I'll go ahead and call the meeting to order and we'll uh start quick with a roll call. McKe here. Landman here. Friedrich present. Baramp here. Nichols here. And uh before the pledge, I' I'd like to just um take a moment of silence if you join me. Um former Plymouth Police Chief uh Mike Goldstein passed away on Tuesday. He's been a life or long longtime Plymouth chief and uh big big figure in the community in this part of the state. So, uh sad loss for the community and for his family. Just wanted to have a moment of silence for him. Thank you. All right. You'd like to stand and join me in the pledge. I aliance 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. [Applause] On to agenda approval. Uh does anyone have any additions? There's a couple. uh modifications. Yes, there is a revised resolution for O D. Okay. Anything else? Anything from council. I had a thought of and I'm open to this being a bad idea or a good idea. Whatever you guys think of switching the two planning items in order. Any thoughts on that? No one's super stoked about it. We can just leave it as is. I think they'll take about the same amount of time. So, okay. Either way, we'll just leave it as is. Um, and then if there's nothing else, I will entertain a motion to uh approve the agenda as amended with the updated item that Matt mentioned. So, moved. Darren Kim. Second, Nichols. All those in favor say I. I. Okay, presentations. We don't have any. Uh on to open forum. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh we have two comment cards so far. Okay. Um so when when your name is called, can you please come up? State your name and address for the record. Um comments are asked to be try to keep them down to five minutes unless extended by the council for your participation. And the first card if Matt, if you please come up. Mr. Mayor. Yes. Just real quick too. Thanks Matt for sit sitting in. This is comment cards related to anything not on the agenda. Correct. Yes. Anything not on the agenda only agenda. That's okay. Matt Thomas 7485 lane crossing council members mayor. Thank you for this opportunity to be able to address the city itself. We know in just north of us we have a couple developments getting ready to go in which we're excited about because I know the company will be building some really quality homes which will enhance our area but we do have just a few concerns because lane road that I live on there's only one entrance into the fair view I believe it's called the fair shore fairway shores I'm sorry and that entrance is at the end of our street And with the heavy machinery that they'll be using, earth movers, bulldozers, backho, things like that, plus the various other construction workers coming back and forth on our road. We're very concerned about the wear and tear on that road and what it's going to do. Take the life away from it. Um, you know, the road is only five years old, six years old now, and you know, this could take five years off about 10 years. I'm not sure what the length of it. Our road was put in poorly from very beginning by MI homes which we're very sad about and we tried we addressed the city about it. Um few things were done but not enough to really satisfy our the neighbors. We really feel the road is going to deteriorate quickly. The second thing is that we know there's an easement on the the other Chad family farm that's allowed and we're just wondering will they will Berron builders have access to that road that easement will they be able to use that if they if they are that would really take the traffic away on our area and also the wear and tear the big machinery that they'll be bringing in to move the earth and so we really ask you the city thinking about those kinds of what can happen with that. Uh the other thing is to where's everybody going to be need parking? Um they need parking on the land that they're moving or they parking on our streets and our streets are narrowed up. You know, I know there's signs right now that the city put up last year or last fall, which we appreciate that says no parking this side of the road, but they're parking on the other side. It still makes it uh you know, a lot of traffic. We a lot of people walking every day with dogs, animals, things like that. So, we really want to hopefully the parking parts addressed. And then lastly, um we really were concerned about, you know, especially like the last few days of rain that we had almost the three plus inches that we received here in the Court area. What we what we're concerned about is the trucks going back and forth carrying mud out and will they be um supposed to be will they sweep the streets every day to keep those roads clean, keep the mud and debris off um because it will make a mess. And uh I know when MI was building when I do one of the first few homes for lane was but when they were building the other other areas uh MI was required to sweep the roads every day at least I don't know if they were required but they were there sweeping them every day so they only made it nice to have it cleaned up. So those are our concerns. We're concerned about you know the wear and tear the parking and cleaning the roads and that ement available. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, yes. Uh, Randy Bogler. Good evening, council. Thank you. My name is Randy Bogler, 1959 Fox Line Drive. I'd like to bring to the council's attention the conditions of our dirt roads are absolutely horrendous. Uh, Trail Haven, if you haven't been down there lately, uh, there's a large about 92nd and trail haven from the cemetery. Uh the hill goes up on both sides uh to a private driveway on top and the road is washed out. It's been washed out on both sides on both sides of the hill on both sides of the road uh since spring. Uh nothing has been done to it. Uh what happens is people drive rather than drive with their their tires in the wash out, they drive down the middle of the road. It's a blind hill. I have had so many close calls on top of that hill. It's not funny. I came to the city council many years ago and asked for a stop sign to be put on top of the hill. The council agreed with me. They said, "Yes, we will put a stop sign up there." Nothing ever happened. Not a thing. Um right now the entrance In my neighborhood, Treeine Drive off Trail Haven, there's potholes a foot deep all the way across it and down about 20 ft. Same thing with the intersection on the other end of Trail Haven and Fox Line. Same thing. You can't get through there without hitting a pothole. Now, yeah, it causes a lot of damage to vehicles. I've had to spend a lot of money fixing my vehicles over the years. Uh, yeah. Every time you hit a pothole, when it's full of water, your vehicle gets splashed. Now, I got to wash them every time I drive them down there. But, uh, think about public safety. What happens when a fire truck has to go on there? They're going to spend a $ 1.5 million truck driving down with crappy roads with a with half a million dollars worth of a gear on them, bouncing around. Now, you got an ambulance. Same thing. They're going to they're going to drive their expensive rigs down there. They're not going to go fast. Uh, you got a patient back, they're going to be bouncing all over the place. It's not a safe deal. Uh, our roads need to be maintained. Uh, years. I've heard many times we grade our roads six to seven times a year. Never in the year I've been here 35 years, it has never been graded more than three three or four times a year. Um when they started doing salt, they said, "Oh, this will help uh this will help maintain the the integrity of the roads." Yes, it keeps the salt it keeps the dust down, but it hasn't done anything to the integrity. The potholes just get hard. Um Guess that's all I got. Thank you for that. Those are the only two cards. I have four other cards, but they are for the planning items under number seven. Is there anyone else for anyone else for open forum? Okay, then we'll move right along on to consent agenda um which consists of items 6A through 6R. Does anyone want to pull anything once twice? Okay. I will entertain a a motion to approve consent agenda items 6A through 6R. So moved. Second. Thank you. All those in favor say I. I. I. On to planning business which we'll have uh we'll do two separate public comment opportunities. Um, so we'll start with, let's see, we didn't switch those up. So, we'll do 7A. Um, and I'm trying to think of order here. Do we want to do we have presentation? It's up to you. Typically, we've done public comment first and then staff presentation. At the planning commission, we do it the opposite way. So, it's up to you. Let's do the public comment and then we'll do go into the presentation. So, anyone would like to speak on I think we have some comment cards. Maybe you can start with that. Yeah, I have three comment cards on 7A. Um, Mandy is first one. Good evening. My name is Mandy Anderson and my family moved to Cork in 2020. I'm going to share with you my Mr. Mayor. Yes. Can we get her address, please? We need everybody's address, too. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to share with you my reason as to why I'm requesting the city does not grant permission for commercial use in this rural residential area. My husband and I both work in the construction industry in the cities on both commercial and heavy highway projects. Our adult lives have primarily been spent around traffic equipment and lots of people. Prior to our move in 2020, my husband and I lived in Maple Grove with our family. We wanted more peace in our lives outside of work to slow down and raise our children, an environment surrounded by nature. We needed a change. We researched for a long time and a property came up for sale just under 5 acres and the home was 70% complete. It was a short sale and we took all of our savings and sweat equity and put it into our dream home in this rural residential area to raise our family we were building in the city we wanted to grow our family. After 5 years of living in Corkran, we have reaped the benefits of our sacrifices made in order to live in an area surrounded by trees, singing birds, feasants, turkeys, and even owls at night. The peaceful sunrise and sunsets have been enjoyed in summer without the faint noise of traffic or voices or people doing their daily activities. We just were able to simply enjoy what we were doing in that moment. I recently heard that a home was sold three houses down from us and the property owner is requesting to use the property for commercial use. My family chose this location because there was no commercial zoning or mixeduse zoning in the area. We invested into this property for the enjoyment of leaving our work environment behind and being able to spend our weekday evenings and weekends outside of the serene comfort of our home. This is what we believe we purchased in 2020. When the 8750 trail world home was sold, the buyer knew it was zoned as as rural residential. It would not serve the current community who purchased their property in rural residential area to have this property changed to commercial use. The city of Corkran currently has areas zoned for commercial use and mixeduse where it would not affect changing the existing community. It will affect the enjoyment of our property if there could potentially be 75 people on the property on Saturdays and Sundays from 7 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. And in addition, weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., which is the same time as my family has outside of work hours to enjoy our property we purchased in the rural residential area to escape uh what this conditional use permit is requesting. I received in the mail the other the city of updates which had an article about the land use bill that would move the city planning from the local level to the state level which remove any community input for the city zoning and planning. The city encourage residents to contact lawmakers to oppose these newly proposed bills. I'm asking that the city of Corkran take that same response and apply it to this situation and consider instead of looking at it from a local planning level to revisit the request of the current resident who put their family's future in a rural residential area planning to enjoy their property outside of work hours without hearing commercial use additional noise Katherine Dvas. 6747 Road I am almost 39 year resident of Cork and I want Corkran to be like the city says to be vibrant connected I think places of worship are the heart and soul of any community it's what the community builds around no matter what the faith is. Um, and I want to point out that there are, if I'm right, five different places of worship in corporate. They are all in a location that to me is very similar to where the um temple would go. They are located adjacent to road. Some have access from that county road. Some um are a little bit further in. Um there's only one which is the one up here on Maple Hill, which is kind of tight back. Um but as far as traffic goes, it's probably the worst intersection to try and get in to it. Um so I I think that the city council should take that into consideration. what kind of community do we want to be? We want to welcome people. Um I think also in reading in listening at planning commission and also in reading the documents, this is a small community that seems very responsible and is being built with all kinds of constraints on it that were not present when places like um Emanuel Methodist was built, St. John's built um even St. Thomas which is long ago um and Hope Church. Hope Church started out very similar to this um in a very you know kind of concentrated small residential location. They knew they were going to expand. They had plans. They prepared for that. Um so I think that this community would expand. just seems like from what I've read they're very responsible. I also want to bring up the number of people over the years on my little old stir bridge for a while we had um can't remember how many years but pastor Derek um and he once a week would have like a I want to call like a host church a host community church and there were probably a good 10 12 cars in that driveway once a week and He was on 116. The rest of us just went past. Really didn't trouble or bother anybody. Kind of isolated. I don't know, you know, if anybody else was bothered. Um, and I also want to point out we have um a couple of very large families in my neighborhood and on any given Sunday we can have 10 to 15 cards with those families, too. Um, You know, it's family noise. They are out in their front yard. They go for walks through the neighborhood after Sunday dinner. It's It's okay. It's okay. They're there, you know. Um, and that is a neighborhood. And I think we can be a neighborhood. And where this location is, I don't really see it truly bothering a lot of people. When I look at the map, yes, there are nice homes and large acres, but they're not right there right next to it. And I think what the city code has to protect the site, to protect the people around it as it's transition is a good plan. And so, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Winstead Kirk Patrick Dr. Patrick I live at 2140 County Road 10. Um I'm going to read uh something that I wrote uh when discussing the temple with commission. I'm writing to my concerns in regards to the request to approve approve a conditional use permit insight plan to allow the operation of a place of worship at 8750 Trail Haven Road. This property is directly south of my property across across County Road 10. In regards to the following conditional use permit guidelines, the establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental or to not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, moral or comfort. Um, my main concern here is that I feel the conditional use permit does not protect the current community from the natural side effects of a property that will be used as a place of worship. I would like to respectfully take this opportunity to express my concerns. The site plan I don't feel in any way takes into consideration community growth of the place of worship. That's a good thing with any place of worship. Having a stipulation to have a parking lot with a certain number of stalls does not in any way guarantee that the community size or membership of the place of worship will stay the current size that it is. A parking lot does not change the community. A parking lot does in fact the community landscape completely. You