location where there isn't a need for it. Um or I I can't I don't see a future need for it. Um I also think um you know, you're in a rural area, it it should have more of a rural feel to it. And I think the larger lots, what I heard from the prior um meetings and the and the owners that back up to this is that they would like something that's similar to what they currently have. And those are a little bit um large, smaller acreage lots. And I think that would that would look really nice and fit really well in there. And that would be single families versus um people that are downsizing um that may not take advantage of the park as much as a family would. So, I I just I'm not sure that the the um price point and the clientele that you're looking to build for is is really a good fit there either. So, I I I just think it needs a little more work and and I think we're ahead of the city in terms of um the plan and and where should the sewer go? Is this the right location? What's what do we want Inwood to look like? It's it's a it's the corridor into our community. Um I just think there's too many factors that we just don't know. and and and then there's not really much defined here as far as the um OPLDDR. What are the requirements? Where can it be? Where shouldn't it be? How does that affect the rest of the city and other rural areas of the city? So, those are my main concerns. >> Commissioners, anyone else? >> I can follow on to that. >> I'm going to talk. >> It's kind of like the cart before the horse. I think there's just a heck of a lot of uh unknowns for myself on the entire project and you said you don't have the engineering analysis as being part of an old engineer. I kind of like to have the analysis before you kind of say, "Yeah, this is great." And I keep looking back to the approved 2040 plan, which we are under. And it says goal is to protect existing neighborhoods and guide land around the existing neighborhoods consistent with what's around. And and that really means a lot to me because I do think I've always thought about the residences and the transitions and things like this. and to put a high density right beside somebody that has larger lots. I think we can do better than that. I think we can re they can redo some things and and come back with maybe a different plan or something else, but I don't see running sewer two miles for one development either. [clears throat] >> I'd really love to see that plan B presented. >> Anyone else? I think this is kind of spot zoning. Um, it needs too much in my opinion. I was I was for this development when it had its own standalone sewer and, you know, fit. But now, you know, now we need to amend the comp plan, create a new land use category, amend the land use map, revise the Musa, and it's just it's and I I I apologize if council has steered you this way, but in my opinion, it's it's too much to make it happen, and I don't think it should happen now. It sure certainly could be considered for a future comp plan, but it doesn't fit in this one. >> Can I just make a quick comment on like just timeline speaking? So, >> I I I think my two cents is we need tableabling is not an option. I think we need to provide the developer and the landowner a direction. So, it's either approve or deny. I think that would be the right path to go. Okay. >> I'll resend my um motion and I'll make a new motion to deny. I'll second that. >> I thought by leaving it as tabled it would give the developer more time to >> I think they they can always come back. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yep. Well, then I I think >> And what were you saying, Nathan? >> Is that what you're looking for, Nathan? >> Yeah, I was just uh Thanks, Chair. I was just going to point out that the developer has a there when the city accepts an application is complete, we have 120 days to get it get our review done. As you all know, um the 120day deadline for us is October 25th of 2025, which does not give us enough time to complete a comprehensive plan before you have uh to make a decision. So, >> I think if everyone else is anyone has a point, I guess I'd like to say I am not in favor of ex making island muses. We've done that once before and I didn't agree with it then for the school. Uh there is a reason we have things where they're at. And if you're going to extend that MUSA for an island, you might as well just bring the rest of the land to it in place. I think the OPLDDR is a unique tool and could be functional in future growth, but it's got to be within the Musa. And as we expand the MUSA, we also expand the control that the Met Council is going to tell us how to develop our town. And I am not a fan necessarily of having that body tell us how we need to do our town. I think it's important that that we as a community have a strong voice in that and control that. And so therefore uh for those two reasons, I am not in favor. So to repeat the the motion, >> um move to recommend to the city council to deny the request from Rachel Development for the comprehensive plan amendments and the findings uh with the findings and conditions uh proposed by staff. >> Thank you. So all >> second. >> All in favor? >> We already had it. I just wanted to repeat it so we all know we're talking about >> All in favor of denial. >> All in favor of denial. I >> I >> All opposed. [clears throat] >> All opposed. >> I got this. >> You didn't the last three times. >> I know. It's fair. I'm working on it. All opposed. All right. The the motion is passed. The recommendation is deni is denied. Thank you. [clears throat] And with that is the next item on the agenda. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, council updates. So, it's been a while since we last met. The Primrose Daycare, which is just west of the new Bridgewater Bank on Stillwater Boulevard, was approved June 3rd. Also, at the June 3rd meeting, the Bersian Shores four lot minor subdivision was approved. That's on 45th Street by Lake Jane. And Inwood 8th edition preliminary plat and comprehensive plan amendment was approved June 17th. And this is um next to the Inwood development south of Fifth Street. >> Okay. upcoming meetings August 11th and August 25th. >> All right. Thank you. So, >> and with that, >> we will I need I guess I need a motion to close. No, I don't. >> I don't. >> I can just do this. >> Just use that power. >> Yeah. Uh >> we will adjourn the 728 2025 planning commission meeting at 7:49. meeting adjourned. Thank you.