cannot plant landscaping and expect to blend any place of worship into a community that is already only residential homes and agricultural land in that area. Correctly. Angled lighting does not prevent light pollution. You cannot logistically place restrictions on entering and exiting the property to prevent the light pollution that constant flow headlights will become at a certain time. The noise on the weekends is also a concern for me considering the hours of operation that I already noted last summer and fall when Haven was meeting and I could hear their services at my house. These concerns are precisely why I feel we see most places of worship located on or near commercial use properties. I would like the council to consider what would happen when the membership of New Haven Temple grows to the point where more parking is needed. Is there a for more parking spaces. Will traffic safely will traffic safety need to be addressed with turn lanes or a roundabout? How will that affect the surrounding properties? I was completely shocked myself to see that the road safety study did not find any concerns with potential increased traffic. County Road 10 is extremely busy in the mornings and the evenings, Mondays through Friday, and any person that visits my property is told to be extremely careful watching for traffic. Traffic coming from the west and the east can be very hard to detect when exiting Trail Haven onto County Road 10. I was hoping to see that the planning commission looked into statistics on what type of auto accidents occur at the intersection of Trail Haven and County Road 10. I've seen enough in the three years that I've lived there to have a strong respect and concern for that intersection. Um, also I feel the council if if this is approved, they can't guarantee that a place of worship directly across from my property will not lower my property value. The council can't state that the conditional use permit will promote or enhance my general welfare when it is highly likely to reduce my property value. The main concerns regarding reduced property property value to those directly near the proposed use of the property are as follows. Increased localized traffic directly across from the property, noise pollution, power light pollution, and property changes that most property changes to the New Haven address that will most likely prevent potential property resale to the residential market. Finally, approval of this conditional use permit would set a very Concerning precedents for future use of the land in CRA's residential and agricultural location. I would be concerned with what other conditional use permits that would be allowing this community. I am concerned that the proposed changes to the property make the property itself far less appealing to possible future buyers. Basically changing the property to the point that is no longer appealing to anyone in the residential market. thereby for forcing myself and surrounding homes to tolerate non-residential use over and over and over. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to voice my concerns. I hope you will take them into consideration when considering this. It would be my preference as a member of this community that the conditional use permit be denied. Thank you. That is all the cards I have for 7A. I have two for 7B, but does anyone else want to speak on 7 A? You start with your name and address for the record. That's great. My name is Richard Harvey 850 Road on the property directly north of the New Haven traditional use permit. Um I believe the site plan is required and the addition that is going to be put on the pole building is not in compant building out of compiance with the city ordinance because will be too large for the zoning lot size. Uh to avoid this they're proposing to circumvent the city ordinances by swapping the home and the pole building classification making the home an accessory structure and the pool building a primary structure. There's no requirement or pre to accommodate and approve this. It could be setting a whole precedent for others in the city that want to circumvent the rules and build larger accessory structures and by calling them a primary structure. Um, basically in regards to the pave parking lot, um, with the, uh, trees and the pavement and everything else, you're basically going to make it, uh, look like the new um, the brand new Domino's pizza parking lot. That's going to be actually bigger than what's the Domino's. There's way more slots. There's way Um, and it's not in keeping with the uh the nature of the rural residential neighborhood that's there. Um, it's not in keeping with what we all perceived as a rule, you know, a rule setting. Um, basically that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? as a resident of course for the past seven years and you being the uh you know maintainers of the city looking for the concerns I can understand the resident viewoints and concerns and as this new Mohamad community is concerned it's a a loving community who is aware of the neighborhood needs and they want to live in sync and harmony with uh the neighborhood and most importantly you would like to work u with the city in order to do what is needed so that we are co coexisting and in harmony with everyone. So we'd like to u We respect the concerns of the neighbors. They have chosen that they have expressed and uh we are willing to work with the city to fulfill that historically if you see the portfol which are saturated and it's growing at an average of 5% since 2000 it has grown 36% and going to grow the traffic is going on to rise and uh how can we stop that is a big concern. I mean um uh on one hand we uh we have to let people as as as uh as you know owners of the city you have to let people in and you have let a lot of people um in and uh this property is right at the busy traffic which is high already busy and noisy. Uh so the concerns about light and other things has very minimal given all the traffic studies this has already been performed on that. Uh and this community is historically has been uh for good or bad reasons has remained the same and uh this is more of a Bible study group where unlike a church where study in groups, small groups. So even if we have the temple there so we're not historically speaking given that fact and um we did have to outside of the uh community and lot of uh to our thanks to the support they are not members of the community but they supported our country about 300 signatures out of which uh more than 50% are from local residents and about 40% are neighboring cities like so we see that they are welcoming to having a temple in the community which will foster uh spiritual and cultural growth temple historically has proved that it gives up increases or give to economic growth and also it and the general wellbe of the people which influences the health look at the stress problem in the country of the youth are suffering from stress issues how much more bene which which you know focuses on God realization and consciousness. So um we really thankful to the neighbors who have extended their support to us. Um and uh the city should not be concerned that they will be listing us. They might be listening but their support is really appreciated and I hope as owners of the city recognize their opinion. Um so um I I in all these uh I really on behalf of all the supporters um 500 plus 150 residents who have supported the petition I strongly and enthusiastically urge the council members to pass. Thank you very good time. Anybody else? Come on. Name and address please. Thanks. My name is Sajuki. I live in 6660 carriageway. I bought the house in I'm one of the first presidents since I've been here for about 10 years. I'm also an investor and Rogers land. So I didn't want to talk about economic aspects. So I'll build a said some of what economics actually understand the concerns expressed when I think about it but let's talk some stuff so the Hindu temple was built while Minnesota been in Minnesota for just over 20 years so it's been built overnight growth. Most of you know where it is. And in the first five years, there were 208 homes built around that along that road Troy Lane. Actually, yes, on Troy Lane. And in the next 5 years, another 214 homes were built. That's about in today's market steady state, 750 grand average. You can do numbers already long, but that's about 4 million tax base at a 1.3% cut taxes. Robert Thomas started building luxury town homes on the road leading up to the temple. Something I didn't think was possible and that's an area I'm actually looking to invest in as well. Now, also they built out the roundabout and they improve the infrastructure because of the electric coming up there. Was the the city, but it's a Maple Grove situation. So, we're talking anywhere between four and 5 million tax base added because of the temple being there. Now, I don't know for a fact if it's because the temple was built there or everyone is going to build there anyway, but because I don't want to add causality, but the point that has been made and I actually agree, right, because you put a place of worship of property values that's a natural example property values are going up those values the properties that were built in the time I bought in corporate those same properties have appreciated around the same percentage they're all in so about the same percent will that happen in this temple with this recommending I don't But what I can say is there's already a precedent for zoning or whatever you need to do to get there. I know what's on there. What I'm trying to bring forward is what the concerns are about actual example actual economics. Please check what I'm saying. But it shows that there really isn't any And with that, I'd request approval. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Anybody else? Please forget how I look. 110y old house and it wasn't cooperating. So, don't worry. My name is Jason Woody. Uh I live 21104. Glad to see everybody here. I'm a 41y year resident as of May, which I wish I can go backward, but I can't. Um so I've watched Corkin become something from, you know, a bedroom community to a farm community to to what it's becoming today. Um you know, progress is progress. We pushed it off for many many years up until the last 10 years ago. And it is definitely inevitable. Um but the way you progress can be um definitely curtailed or catered to any um I'm not against uh anyone race, creed, color, religion. Uh great raised Catholic baptized confirmed St. Thomas there. I'm not against anybody with their faith that wants to you know promote their faith. But um people in have paid a premium absolute premium to keep it pristine, keep maintain stability that we have. Um, eight bridge lots, beautiful yards, nice little homes. Um, we've put up with like earlier potholes in the roads, horrible roads, but hey, you know, grass is hard to maintain. Uh, we didn't have for many, many, many decades. I mean, I was in high school doing, you know, reports on dialup internet. These are some of the things that we have sacrificed to maintain this rural community. Now, if you want to put this large facility in there for a place of worship or a church, um in rural residential, I just don't think it fits. um you know it just because they meet the setbacks and easements and the guidelines and do this that and the other thing and you let them do this then it opens up the floodgates for for other projects. What if somebody for instance wants to start open a gentleman's club? Mr. Mayor, yep. Just real quick, Jason, if you could address us, please. You're you're talking to us, not to the not to the audience out here, please. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So what if somebody wants to put up a gentleman's club out here, you know, oh, we met the requirements, the setbacks, we got the espro money, we got this, that the other thing. Would that fit with the community? I don't think so. Um, there's a time and a place for everything. And I think that the manner in which they want to use it, we have designated areas in this city for that, you know, particular activities. Um, not only that, um, the property values are a big thing. Um, people, you know, are very concerned about the value of property because some people that is their biggest investment they have. Some don't even have a portfolio. All they have is their house and they're banking on that for their future. Um, so if we start doing things in a halfhazard manner and property values go down, that's really going to have a detrimental impact um to the residents. Secondly, the safety. Uh there's about 40ome cars parked down Trail Haven. Um it's not easy to see on. Um and we have that many extra cars. I think it increases um a safety factor. Um also with that much traffic on the gravel road, we're having a hard time keeping them together to begin with without spending huge money. Um with that extra traffic, that is going to do nothing but eat up our roads. Um and u and how they want to change the primary structure to the out building and the out and in the house as the auxiliary structure. Well, you can't live in a pole barn with no water, with no plumbing. Um, you know, there's certain paths you have to follow. You can't have an occupancy permit because it's not even suitable for living. Um, and then also being a church, they're a church, so they're nonprofit. also an EcoARM LLC, I believe, which might be a nonprofit. Um, you know, that's taking off the tax ro that's taking off the tax base. Um, and that's further straining um our community resources. I know they're stretched kind of thin and I know that the city is working very hard to to maintain the level civility we have and I think if this goes through you will be doing a huge huge disservice to the residents around it your community and levels of Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Going once, going twice. Perfect. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, 7A tonight is the New Maven Temple site plan conditional use permit. Um, just a quick overview of the request. Uh, Kurt Aigol and the New Maven Temple request approval of a conditional use permit and site plan to allow operation of a place of worship within the rural residential district. Um, within the applicant's narrative, they uh expect to have weekend services from uh 7:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. in which there would be around 25 people on the site um between those hours um on Saturdays and Sundays. And then weekdays, um, they would have typically two people there, um, around sunrise at 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and then again at sunset from 6:00 p p.m. to 6 or to 8:00 p.m., sorry. Um, the subject property is 8750 Trail Haven Road on the corner of uh, Trail Haven Road and County Road 10. This is a 5.65 acre property which is currently zoned rural residential uh, and is guided rural egg residential. Uh the surrounding properties are also uh zoned rural residential and are used for a mix of rural residential and agricultural uses. Uh the 2040 uh comprehensive plan does not identify any natural characteristics on the site. Uh the items being considered tonight are a site plan, a conditional use permit for the place of worship, and then a conditional use permit to allow the accessory structure uh to exceed the height of the principal structure. Uh if the proposal complies with the zoning ordinance, the city uh must re must approve the site plan and conditional use permit. So going into the actual site plan itself, um the proposal includes a 760 square foot expansion to the east side of the pole barn. Um the existing footprint of the accessory building, which is the house, is uh 2,656 square ft. This would exceed the allowed uh accessory structure footprint for the property based on its size. Uh and to comply, the applicant is planning to remove a 24 by one ft strip uh from the back side of the garage uh of of the um accessory building. Uh the height of the accessory structure, which in this scenario would be the house, exceeds the height of the principal structure uh by about 2 feet. Um and the applicants do are not planning to uh change the height of either structure. Uh and this is something that can be approved through a conditional use permit. Uh the building materials and I apologize for the small text here, but the the temple is required to comply with the residential building standards of the zoning ordinance. Um and in their plan, the applicants are proposing that the east and western facades be upgraded to hardy smooth panel siding with trim batten boards as well as the expansion area. uh on the on the sides of the of the building. The remaining area on the north and south facades uh would maintain the existing building materials uh and would be painted to match the the new siding. Um overall 40.9% of the existing facade would be upgraded and all facads would comply with the residential building materials standards. Um with a expansion of this size, a 760 square foot addition, uh the poleb barn would be required or an addition to the polebar would be required to um plant the following landscaping improvements. Uh one additional overstory tree and three understory shrubs. The applicant is proposing 35 additional overstory trees and 100 unders 104 understory shrubs which with the existing uh vegetation on the site would be uh 61 trees in total and 104 shrubs in total. Uh many most of the new plantings are concentrated around the parking lot driveway and pole barn to provide screening from the adjacent properties. Uh and no more than 33% of the required trees can be of the same species. Um the advocates plans do comply with that standard as well. Um based on the number of seats that are proposed within the temple um the minimum number of parking stalls required would be 19. Uh the applicant is proposing 21 parking stalls which meets that minimum parking requirement. Uh and it also meets the minimum dimension requirements uh for 90 degree parking stalls. So that's for the the stall width as well as the drive aisle. Uh currently there are two access points, one to the u to the home and then one directly to the pole barn. The applicants are proposing a shift of the southern access point and they would shift it in between the pole barn and the house and that would serve the parking lot behind the the temple. Uh the applicant is proposing the installation of eight sconces uh two for each corner. Um, these lighting fixtures would be uh approximately 9 ft above grade and would be required to meet the brightness and cut off angle requirements of the city code which is a maximum glare of 1 foot candle measured at the property line and a cut off angle of 90 degrees or less. Um, the applicant didn't specify either of these items in their plan. So, a condition of approval uh would be that they provide additional materials to these fixtures so that we can confirm compliance with that. I have a question on this point because it came up in comment. Um, is there a code requirement that they have to add these lights? There is no code requirement that they are required to install those lights. Okay. Thank you. Um, one item that came up during the concept plan review was the topic of signage. Um, at that time it was uh communicated to the applicants that no signs are allowed within the rural residential district and and they have uh adjusted their plans and have removed the signage uh that was initially planned. So that uh complies with that that standard. Um all exterior storage of trash and garbage are required to be screened on all sides. Uh currently the plan shows screening on three of the four sides. So an additional condition of approval would require screening on that fourth side. Uh currently uh the two structures are within the minimum setback area but are uh legal non-conforming structures. Um, and the applicant is planning an expansion on the back side of the pole barn, uh, which would not, uh, encroach further within that setback area and and can be allowed through, uh, through city code. Moving or shifting into the conditional use permit portion of the application, uh, one of the conditional use permits is for the place of worship. um places of worships uh are identified as a conditional use within the rural residential district, meaning that they must comply with the standards of section 1070.020 um which are listed uh starting on page seven of the attached report. Uh staff finds that these standards are satisfied with the proposed application uh with the additional comments listed below uh where I'm at on the screen here. uh a limited number of guests at any one times of 35 uh with the exception of four times per year for holidays that they could go up to 75 guests at at a singular time. Um additionally, all parking must be accommodated on the site and they cannot use uh Trail Haven Road or County Road 10 to satisfy their parking requirements and all structures are required to comply with the property maintenance standards uh in in city code which is chapter 87. Uh the other conditional use permit uh within this application is is for the accessory structure height. Uh accessory structures typically u are required to be below the height of the uh principal structure. However, they can exceed that through the conditional use permit uh which would require compliance with the standards of section 1030.020 subdivision 5D. Uh staff finds that these standards have been satisfied with the proposed application. um and recommend approval of that one as well. So, as you're deliberating and considering this application, uh some items to consider for the council would be uh does the request meet the standards of the conditional use permit? If not, what conditions could be added to mitigate some of of of the impacts to the surrounding neighborhood? Um and if there aren't any conditions that could satisfy these standards, um what facts would there be to to support that um that conclusion? So ultimately um at the planning commission meeting on on May 1st, the planning commission voted to recommend denial of the uh New Haven application uh and staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the conditional use permit and site plan for the New Haven temple. Thank you. And note on that Karen kind of had some context that I will shared with everyone but um so for what that's worth. Um, any questions for Dwight off the bat? Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Go for it. If I may, Dwight. Um, great job on the uh on the information you've given us and the recommendation. I understand everything about that. The question that I have starts out with in rural residential worship places are a use. Correct. So my question is is if somebody were to come I'm sorry you just turn your camera sorry Jeremy always corrects me if I'm wrong so I appreciate it. Um the question I have is if somebody came to us and bought a 5 acre or 10acre parcel any part of our rural residential area residential whatever we call it and requested to build a church or a worship place. The implications at that point would be the church would need to be made of stone, brick, glass, all of these things. That's one. Number two, parking lot, appropriate size parking lot and such. And obviously mitigation for the runoff waters and those kind of things. Um, two things that aren't part of this. Um, a change in ownership of the property bothers me a lot to just be able to make and modify and change things from uh accessory building to the main residence or the main whatever we're calling it and then the uh house turning into a accessory building. None of this makes sense to me and I I apologize. clarifying question. You mean a future change, like a hypothetical change? I I I I I went from buying the five or 10 acres to put in a church, all of these things to a church if if a worship place were to come, they would be required a lot more things. I'm I'm falling back to St. Thomas and everything that they're having to do to build their new church and such. Natalie might be able to speak on that a little bit. Yeah. Do you want to first? Yeah. So, um in this instance, uh the temple is required to comply with the residential district standards for the building materials, which is typically or within the city code is typically more strict than they are in the public institutional district. Um to my understanding, the St. Thomas building requirements, building material requirements are more so strict from the Catholic church as a whole than it is from the city standards. Um so if another if another church came in on another rural residential property, they would be um required to comply with the same standards of the res rural residential district. So they'd be able to build a pole shed for a worship place theoretically as long as the sighting the sighting match the rural res. So There could um there could certainly be a more open building, but as long as the siding and the roof materials meet the rural residential standards as is currently proposed with this application, it would be in compliance with the district standards. So you look at the underlying zoning district and I would say the the non-residential district standards arguably can be you know I think with our industrial we have a bit more like glass requirement and we have in our northeast district and southeast district we have a requirement that facads broken up, but that isn't uh the case in all commercial districts and it is not the case in the rural residential district. So, as part of this application, if you would like some more uh building articulation, that could be something discussed. No, you you're answering it as far as the rural residential and yes, it could be made of whatever structure and those kind of things as long as the outside appeared to the standards and such. I understand that. As far as the parking lot, I can't put the numbers together. They're asking for 75 seats in the worship space, 21 parking spots, no more than 35 people at a worship service at a time. All of these things are very, very specific. So, why 75 chairs in the worship area and only 35 people per worship time? Um, I think we're using a couple different things. Who's who's going to monitor those numbers? Who's going to make sure they don't over over overpop populate the building? All of these things. It's there's just a lot of stuff. Go ahead. Yep. So, it's 10 to 12 families. So, they expect 10 to 12 cars on a regular basis. Um, so that would be and then the third the they actually I believe they're correct me if I'm wrong. about 25 people that are anticipated for the weekly services on the weekends, but the 35 is the limit that was identified to allow for some growth. They don't expect to have a lot of growth within their uh within their group, but that is just to make sure that there is a little bit of leeway. And then if it were to start to exceed that, that is when they would have to come back for a cup amendment. That would be a chance for us to look at whether there is anything to suggest that they really it can't grow beyond what it's currently at. Have they outgrown the site? That would that would kind of be the trigger point that they need to come back and reook at the site because right now it's really been built for more about 35. The 35 was actually planning commission recommendation. Um staff I believe was just more focused on the parking lot size and making sure they don't outgrow the parking lot size. So the 35 is a little arbitrary. That was based on the planning comm. They want to allow for some growth and then also keeping in mind that what they anticipate right now is 25. The 75 people is for when they have their u holidays. I believe there's two to four holidays that they have a year. Uh and they can speak to that a little more and they have family members that a little bit more family members that are coming to these congregations. So again, they're expected to carpool a lot. The um it's 75 people max that would be allowed on the premises for that. But who wouldn't monitor that? So that would ultimately be uh the responsibility of staff to go and monitor if we receive a complaint. So that would that would be the case of any complaint based. Correct. Yeah. Complaint based or we could if you'd like there could be uh something in the uh CUP standards that you know staff needs to attend a service or something like that once a year to confirm compliance. I don't know. I would have to talk with things about that. But the reality is um it would be just like any other IUP we have for home occupation where staff is responsible for monitoring compliance with the standards of approval. Thank you. A little bit of history for everybody here. Um as far as the temple in Maple Grove, I was part of that. Um absolutely promoted that without hesitation. But there's a difference there that was within the mucus line. It had city water. It had city sewer. The comparison to put a worship space in a residential area, a rural residential compared to the temple, two different things. And then then that was goodness gracious 20 some odd years ago. I I claim to live in Maple Grove, Corkin for the last 40 years now. um more closely to Corkran than Maple Grove. But uh that's a big deal. That temple is a wonderful place to visit and see and I absolutely love it. Um most recently the FAPS religion. Um is and has purchased property down in Madina and they're building a temple. Um I come from a small Methodist church in Maple Grove. It was it's called Crosswinds. We started in basement for worship services and and uh prayer meetings and those kind of things. Um moved ourselves into oh my gosh I am dating myself the old theater in town in Maple Grove. We grew into that and then uh once we got to a point we grew to the point where we purchased a piece of property, followed all the ordinances and everything else and now is located on Crosswinds um property off of Weaver Lake Road um just west of 494. So um startup churches, startup worship services, all of these things um mean a lot to me. Um and I think somebody said it religious preference, those kind of things. I don't see that. I see good people in everybody. I just this does not make sense to me to convert a residential home and a place into a worship place. Um this started coming to us by talking originally a ecoarm and then it has quickly morphed into a worship space and nothing done related to an ecoarm or anything. In fact, the farmer that owns the property to the south has planted everything on this property along with his property to the south. And his concerns are related to runoff and those kind of things from the 21 um spot parking place, not going into a mitigation pond or anything for salt and all of these things. So, that's his concern and I don't see him in the audience tonight. Um, I am terribly concerned about the intersection at Trail Haven and 10. Um, and it is not exaggerated by the residents and such. I live approximately 3/4 of a mile to a mile away from this. I travel 10 frequently and such and sight lines are horrible. Um, Randy, thank you for your comments related to our gravel roads. Even though you or I may disagree about paving them, I I I like my gravel roads and it does slow people down on my road, but you've got a whole different thing. But I just see too many things that don't protect the neighbors. Um, if a church were to be built or a worship space were to be built from scratch, there would be burms along 10. There would be burms along Trail Haven to protect everything from headlights and those kind of things. um not just add more trees, bushes, pines, whatever we call those things. Um it would also require upgrade of trail haven to go to a road at least to the driveway of this place. Um the traffic studies that go out there are I can I I have a lot of disbelief in those. the right turn, left turn lanes um to do this is uh something I'd rather put in before and not after the fact and not after a serious accident at that intersection. Um to build a worship place, to build a temple, to build whatever we want to call this um without the expectation of growth and those kind of things. It just doesn't make sense to me um to have some place to populate 75. I don't believe that they're going to be able to get the parking on their property in 21 parking spots for their four events. Um the last thing I wanted to talk about, um three of us were on this side of the dis. Mark, were you part of this yet? Michelle, I don't remember. But we had the same kind of thing down in Oakdale of a worship placeimar worship place there. Um it was supposed to be a instructional place for for that religion to teach youth about their religion and those kind of things. And we said no to that. It wasn't a conditional use permit. It was an interimm use permit. Natalie shaking her head drawn. So the application never came before the council. It only went to planning planning commission. It was for an interim home um occation. So I can't compare it to that. No, the issue with that one became he wasn't living at the property and so that's when that and so we told them they'd have to come back as a place of worship and they chose not to proceed under that. So that is not I'm sorry I brought that up. Sorry, misunderstood that. I just with everything that's going on and such and out of respect for both the the Haven Temple folks and the neighbors and such, I cannot support this and it's related to just the differences of between of what we expect out of a worship service or a worship place. Um, and we've got many of them. We've got all of the churches around here and many of them have called me and spoke about the hoops they've had to drum jump through to get what they've gotten and to just flip these two buildings and to step through this doesn't seem like it is the right approach to this. So, if I've been confusing, I'm sorry, but uh I'm pretty transparent when I when I'm thinking about stuff. So, Natalie, correct me if I'm wrong. Well, I just wanted to clarify a couple points just to potentially clear up any confusion. Um so just to be clear the most of the churches and I I don't know the timing of hope community church but many of our churches that have been established in the city were built when they were would have been considered rural residential and they were not within the mus. So that's that's but the expectations were I don't know that there were expectations um I think that they kind of policed themselves and they had the architecture because of their own wanting and so I don't know that there was a lot of city expectations that were put on those architectural standards. Again, again, it's here say it's them telling me there was a lot more expected from the city. Yeah, but I would say we can we can talk about architectural building materials. If that's the concern that we feel like this archite it doesn't fit, we could certainly talk about those part of the CP to have and again my other issues are related to safety uh intersection issues. um overall screening. Um Burhams I feel need to be a condition of approval too. Um or we could add also a fence around the parking lot or around I would say not around the entire property because my understanding is the farmer to the south is farming it. So we probably wouldn't want a farm on the south but there could potentially be a farm to screen farm a fence to screen the parking lot. Nothing related about the runoff. Well, okay. So here let me go through your points. I have all I wrote everything as you were talking. So as far as the runoff, Steve, are you able to speak to that because that was evaluated as part of the application. So the storm water rules in Corker and the wershed are an acre of disturbance as a threshold. So with what they're proposing, they're under the requirements to trigger our storm water thresholds. And then um can I follow up on that real quick? Sure. Where would the runoff go from the parking lot? Is that going to flow to the south or is it going to flow to the north along the ditch? It'll flow to the uh east where it's already wet at the point of their own property the far east. It's on their own property, but it's also migrated into the property owners to the east of them too and then down into the ditch. So to what council me saying, I think it's high, so it just kind of sheds all around. I don't think it's one distinct direction. Okay. Um so then as Uh, as far as the whole ecoarmm discussion, they heard loud and clear from the council that that was too confusing to have both an ecoarmming component and the religious component. Farming is a permitted use. I don't believe that we really can say they can't farm it. But in respect to the conversation and feedback they heard at the from the council, they removed that use. At this point, they are planning to use the space as a temple and the farmer to the south will continue farming their uh the part that is farming. Um, so I and they can speak to that as well, but that's my understanding is they heard you loud and clear and they no longer are including that component as part of their practice. Um, as far as the house, it is normal for churches to have a house as an accessory use. It is customary. Um, it we have St. Thomas just recently got rid of a house that had been there for I think decades. And then we have other examples of churches that have a house on the property. So that's that's what we're comparing this to is the temple is in the pool barn and they will be having the house as an accessory use. They plan to use it primarily for office space, some staging for food. Um but it could be used as a residence as well. If one of their congregation members, one of their church, not sorry, their um religious leaders would like to live in, they could certainly do that. Um, so I think those are just one couple things I wanted to clarify as far as the there was a traffic study done. The city has to be very careful about developing a nexus for any road improvements. 10 to 12 cars on a regular basis does not trigger a nexus for the types of improvements that you're talking about. Additionally, the in the last 10 years, there was one accident at this intersection that was reported to the state of Minnesota and it had to do with the um sight lines. It was an illegal U-turn from the sounds of it. So, it was a user error. Um and I believe that was part of the packet. Yeah, that was that was included as an additional item within the packet. And I have it have the data pulled up on the screen if wants to switch it over. But this is this is the report from the uh from Mindot uh discussing about the the crash that occurred a couple years ago. Um, and this chart, and it's kind of hard to see, um, shows the number of accidents dating back to 2015. Um, and according to their data, uh, there's been one accident at that intersection. And I think the last part was just the the potential for the parking lot to accommodate all of their parking. Again, 10 to 12 cars is what's anticipated for the regular use. Most days, it's just going to be one or two people, so be one to two cars. Um, and then as far as the larger events in addition to the 21 cars 21 spaces they have in the parking lot. They also still have the driveway for the house. So there is more spaces to park and then um you know worst case scenario overflow parking would still be anticipated to go on the site. So that might mean that there's a car that's parked on the grass for a couple hours. Um but the reality is there there is expected to be families that are coming in cars. So, it's not expected that there would be 75 cars, and I don't think we'd want to require them to have a 75 car parking lot, which would be the alternative. Can I ask a follow-up question, Natalie? Good recap, by the way. Um, several of the residents in their emails spoke about having heard services over the past year or so. Do we know what that sound would have been like? Is this like an amplified sound situation? Is it bells? Is it preaching? Is it meditation? Like what is the impact on the surrounding environment when services are happening? Um yeah, as far as the the the services that may have been held, I I don't believe the applicant has said that there are have been services. I believe they've maybe been at the property. They have had to do maintenance on the property and they have had to um work with architects to figure out how to get this building up to code for it to be uh something that can be used as a place of worship. Um go ahead. I represent but I was ask question. Sure. respected council members and my name is Kal and I live on 6035 langu and uh I'm here to present uh the application. So I just want to talk about this thing uh that uh we use so what I want to talk about is that uh it is our custom the culture that we sing hence before start any work. So even when we have the meetings or other things and we talk about it in the That's what we had the song that is we talking. Can you just have you had services at the uh in the No, we did not have any services over there. We mostly met for uh like I talked to uh staff members multiple multiple times and we had meetings on site with architects, engineers, septic designers and we had multiple architects. The only reason that we took so much of time is to address all the possible concerns that the neighbors could have and we were very serious about keeping the rural character of the house and the property and because of that we had multiple meetings and we had multiple talks over there and we had to update the congregation to discuss of all the options because many things were discussed in that that hey can we use the house can we make the changes in the house and use it or can we have and this all the discuss we had with the city staff also but this was the solution that we came up which took almost a year uh to figure it out all those things to consider the all neighborhood needs and the rural character keep the rural character of those things uh as far as the lights are concerned my architect our architect was under impression that the light was needed if it is not needed then absolutely we can take from this kie could you clarify would you would there be need ever for amplified sound either in your regular service or during festival. Okay. No amplified sound. And then is there any other like do you do I I don't mean to be disrespectful. Is there like a gong or anything that would ever like any other noise? Instruments will be there. Okay. Inside outside inside all of them will be inside. Okay. Everything and and the one thing that I wanted to talk about is the full bar modification that we have proposed. We proposing the insulation which would uh dampen the sound and which would if anything uh that comes out of the pole bar. And another thing that uh I was uh looking at it was the uh uh one second. I wanted to talk about the inverse square law. What it does is that from the source of the sound if you move double the distance then the noise reduced by six decel. So for example if I'm at the from the source if I'm hearing the sound and if I move 10 from 10 m to 20 m then it would reduce by six decel if I further go 40 m then it will reduce 16 dec uh 12 decibel from 6 to two double and then 80 m would be 18 and the nearest neighbor that we have is 170 m which is 550 ft from the pole bar. So that itself will reduce the noise if any coming out of the pole bar by 24 decel and this we are talking about it when it is done on an open field which is not the case. For example, if the bell is there the church bell is there which is the open field use which we are not proposing which we are not doing anything outside of the pole bar. So we already have the insulated pole bar out of that if there is any noise that is coming out that will further reduce by 24 decel to our nearest neighbor. So that's any other questions for the applicant. Have you any concerns from uh your existing sites? So we have been uh using uh we have been using for more than five years. For three years we have used the peace Lutheran church in Plymouth and uh it was a sad news for all of us that it closed and since then we started looking for the new place permanent place for our congregation our group and since we purchased the property we have been using in uh Visera High School we have been using in St. Barbara's church in Plymouth. We have been renting the place in Himl community. We have been renting the place in Hopkins pavilion. And we have never heard uh sound complaint or the noise complaint from any of those places. And then I I just want to also clarify for the record um to my knowledge, police and code enforcement have not received any kind of a formal uh code complaint regarding noise or services being held at the property um since they have purchased acquired the property. So we haven't nothing that we could follow up on. There have there was something stated in the letters we received as part of the public hearing but nothing that was ever submitted. Whereas other uses that we've had that operating without approvals. We did receive complaints and that's how it came about. The applicant uh has tried to go through the proper process before starting any services. Quick question, separate topic. um for the the special events um and this isn't necessarily a something we could um probably legislate or not but just out of curiosity is are they typically on a certain holiday or certain event or are will those be more random in terms of four events? Yes. So it is uh little bit random uh that but it varies few days here and there. It is based on certain calculations and other things and it is how Easter set up. Gotcha. Okay. So like floating. Yeah. So it's it's their major holidays but they aren't set on a specific. Thank you. Thank you Mark. Natalie or or Dwight? Do we uh do we know of any commercial use? Are they selling produce or anything like that? At one point they were talking about I thought you said that. Yeah. Thank you. Um and as part of that they were talking about providing not necessarily selling the food but providing the food to um can't remember exactly what the plan was but they have not included as part of their current proposal. Go ahead. Sorry. Did you want to speak to that at all? Okay. I did talk to someone at the city about we have to keep that kind of and chat to a minimum, but if you'd like to come up briefly and Harvey Road. Um, so just to clarify, we have heard some gatherings going on and it's been like music and like I don't know if it's a bong or a symbol or something like that. Um, and my assumption is the house is insulated. So we have heard that across town to the north through all of the So that's why we're concerned about the sound of the lights. We've also had numerous lights after 10:00 at night shining directly into our bedroom window from cars coming going. Um so there have been gatherings there have been noise and I have talked to somebody about it. So I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. Um could you go back to what the proposed hours of operation? Sure. Yes. Um, go back to that slide here. So, in the applicants narrative, they're um expecting services between 7 am and 4 pm on Saturdays and Sundays. Uh and then every day throughout the week, uh there would be two people, typically two people who come to the site at uh around 5:00 am to 7 a.m. Um and then again sometime between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. And then during the in between there, right? No, I think everyone can speak to that. It's part of a ceremony that they do daily ceremony. Yeah, it is. It is like I 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the weekdays it's one or two person over there. It's a ceremon that we do if you have a proper culture over there. So that's why we have to observe that in the same uh ceremony that we do at 6 p.m. So it' be maybe one or two people coming in in the morning leaving and one or two coming in the evening. Is that indoor or outdoor? Indoor. Okay. Thank you. Um, any other questions for the applicant or staff? Feel like it's been a good discussion so far. Um, I want to agree with something I heard Dean say around this being very different than the zone for the Hindu temple in that it is in a rural zone. There's no city sewer and water available. So, it physically can't grow beyond what a septic system support. Um so for for neighbors who are concerned about what could this develop into until and unless the city decides to expand the Musa this far west, it's going to be highly constrained by the physical limitations of the site. Uh that also means that we're not going to see a lot of housing springing up around it because we don't have building rights in abundance in that part of the city either. So it it will be what it is approved to be. And it sounds like we will have a number of controls around parking lot size and seating capacity as well that would have to get adjusted if there were to be any growth. So to me that helps to mitigate some of the concerns that I would have if I was a neighbor. Um I feel like the number of car trips doesn't really have a serious impact on road safety. those roads are overtraveled. Anyway, um I do want to consider a couple of conditions to deal with some of the other impacts that I think are more um likely to be significant. I thought the the exterior light removal would be a good consideration whether that needs to be a condition or it's just something that can be done. Um it is a a rural area. People like it dark. They like it quiet. So to the degree that we can work to protect that, uh, we should try to do that. Um, I think the suggestion of a parking lot fence might be another worthy consideration. I'm not sure how high that would be or what type of materials would be appropriate, but to mitigate the light shining off the property into people's residences, I think would be helpful. Um, I think it would also be good to consider, I know we're being told for now all the instruments uh are only inside and we're not going to have amplified sound. That might be another condition just considering the noise impact on the neighbors with the early start times that we're seeing in the hours of operation. A couple clarifying points for you. Um, for the exterior light removal, I think there may be some desire from public safety to have at least some light for the parking lot because it allows them to or easily see things. Uh, if there were to not necessarily be anything on the applicant's control, but if someone were to be incorrectly located in the parking lot in the middle of the night, um, would we could certainly remove some of the lights, but would one light So, so that there is some parking lot light. Would that be a a real point? I mean, I'm not trying to speak on behalf of public safety, but I I think being able during some of the hours of operation would be helpful for people coming and going safely traversing across the parking lot. I think there would be there's probably some reasonleness to, you know, for safe ingress and egress of people that are there. Now, that's different if it's middle of the night and there's nobody on premise um in that location with that small of a um you know, use site. I don't know that it would necessarily be a requirement from the public safety end. Maybe like a motion activated. Oh yeah, something like that. Or a timer. Yeah, something similar to what you'd have in the house. Okay. Um, but we could they could certainly reduce the lights and try to make it a bit more strategic and then have those be set on a timer or motion activated. I think that that could something that we could work through with them. Uh, parking lot fence. If the concern is screening headlights, I would say the parking lot should be about 4 feet tall. Um, we require shrubs at about 3 to four feet to uh screen headlights. So, I think that that would be Go ahead. The um I think it's important to note that the only times when those 10 to 12 cars will be at the site are during the day. So, in the evening or two cars and so I think you know we're talking about the rural character of the neighborhood. I think putting sort of a fence in the middle of the field would would sort of be more disruptive than would be since no one no one's going to be there. Um the other potential we we've talked about uh the possibility of a a gravel driveway that's more consistent with the rural character instead of a asphalt or cement. Um and that's something that that we prefer, but city code requires a pave driveway. So to the extent um that's something the council would consider and would think would be more consistent with Um I don't know whe that's something that we can consider on the fly here. If it was I think I'd have to get bigger follow request as to that if that's obviously we hope to get guidance from the council on I think the other thing that's important to note is that the applicants done uh a lot to think about this ro character issue and currently that property has a house and a pole barn and and when this is done it's going to have a house and a pole barn. the pole bar on that property even as a minimally expanded I think we're going to have 700 square feet uh that's significantly smaller than pole bars that are directly across the street and and if you look at parking I don't know if you can put up the area photo um but there are both parking areas and pole bars that are significantly larger than the pole bar will be on this property so and and part of the reason why the materials are what they will be in the final pole are to make the house continue to look like a house in a boulevard in a rural area. And I think that's I think important to note. So that white building directly across the street and then the gray roof building over those are significantly larger uh from a square perspective than the even the expanded. So you know we're not changing the character and we're doing everything we can to uh to avoid that. Thank you. Do you have anything else? Um Natalie question. There was I believe some conversation at the end of the planning commission about um property maintenance ordinance and implementing that into was that implemented into the draft? Yep. So theoretically uh every property in the city has to comply with chapter 87 or property maintenance code but as a condition of the cup they have to remain in comp both both structures would have to remain in comp. and that was to address concerns that they might not be investing in the house. That's no longer the principal structure. Um so that is in the current draft. Um and then um I did have a followup actually. Um okay, if I don't know where C council um sits on the fence idea. I I was kind of thinking the same thing. Perhaps applicant is not. Um, how would you feel about burm some burming instead of fencing in addition to landscaping? Is that I I always love BMS, but I think it's more expensive than a fence. So, if there's resistance to a fence, I imagine it'll be greater for a BM potentially. You'd like to speak? Yeah. So, as part of the design, we had to put another septic system. And that septic system we have strategically put it so that it will hide the parking lot. So that uh you know like one type of structure that we will have will hide the parking lot and that's what one of the consideration we had when we designed. Gotcha. Thank you. Um and then the other item that I had of potential mitigation was maybe a smaller we've done this on some other uh projects but um a smaller requirement of mature plantings like 10% mature plantings at six feet or you know the numbers could be changed. So I believe just you know there are some there are existing existing ones. Yeah. Yeah. And then um we've had a really difficult time keeping the plants alive or the trees alive that are uh too much Yeah. that are already mature when they do that transplant. So, how about like a Yeah, I think if we wanted to I think for over story we require pull up the actual for overstory trees we uh for shade over story trees we required two.5 inch diameter I think uh working with fairway shores they said that they were able to find three inch diameter and we had said that that was um um that that was a PUB benefit for them to move forward with that. I think that could potentially uh be u a request that at least half or whatever percentage you identify of the new plantings be at least three inch diameter for the deciduous trees and then evergreen evergreen trees we want at least four feet high. So I think we could say we would want that to be 5t high and I think those heights are a bit easier to transplant than some more mature trees. Okay. So yeah, like what does council think of those numbers that Natalie suggested? The 3 in and the 5 foot those type of trees at I don't know um 25 30% of the new plantings or something. Are those easier to keep alive? I think we're going to have an easier time keeping those alive. I haven't fair shores hasn't gone yet, but those are the heights that they have proposed as a PV benefit. So, and that was kind of working with what's available. Um, and then also just kind of keeping in mind that you there's a sweet spot to transplant um in terms of the height. So, what about allowing an eitheror with parking lot fence or the enhanced planting sizes? They can negotiate that with staff. Yeah. Go ahead if if you have thoughts. Go ahead. So I agree with Natalie about the planting of the nature little bit overgrown trees. I myself I live on the uh Chankara road and uh close to Vixsburg and I planted almost probably I would say 40 plus trees and 30% died. 30% did not survive. uh I thought that I would get the right away uh uh the screening and everything from the roads but it didn't help. So I'm certainly happy to uh accommodate uh group will be happy to add uh but in case if uh you know expert comes and say that that has the less chances of surviving then I would like city to consider that also and also we would be happy to add more shrubs or we would be happy to add more other trees in case if that would help uh for other concerns and anything Jeremy makes something along the lines of that flexibility would be the right idea then it's not feasible one way then another option third option maybe the third option is another row of shrubs outside the primary suggest an alternative of either larger or more higher number and provides you know similar amount of additional so you think we that would kind of encompass the flexibility there. Yeah, we could we could certainly add that as a condition. Um, so what I'm hearing just for the record is we would want to add a condition that the parking lot have either an additional row of shrubs, a fence, or at least 30% of the planting be um in excess of the minimum height limits to be identified um by staff. I'll make that motion to amend the resolution. We have a second. I'll second it. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. I. Opposed. I'maining. Oh, sorry. Sorry. No, I was just thinking three11. Um, okay. Mr. Mayor, I just want if I could, I just wanted some of the other comments we've heard. We could add a condition to maintain compliance with MPCA noise standards. Um, and we could also add a condition about providing reasonable access to city staff to inspect for compliance periodically. I would like both of those. Yeah. Can I make one comment? I'm just I'm thinking about the rural residential aspect of it and I realize that we have to be cognizant of safety and parking lots, but I feel like because they're moving into a res rural residential, we should limit the lighting as much as we possibly can. Oh, yes. Yes. So, we um Sorry, I think we just forgot to vote on that aspect, too. So, yeah, I think that was so uh reduce the lighting and then have that be on a time. What lighting is there? Be strategic on a timer or motion based. On a timer or motion based and then maybe final um maybe some language to final approval from public safety just just to make sure that Yeah. If it was all said and done and then all of a sudden, oh, this is a public safety issue, then they can pop a light. Okay. Yep. I could do that. But like if it's a public safety issue, should it even be there then? That's my question. It's like, well, I'm saying like if just the like the pitch blackness of it is, but it shouldn't be an issue if we're only having two people there. What he was saying was the cars leaving, there might be some need to have just a little bit of lighting for as the cars are leaving the site. And that's why we're thinking it could be something that's on a timer. I'm thinking something similar to like what you want to have in the back of your house, right? Yeah, that's what I'm thinking too, but but we weren't really specific. So, I just wanted to make sure that we're limiting that because it is rural rural resial. Yeah, I yeah, I think I think a a motion can be made to add the MPCA compliance, the city staff to reasonable access for city staff to inspect for compliance periodically. Um, and then reduce the lights shown on the building to what is necessary um, and have it be comparable to a residential exterior light that's on a timer or and or motion based system. city staff monitoring site. I guess all we would ask is that um whatever is done with respect to congregation limited 35 attendees be done for all all places of worship or uses in the city so that we're not singing this a very small uh congregation out and we're ensuring that that churches where hundreds of people attend are are held at the same that's necessary at all given that you know there's limitation uh but uh but we don't want to be singled out in something I think that's entirely fair I hear what you're saying the at this point what I would say it would be simply just to confirm the attendance um and I and I would imagine just due to staff capacity it'd be based off of a complaint that comes in saying that they're exceeding their attendance limit so and again how much That would be the same. Yep. If Yeah. If we got one for a different one, it's maybe slightly different situation in that the size and scale. Um where you know, St. Thomas might not be up to their maximum number. There might be a fire marshal complaint. But yeah, if they got a complaint just the same, we would we would certainly want that to be a a similar process, the same process for all. Yeah, I think if we were to ever have an event center where they would have a minimum amount of people or a maximum amount of people stipulated in their permit, we would we would have a similar desire to confirm that they're not exceeding that limit. Y do do most places of worship have a cup? I suppose depends on where they're located. In Corkran, they do. Well, and so most of our or I think all of our churches are right now in the PI district because they during our last I believe it was the last comp plan. Um it was just determined that they should be reszoned to public institution. So right now they don't have a CUP aspect because it's a permitted use in that district, but they didn't start out that way. Um and so I would say the but any new churches coming in would rural residential or in our urban residential, they would all be subject to a CV. So Natalie, could you restate what you have for that additional um maintain compliance with MPCA noise standards uh provide reasonable access to city staff to inspect from compliance periodically. We could even change that based um if complaints are received. Um and then uh removal of lights to what is necessary for the site to function. Lights must be on either a timer and or motion based system. Yes. Anything else? I'm I'm still not in favor, but that that's me. But the question I have is a conditional use permit. Once it's granted for this property, it stays with this property until whenever well until someone either uh changes the use or but the use could be anything being that we grant the conditional use for this property. Only this use only this use. So if they were to anything that they were to change, they have to come in a full obligation. So but yes and then they also I didn't understand it that way in the planning commission. It wasn't it wasn't spoken like that. So they also have to remain in compliance with their standards. So technically um if they were not to comply with the conditions of approval there is a a revocation process. Um so the so it but to your point when you grant a CUP as long as they're operating within what was approved for that CUP they can continue operating indefinitely. Yes. Yeah. I think what you're maybe getting confused with is it does run with the land. So if they sold it to someone to do the exact same use, it would continue, but if they sold it to someone to do something different or they outgrew it or someone else outgrew it, then it would not. Why would you do an interim use permit? Then the city decided to do a conditional use permit for places of worship. Um but that's what's currently at. So interim use permits, they do sunsets. Um we at this time that's simply how we have it. Churches have a lot of investment typically required with bringing things up to code. So an IUP um we're running into that even with event centers where the people just aren't willing to make that kind of investment with something that could sunset every potentially every three years. Potentially something to look at in a bigger code. Okay. Is there I just have a question. And I I'm I'm kind of on the same page as um Council Member Varencamp in that I feel like we're circumventing our code to make something work because we're changing the main structure to an accessory structure and we're creating a structure. And I know that that's what you said. Many churches have those. But I'm just wondering if there's something that we need to be more specific in our code or if this would still happen even if we had something that said your your your living structure is your main structure and your accessory structure is something else. It's so a place of worship though. So if you if the pole barn is a temple and that's going to be their primary use now that's the primary of what the CP would be granting. So it's really how the site functions. It's different than Yes. just swapping and saying you couldn't live out of that pole barn shed. But they can live out of their new pole barn which is the No, they couldn't live out of it. They It's the primary use, but they couldn't live out of it. Correct. Standard. Yeah. It's would be brought up to code to allow for a place of worship, place of assembly. It's not brought up for resial. But we we just said that if somebody decided to move into the house, correct? Then they're going to live in the accessory structure. No. So I'm we're talking about how this site functions. So we're saying that the pole barn, the temple, that is not a residence. That's not something they could live out of. The house on the site would be their accessory use. And that could potentially be where someone would reside if someone were to live on the property. I guess could we make it a condition that someone does live on the property? I don't believe so. That what we did was that they have to continue investing in the home um and to comply with our property maintenance codes. The other thing I wanted to confirm is there's going to be two septic systems then one for the pole barn and excuse me, one for the temple and one for the home. The other thing that that again it just doesn't smell right. Whatever I don't know how to say it. We're talking now offices in the accessory structure which is the home. Well, just yeah being able there were comments at the planning commission that they still want to use the home to prepare food and those kind of things. Stage it so they're not going to be preparing food where they would bring How do we monitor that? I I just it's just it's opening so many cans of worms on in my mind that I mean we we do stuff we do stuff for um residences uh what do we call mother-in-law apartments in pole sheds and such. We put more restrictions on these kind of things than we're doing on on something like this. It just doesn't seem right. have to do the same thing. I guess my question is if if we look at other churches in the site that have a house on premises for their religious leader, are we concerned with that? Is that a concern? Do we would we want to prohibit that? Give me an example, Natalie. We've got St. John's where the the church is there. the the house is there, but the church is going away and they're keeping two properties. When the when the new church goes in, the old church comes down, the residence is still staying there, but it's on two different properties. It's one site though. It's all It's one site and the you can tell because of the fact that the parking lot goes over to the other site. So, it's one site. Um, and I I don't know if you can pull it up, but I that's just my concern. You're say, are we okay with them having a residence on their property as an accessory use to the church, or are we saying that that would be something that we don't want to see? Michelle, I'd like to hear I'm trying to understand like the difference between how they're set up on on different church places of worship. So, like with St. John's or St. Thomas, those are separate plats, right? The the the temple or the place of worship is separate from from the house. I don't believe so. The the house um I thought St. Thomas had three separate St. Thomas has a looks like a house that is on the same property as the cemetery in the existing church. And then St. John's, I believe, also the the house is on this is this is St. John's here. As you can see, Um the the blue outline is the outline of the parcel. Um where my mouse is right now is where the church is and then just south of it is where the house is located. It's on the same parcel. So it's kind of a similar situation in that aspect. Yeah, thank you. Um going back to Natalie, those items, uh could you list that one more time? Yes. Uh maintain compliance with MPCA noise standards. uh provide reasonable access to city staff to inspect the temple for compliance if complaints are received. Um limit the lights on the building to what is necessary for the site to function. Lights must be on a timer or motion based sensor and I believe those are the three that we were going through. I'll make that motion to amend the resolution to include that. I think we had a motion in a second. If not, I'll second. I think we added the lighting. So, it was it be a friendly amendment maybe. Okay. Should we include the lighting? I'm fine with it being a friendly. Whoever wants to. We have a second. I volunteered to second. I second. Everyone cool with that. Okay. Motion second. Nicholls. Uh, any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. Nay. Three. That passes. Um, that's for the amendment, right? Yes, that was the another amendment to the resolution. Anything else? We've added some substantial mitigation tools. If not, someone want to take a crack at the motion. See a few wheels turning. ask one more question. Sure. How how are we going to mitigate the parking lot again? Like the salt that gets put on the the parking lot for the for the winter months and the runoff piece. We could ask them for so in our northeast district, we ask all commercial and industrial or yeah, even multif family uses to provide a um Oh, Steve, what is it? Mitation plan. So, we could ask them to submit a mitigation plan. That need to be in the resolution or Yep, we would want to add that. Okay. I mean, I think that's important. That's our wetlands and and if there's a field that's being planted Yeah. or farmed. I think that's important. Um, I guess I do have a concern about the enforcement piece because we're putting the responsibility on the neighbors for enforcement then because it's complaint based. If you would prefer, we could do a yearly compliance check. It can be both. Yep. It could be both. That's true. I guess I would feel better if it was both. That seems more fair to me if I was a resident that was living there and I had to call each time I heard something that was outside of the hours or not following what we're what we're setting in place. Keep those two items in mind. You want to speak that does the city do that for every 10 to 12 cars or larger and I think that there's a concern that much higher intensity are not being so I don't know if city staff has the capacity to across the city but it would have to be the city are there other cups in the rural area of a similar intensity I can't think anything off top of my head we do have IUPs for home occupations and they go through inspection every three years so we could base it off of And complaint based is I mean we do that on whatever based on complaints. Yeah. That's our uniform standard for everything really. Yeah. And we we came to that out of realization that people didn't like having city staff driving around looking for problems. Yeah. So maybe we did it um complaint based or make it a uniform thing. Same as standard or when a complaint is the network. Yeah. We're staying within our legal boundaries, then. Do you want to make a motion to amend those two in? Um, sure. I'll make a motion to include those two additional amendments. We have a second. I'll second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. opposed. I one passes. All right. So, we have a pretty heavily amended resolution. Uh let's some I think strong mitigation items in there. Does anyone want to take a crack at a motion? I'll make a motion, too. If I can just say one more thing, please. Again, if this was a worship group, a religion, a religious group coming and asking to build a church at that corner, I would not I could not stand in the way because it would be identified. It is a use in the rural residential and all of those things to do what we're doing here. Um, a number of the neighbors have talked to me and have stated at the podium that this is just opening us up for a whole bunch of interpretation to our ordinances and everything else. And it just it just doesn't seem right. If if this group were to come to us and and be doing exactly what I'm saying, I'd be the first one to stand up and say yes because I have supported the temple in Maple Grove and again the BAPS folks down in Madina and that group and stuff. But that's literally building a temple, literally building a worship place and such. This is in my mind just a way out that just doesn't seem right, folks. That's what I feel. So, thanks for letting me say something. Um, can I go ahead and Dwight? Uh, hours of operation again. Could you pull that slide up for me? Yes. So, you know, I see 7 a.m. 500 a.m. during those times. Do we anticipate instruments or chanting or um the applicant can speak to that, but to my understanding the weekday services are fairly quiet. Um I don't think there's any um instruments or music involved in that. Um the weekend services I do believe that there is some some songs but um the applicant could probably speak to that better than I to that point too. Mark, Mr. Mr. Mayor, if I may, I thought worship services were identified 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 and this is open all day Saturday and Sunday. You thought they were to 11:30 where on the weekend services it says 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. I thought I've been hearing, correct me if I'm wrong, 7:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. were the Saturday Sunday services. Why are we open all day? Again, back to the respect of the neighbors in the rural setting and such. That can change the aspects around this area. Do you know where you saw the maybe the can I believe the um I don't want to speak for them. I think there's like there's a main service and then expect to kind of peter out until 4 o' and if I could get an answer to my question. Yeah. Also, could you reate that? Yeah. My my question is I see um weekend services 7 a.m. weekday services 5:00 a.m. When when do the instruments and the and the the chantings begin? Uh So the instrumental changing will be inside. I understand that. But at what time? So it would be uh roughly around the same time. Okay. But we will follow all the noise ordinance that city has on. Okay. Same time on the on both the weekend and weekday or Yes. All right. So So chanting and instruments can be anticipated 7 a.m. during the weekend. and 5 a.m. during the weekday. Yes. Okay. Presumably. Do you expect that those will be heard by the neighbors? Two people, right? And the uh as the applicant has said, the the temple would have to be further insulated than what is currently the pburn standard because comply with building codes. So that will reduce some of the sound as well. And the nearest house is over yards you said away from the building. So the sound will decrease several times over. So the standard that they must complain must comply with the MPCA noise standards um that would be very achievable even with chanting and some instrumentation within the full bar plus the screening and the screening would also dampen some of that as well. Okay. Can I ask a quick question? Yes. um just of our city attorney is are we setting a precedent by allowing the CV for future other entities that may want to do the same thing? Um mayor and council I no uh the code allows for this as a permitted use of conditions. So um having them comply with existing standards would be what your code calls for. Anything else? Jeremy, were you gonna Yeah, I was looking for the number. One second. Um Michelle found the information related to the hours of services in the letter addressed to us um March 5th that services were from 7 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. where we anticipate our attendance to continue to be around 25 worshippers. Yeah. the planning commission, the applicant has said that the main time on the weekends would be till about 11 a.m. where the that's where the 25 people are anticipated there and then but there would still be people at the site until about 4:00. Is that accurate? Yes. And and again, I'm I'm speaking for the neighbors and such of that rural side of our our life out there and stuff will and can be changed with this if it goes outside the the the temple area. It just I can't say anymore. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-45 as amended. Do we have a second? All right, we'll second. Further discussion discuss. All right. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. Nay. Okay. Um, so that fails. Does someone want to make a motion? Um, in the other I'll make a motion for to dial a conditional use permit on site plan for the new Haven Temple related to um public safety. Um, I'm I wasn't prepared, I guess. Public safety, the change in the rural atmosphere out here, um, to the existing neighbors and such. Um, if those are two things I can recommend a denial on. Do we need Do I need more? It it would be helpful if we had some to some data points. Um, visually being out there, the close calls, everything else, it just Jeremy said it best was we're already overpopulating staff to come back with Well, I think we we have the the basis of a denial resolution in front of you. So, I think I just add to that. I don't Wasn't there a variance too? Something with a variance that they needed to adjust? There was There's no varian. I'm sorry, not a variance. A setback. Something with a 10 foot. Something was not accurate with one of the buildings, one of the accessory. It was an email that we just recently got. Sidewall height. Oh, yeah. That was the sidewall height for the We typically have not denied one of those since I got here. So, I would say we focus on the place of worship. Um, okay. Really close call and sight lines. I don't Do you have thoughts on bringing it back versus what we've prepared? Mayor, may um Yeah, mayor and council. I think if you're going to make um you're going to give direction as far as denial, the in addition to providing the basis and findings reasoning for that for that conclusion. Um the second level that you should also address is um if you find that reasonable conditions cannot be placed to mitigate the concerns you have and why. So it's what is the concern and why can't it be two levels you should cover staff what you want I can't just use it don't just don't smell right no that's not a binding back. Um, I would say uh sound, which is one of my concerns, sound uh at 700 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. My guess is the neighborhood is quiet and I believe that the the sound is going to travel and uh I don't think that with the way this is written now with the proposal as it is, I don't I I don't see that being mitigated. So my I'm I'm voting no because of the sound and because of the time of day. Mayor, if I may, um just council member Lman, is there a means by which you can mitigate that concern by either restriction of hours or reference to what we we talked about MCA standards, both anything additional or is there doing so. Well, I did I didn't want to presume to be able to modify the hours of operation. Um I I you know I I don't know what what is expected um at the temple. Uh if if uh the modification of the hours of operation is uh is a possibility. Um, you know, I could see, you know, uh, weekend services 9:00 a.m. weekday services, uh, I would say 8:00 a.m., but again, I don't want to presume that that's even an option for the applicant. No, understood, Council Member Langman. I I would say that preferable to that would be in deference to a set standard. We reference the NPCA residential standard that exists. And if they're not meeting it, they're not in compliance with the CP. They could operate at the hours they they've suggested, but it be their burden to figure out a way to make the noise not escape to that level, right? Whether that's for additional installation, insulation, uh burning, you know, what whatever the remedy ends up being. So that that's one way to look at it. If you feel that that can't be done, you go to that next level of well, I you know, the hour restriction would address the issue, then that probably the next if you feel that both can't solve the problem that is where you reach. Okay. Thank you. Well, I'm I'm still at a no that I feel like they have articulated reasons from the notebooks. Um yeah, we can we will go based off the findings provided. Um, we is it just an amendment to the Sorry. Do you want us to just draft it based on what the discussion and then it's done or do you want it back before you to officially approve it? I kind of forgot where we are. Councelor Baramp does have a motion with with the added conversation. If you could draft something and bring it back at the next meeting, I would go that way. Have to deny based on the discussion back the next meeting. Okay. One second. Yep. So, we do have a motion. Does anyone Do we have a second? What was the motion to direct staff to draft a resolution of denial based on the conversation and the the uh the fact that you I'll second that. Okay. Any further discussion? I'd like to hear that. Y it seems as if the council knows the reasons for it denial tonight and to ensure that staff drafts a resolution that's consisting so we're not in any state for different reasons. Obviously, we want this to be approved, but it's going to be denied. We'd like to know why that have that as soon as possible. I think it would we've done this in the past where we've come back with the written information and the next meeting I think is reasonable enough. So, the only other thing I'd have, do you know if there's any flexibility on the hours of operation? I guess I would ask if if there are no actual noise concerns, uh, is the council going to regulate uh, my parents read their Bible sing is the council going to regulate that activity at home areas. I I don't see it being the same. I see it something different. So I see this as a a group of people making an effort to start a church, start a temple and such. And I don't I don't agree it's in its location. and it might be in allowed use and such, but to change change the uh environment of all of our rural areas and stuff without it truly going through the same things that our other religious groups have gone through in this city to build a church or to build a temple. This will be our first temple. I just don't see it being the same the same requirements. So, it is a motion and second. Yes. Anything else in discussion? All those in favor say, Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry. Can we clarify just for for staff's benefit the the specific findings and reasoning? I I just want I'm I'm not clear on it. I I forgive me. Can we clarify that just for for our Yep. First of all, the motion was to to bring it back. Bring it back. Right. Can we just clarify the direction on that, Mr. R? Yes. Yeah. Thank you. It was three want to take a lead on it. It is safety noise to the rural residents around this property. Um and again what's been done in the past for other religious institutions to build their their churches in Corkran, even though they were rural residential side and all that stuff before the Musea ever came out here and such, there was a significant amount of requirements for them to build their churches and and their worship spaces and stuff And they they they look more like a religious place than a a pole barn just modified and changed. But it is a permissible use in rural residential to have a temple. It's a conditional use. Conditional. Thank you. Same as the the the churches that are there now, but inside the mus. So I I have a question for Mr. Thes. Um I think I gave the same spiel for the quick trip last meeting. Um so what a conditional use means is the use is potentially permitted provided it doesn't conflict with standards that would impact surrounding properties that you can't mitigate that you can't mitigate. So, council is entirely permitted to make its own determination as to whether an application would violate the standards in code for a conditional use. Um, provided they're based on reasonable findings of fact. I don't know that there's anything in the code that would talk about comparing this application to other applications that we think other people might have had to go through in the past. So, I don't think that last one makes sense to include. That's me just giving my opinion. I think on public safety there's potentially a valid basis there. Noise is potentially a valid basis. But I just want to be careful we don't try to include things that aren't a sound basis in code uh to ensure that we're as protected as we can be if council as a body decides to go down this road. I agree. Thank you. So to answer Mr. question. Public safety concerns. Noise is another one. Sound like architectural standards also came up. Standards I think. Did you mention noise? I thought I heard someone say noise concerns with the surrounding properties. Surrounding properties. Even though there hasn't been complaints, they've been tolerant. And there was a complaint. There was someone that heard made a complaint. They talked to somebody at city hall and potential noise. And so lastly, I think we have kind of a a start there. The the latter point that I that I was trying to get to is so you you're making a finding that that doesn't comply with the conditions referenced by Council Nichols and then the second part of that analysis being that reasonable conditions that can be placed on the application to make it fit uh within the proposed use and allowable under the code. So, um if you can direct staff on on what what you want that to say. I I have a question. Yes. Um for the quick trip CUP, we added a condition on hours of operation. Is that gi given the rela requirements which doesn't apply to a gas station but does apply here is that a valid thing to include? Council member Nichols knows the council. I there are definitely some different considerations here in the so I'm hesitant to go too much one to one from those two applications but um there were some limitations that we talked about there based on that being a requirement to fit within the neighborhood. If that is the only thing that you can do to make it fit within the within the neighborhood, you can make a finding to that effect and restrict the hours correspondingly. There are other considerations here being that it's a church. Um, you're correct. Um, but ultimately the reasoning is yours. You can make the the call on that. Um, we don't want to uh substantially burden the the church's operation or or what they what they do. Um, but you can make a determination. You don't believe that that does that while it protects the neighborhood enough to allow them to operate. Um it it's just we we just have to make our findings give our reasoning for what the restriction is and why if it can't be mitigated why it can't be mitigated. I'll just add another layer to that. We want to be careful that we treat this similarly to other uses of assembly in the district. Event centers per code are allowed to operate until 10 p.m. daily. There is nothing identified as the start time in our code. Um additionally, it says no sound no sound amplification system will be used outdoors after So I would say we would I would be wary to limit the hours of operation knowing that we give that flexibility for event centers. Is that considered an event center or a place of worship? Event center is a place of assembly and rela you want to be careful to not treat other places of assemb to treat religious uses more stringent than other places of assembly allowed in the district. Okay. being said, is there particular hours that would make it more amable to you for start time? Well, I guess I would u you know, instead of just me picking an arbitrary time, I would I would perhaps mirror the uh construction noise limitations. So that would be 7 a.m. I'm sorry. 8 to 8 8 to 4 on the weekends and then that be 7 to 7 during the weekdays. But this is quite different than if we're if we're doing that. We're limiting all of our churches to these hours and too it's a condition in the cup. So it would be specific to the application but it it would probably set how we have to treat vet centers others and other similar uses that may come in after this that have yeah that have some kind of limitations. So it's just something to keep in mind. Yeah. John, do you think you got did you get an answer that's sufficient? Um, well, I I mayor, I've heard the council kind of discuss the the possibility of of the hours and how that might affect some other things. Um, I I don't know if if that's the route we're going, but um I I guess what I'm what I'm pushing for a bit more is that, like I said, that second part of the analysis about um it doesn't fit as the conditions are written. Um, is the council also finding that it it can't be remedied with any additional conditions? Um, or that there are conditions. We just haven't named them yet. In which case, maybe that's a different motion. But, um, you know, it's council's discretion what you want to find on that. It's just a matter of want to cover that second part. Could we look at what other places of worship's hours are or does that impede Dean, would you mind withdrawing the motion just for now and then we can bring it back for now? Yes, I will withdraw. Thank you. Didn't I had a second though, didn't I? That's fine. Um to be consistent, but I think consistency is important. Can you do that though? Like it's different than like a quick trip or gas station that has set hours. I my understanding is may I real quick? Sure. This is my somewhat educated opinion. If we go to the extreme and say what if there was a proposed use where if we wanted to have a larger assembly at 2 a.m. would it be reasonable for a council to place restriction if it's going to happen in a rural environment? It seems to me like there's a reasonable argument to be made that under the cup criteria that would affect other people's enjoyment of their property for purposes already approved in the zone. So to me I think there is an argument that can be made that we could set a reasonable limit. I think the parallel between an event center and something like this is an imperfect one because events typically don't happen very early in the morning. They're usually afternoon evening affairs that run late rather than start early. Um I would be fine pursuing an update to code to add a start time for event centers too if we need to be consistent. Yeah, I think that's a good idea on another day to look into that for sure. I agree. And I will just say St. John's just for other hours, councelor Friedrich, they open every day at 7:30. except Easter when they have sunrise services. Well, that's the restanding as part of the reason why they have the hours they do is because the ceremonies based on sunrise. So, I think that's part of the hours. Don't they have a school, too? Well, and they have to go to work and things like that. These are So, they're all taking uh turns doing the cere Oh, I'm sorry. St. John's. I don't Yeah, I I believe they do. I think St. John's has a school. St. Thomas is 9:00 a.m. Yeah. Um, but I just to say that this is a different religion, so there's different There's different ceremonies that they're having that I believe are partly based on sunrise and sunset, but I I'm not trying to speak for you. So, feel free to correct me if that was what I was wondering. That's why I was asking. So, we need I think uh attorney James's reasoning more directly if we're going to go down that route. Yeah. for Mayor if I may for clarity on the hours. I think the the superior approach on this would be to adjust the other factors on the property that are causing the offending noise first. If that can be done that that's your so whether you're holding the NBC standards additional screening Bing uh additional noise mitigation within the primary structure what whatever that has to be um if if you believe that that can't reach a sufficient level you can look at hours and that still is less restrictive on the operation than an outright denial. So it's still better to give them the hours you think that you that are appropriate that you can give uh over an outright If you're making a finding for denial, you're finding that um in addition to it not meeting meeting the conditions, you can't make it meet the conditions with the mitigating factor that would be at your disposal. So So to take that into a practical application, I think there's clearly a split on if we think that the mitigation is sufficient or not among council. Is there anything in that first area that John was talking about of other mitigating factors that could make it comply to to you? What about acoustic tile or acoustic standards being applied to the floor structure? Would that deal with the residual risk that Trump is concerned about? I've got concerns with meetings they've already had that the neighbors have heard it. So if they've been in the house doing it and people are hearing it, the windows are open. Again, the the noise during the times it carries a long way if the wind's traveling in one direction. Just to be clear there, you don't think that there's any mitigating additional mitigating things we can implement that would additional items we could implement to mitigate that issue to make it compliant. I'm not I'm not Yeah, I'm not a I'm not a designer. I'm not a an architect or anything else. I just All of these things would come into effect if they were building a structure. It would be a different thing than turning a pole barn into a worship space. Well, again, I'm not a I'm not a a sound engineer, but for for me, I think if you are able to mitigate this through the use of tiles or some other sound dead deadening materials, I I would be fine with that. I'm not an expert on quiet. We can certainly look condition you could look at other work with the applicant to identify additional sounding materials for the if I may I just one possible suggestion um potentially to address the what I I'm hearing from council campus is concern about the potentially the the conflict between are we hearing things off the property or not the obligation is to comply with the MPCA standards we we've made that a condition of this and that's the residential standard so One possibility would be as a condition of the CD uh the council could require um at the time of of their they complete their buildout uh within that first year that some noise testing sound engineer uh be set up offsite uh to to confirm that it's meeting those standards um before and to basically to allow them to do their operation. If they are during their services um then release the concern. if they're not uh they would have to do additional mitigated measures uh to address that. So that and that that would be another another way to to be sure before they're fully up and running that the sound has been addressed. Could I add one thing? I just I know we had mentioned the Hindu temple in Maple Grove and the Hindu Temple in Maple Grove's hours are Monday through Sunday from 900 a.m. to 9 or to 8:00 p.m. 9:30 a.m. Saturday and Sunday they open at 9:00 a.m. But during the week they're opening at 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and then 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. I don't know if it's the same. I'm I'm just throwing that out there. Okay. All right. I believe they're they're um again I don't want to speak to it, but I believe they're slightly different religious section and again there's the they part of their ceremony is to wake up their deity in the morning and put them to bed at night. Gotcha. That's a different religion, a different church. No, no, no. I only referenced it because we had brought that up. Yes. Anything else? The noise mitigation strategy. Yeah. I mean, I I I would be fine with that. You know, my my thing is if I was a neighbor, I wouldn't want respectfully I wouldn't want them to be my 500 a.m. wakeup call. And if if if that can be addressed, I'm I'm fine with it. So that that suggestion that you made of the test and then if it was out of compliance, we bring that up with them and they'd have to be brought into compliance before they operations. Yeah. Okay. Just one comment. We're talking about two people in this location in the morning. I have seven people in my house and I've got more more noise in my house any day will occur this confused why this is a significant concern we already have noise standards in place they're meant to deal with these things that apply on a uniform basis why this I think to answer that directly it's because of the 5 a.m. start time and because of the residential character of the existing area I think the latest discussion is just a verification that the existing condition we already approved is being satisfied which to me doesn't feel like an escalation. It's just confirming that what we think is going to work has actually worked and if it doesn't additional measures should be taken such as title two. So we amended that end that the needle for you? Yes. Okay. I'll make a motion to amend if you have enough of what the conversation was to to draft that. Okay, I'll make that motion. I'll second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I opposed. Nay. One. And then uh someone want to make a motion Jeremy or I think you did it before at one point. I did it last time. I'll do it again. Uh, in light of that amendment to further ensure the effectiveness of the controls, I will move to approve resolution 2025-45. I will second it. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed? Nay. All right. Thank you. Does anyone need a break for We'll take a uh 8 minute recess here and be back at about 9:35. 9 minute recess was really Good to go. All right. We'll go ahead and call the meeting back to order. [Music] We online. Perfect. And we will go right into item 7B, which is the Chastic Family Farm resoning and preliminary plat. And if you want to do it the same way we just did, we'll do comments first and then presentation and discussion. Great. Thank you, Mr. May. We have a comment card from Steve Mueller. One second. Let me get my timer machine set up here. Good evening. I know this is a preliminary meeting, so I will be very brief. My name is Steve Muler, 7474 Burl Lane North and Bass Lake crossing. Our development butts up against Maple Hill Road and County Road 10. I just want to address two things that are in Natalie's 21page staff report for the Ches Family Farm Plat. The first item is turn lanes from County Road 10. After reviewing two turn lanes, the conclusion from the staff report is only one westbound turn lane from County Road 10 is needed. The developer claims in a May 15th letter that any turn lanes are outside the scope of their project and they shouldn't be responsible for paying for them. However, I want to reinforce that the one westbound turn lane on County Road 10 is an excellent suggestion based strictly on safety. This example really exemplifies that fact because we have a safe turn lane from County Road 10 into our development. The school bus for the kids in the Maple Hill manufactured home park will sometimes cut through our neighborhood as a way to Maple Hill Road. The school bus sometimes drives too fast because we have no stops in Bass Lake Crossing. We have no school age kids in a senior development. So, they're strictly using us as a safe turn lane shortcut to Maple Hill Road. So, obviously a westbound turn lane directly onto Maple Hill Road is very important, especially with that curb on County Road 10. The second item is a request by the developer to cap the city improvement to 500,000 with the city subsidizing any overage. If the city accepts that proposal, there is a chance through the 429 process to assess us homeowners. There are only six homes out of 95 Bass Lake Crossing homes directly on Maple Hill Road. However, our entire community of 95 homes could be susceptible because of the common Personally, I live three streets away from that road, so I would normally never use it. On page 21 of the staff report, there's a summary discussion question that says, "Is there a desire to complete a 429 assessment project for the improvements to Maple Hill Road?" We respectfully hope you will agree that answer should be no. Why the developer is even using hypothetical 500,000 numbers is puzzling. They certainly would know the actual cost of that road replacement. The developer should be responsible for the cost of the road and the turn lane unless maybe Henipin County helps. Thank you very much for letting me speak. Thank you. Thank you, Steve. Comment from Lyn Alberts. Okay. Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak to you tonight. My name is Albertson and my address is 7490 for lane and I'm the treasur for bassing home association. I wanted to talk to you about chastic farm approval of a land use application before the application and development agreement are finalized and approved by the council. I would like to suggest that a clause be added to the development agreement that states if the developer damages property neighboring land and that escro agreement will pay for the damages. Now Beth said that she's not responsible for payment but but I still have this written out but she says she's not responsible. I said Trek Development and JB Limited for Quick Lake Highlands damaged our main irrigation line on June 5th, 2024 when installing the sidewalk for Cook Lake Highlands. and the truck developments supervised the contractor. She said she did supervise it, but the contractor mentioned her name when he hit the line. The contractor and Beth knew that the irrigation line was buried there from when the road was installed two years prior. We specifically said it's right here. You can see where it was at path. The contractor admitted that he had forgotten the irrigation line was there until he hit it. Our irrigation contract landscaping repaired the damaged line. The cost to repair the main irrigation line was $1,840. Beth Houston said asked for a copy of that invoice on June 14th, 2024. We have been sending a copy of the invoice every month since June 2024 to Beth and Jake and Robert from JB Limit. They still have not paid for the damage to our irrigation line. We have talked to Jay at the city and he said the city has no ability to get reimbured from from the JB Limited for Truck Development. We are very disappointed that Truck Development and JB Limited will not respond to our emails stating why they think that they do have to pay the invoice. Whatever happened to being a good neighbor and taking responsibility when you damage a neighbor's property, please, and this is for the legal council, please add a clause to your development agreement that addresses this issue so that if there's damage to neighboring property during development, they can get reimbured. We currently irrigation lines along the chass. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any other comment cards. Does anyone else want to speak? Okay. And we will go on to uh presentation and briefly um Mr. Fames, could you comment on feasibility of something like that? My thoughts would be that probably be a private um you know right of action between the two parties if there's property damage on one you know a lawsuit directed between those two parties would probably be Thank you mayor council um the these these uh these types of incidents are veryction specific um I think that the the development contract um which does contemplate security from the developer um you know, house damage would be developers responsibility. I think the fact pattern that he's referencing, there are a couple other elements to it that act as a bar to taking any action based on some of the reporting, timing, the reporting, what occurred by the time it was. Um, however, I think the development agreement and securities that are a part of it do allow us to secure that developer fixes what they as is. Okay. Yes. Thank you. So if I inter if I'm interpreting that right, had we known earlier, it would have been possible to intervene. Quite possibly. What's the Can I discuss what the timing would have to be done? I say before any work completed, if you would have notified the city, then we would have gotten our engineering team out there and worked with you on this. So you mean like before the repair was created? Yeah, before someone was hired. Typically, there were barriers before it was completed. Having the city get involved at beginning stages would have been key to expediting it to the way that they they're hoping to be resolved. Well, that doesn't necessarily preclude you from trying to resolve this previous one. Potentially, not trying to give legal advice just Okay, thank you, Mr. is Chastic Family Farm. It's a resoning and preliminary plat. The applicant is track real estate in development and Temple Real Estate doing business as Emerald Rose LLC. The proposal would be for 104 single family residential lots and three outs and the site location is at 7600 Maple Hill Road, which is just northeast of the Maple Hill Road and County Road 10 intersection. This is a visual of the proposed development. The first component that we need to look at tonight is the reszoning. The applicant is requesting that the property be reszoned from RSF2 to RSF3. The major difference being a smaller lot size for RSF3 and 65 foot width uh lot frontage. Staff finds there is reasoning for support of the resoning request. The council and the city in general have the following criteria list in code for evaluation. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has found to be consistent with the city comprehensive plan including public facilities and improvement and capital improvement plan. The requested resoning is anticipated to achieve at least the minimum density required of low density residential areas in the 2040 comprehensive plan. So staff finds it is consistent with our uh policies and estlished the proposed action meets the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance or in the case of a map amendment it meets the purpose and intent of the individual district. The proposed resoning does meet the purpose and intent of the RSF3 district which specifically states it is intended to be the primary single family zoning district for new residential development. Third, there is adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed action. There is not currently adequate road infrastructure in this area. Uh and speaking about Maple Hill Road and County Roadtown intersection to support the proposed development. A condition of the development moving forward is to complete road improvements as currently recommended by staff. I have a full slide on that later um in order for this area to support an increase in traffic. U trunk sewer is currently available on the site and water pressure and supply were confirmed adequate for the project as part of the infrastructure feasibility study completed by our engineering team. Lastly, there is an adequate buffer or a transition between potentially incompatible districts. The RSF3 district is compatible with the planned unit development districts to the south and east, which use the RSF3 standards as their base. Directly north is the manufactured home park district, which does have a higher density of homes, but typically we do not require lower density uses to screen from higher density uses as they come in. But the applicant does have on the plans a privacy fence near portions of the north boundary of the project to provide some screening for both sides. Finally, a buffer yard class A is required around the perimeter of the exception piece that is in the northeast quadrant of the site. So if the city determines that we uh will approve the resoning, then we can go to the preliminary plat analysis again. 4 single family lots that are proposed. The minimum lot size is 7500 square feet in the RSF3 district and their lot sizes range from 7,800 square ft roughly to the largest lot being about 28,000 square ft. All lots do comply with the minimum lot width of 65 ft and all shown building pad locations comply with the setback requirements. Additionally, lots 30 and 34 have at least part of the lot that fall within the Shorland Overlay district. The portion of the property that is within the Shorland Overlay district has an impervious surface limit of 25% and a height limit of 25%. It appears that um those impacted lots would be able to comply with those standards. A specific builder was not identified but example elevations from Mi Homes was were provided and they were included in the packet. They are not seeking any variances from our architectural standards. So they will be expected to fully comply with both section 1060.050 subdivision 1B which is our residential district standards generally and then we have uh we have suburban architectural standards for um RSF 1, RS 2, RSF3 and section 1040.040 subdivision 8. And so that's where we have the the maximum garage size and things like that. So the staff report uh goes bit by bit through each standard that they'll be required to comply with. It does appear that the provided example elevations will be able to comply. Further compliance with these standards will be confirmed with each building permit review for each individual home. And then staff identified um several properties that have multiple facads. And that means the facade uh that faces the public street but isn't a technically a front for how we've defined it for our architectural standards. Um they have a slightly higher standard. They have to they have to have two different materials indoor styles compatible with the front elevation. So basically what's visible to the street has to speak to each other and be consistent. Um and so the resolution in front of you does identify those lots. So as they come in step that'll staff will be able to confirm that compliance uh confirm compliance on those lots. Uh for the wetlands and landscaping um there are five wetlands on site. wetland buffers and monument sides will be must be established and that is further discussed in the staff report. Um for the most part it looks like they'll be able to comply. There's just a couple of areas where we needed um some potentially some additional widths or just some clearer measurements provided by the applicant. Overall a total of 114 overstory trees and 19 understory trees are required. They are proposing 119 overstory trees and 29 understory trees. They do comply. However, a little bit of more work needs to go into the buffer yard around the exception piece, which is what's shown here. They don't um we need some the buffer also needs to extend down to um down to Maple Hill. So, actually to the west. Um also native grasses and native and naturalized species must be within that plan of buffer yard. And so there is a condition of approval that the landscaping plan uh any changes that include only native grasses and native species within that area. Uh planted buffer yard is not required along the east and south property lines of the development the perimeters. Uh they do have to have a setback that nothing needs to be planted in that area. So that is um again something that they comply with currently and that area is identified as part in part of the resolution to make sure that we are um keeping that space available for the buffer. The plat shows four full accesses currently shown into the development. Two are on Maple Hill Road and two access um two accesses are provided to the Fairway Shores development to the east. Uh the northern connection that they are showing on Maple Hill Road does not comply with the city's road network spacing shown in our southeast district plan. It creates uh spacing and safety conflicts with the existing church driveways across the street. And it does not meet our spacing guidelines for connector streets. And I have an image here. Um, so just to give you some comparison, our southeast district plan anticipates a road network that would align more with the exception piece and the northern boundary of Chastic. Um, so probably more like a um, and what they're showing is a little further south. And the problem is is we have two Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that you can't see my laser pointer. Um, okay. Now you can see. So we have um here's the exception piece and then for reference here's the exception piece on the on the plat. So the we expected a grid alignment and what they're proposing would create a driveway right in the middle of the grid alignment proposed on the west side of Maple Hill. So that would create a long-term conflict and then there's an interim conflict with the two driveways that are existing for the church today. So staff recommends to replace the northern full access with a staffer turnound. An emergency access in this area is not required with the condition that a connection to Furlane North is provided at the onset of the development because that would mean they have two ways in and out. If they can't secure that connection to Furlane North, then an emergency access would be required on Maple Hill. But I believe the intent is for them to obtain that access. Does that mean that Maple Hill wouldn't need to be upgraded up to that northern emergency connection? Correct. The the upgrade is to the northernmost access on Maple Hill. So, um if there an emergency access does become required, sorry, my computer's speaking up. I'm glad you guys can't see it. Um the if the emergency access were to be okay, were to become required, uh then they would have to improve it to the emergency access. um if they but we don't have a standard to say that from the city's end that we have to require it if they have that access to Furlane North. So there's a couple conditions um where Furlane North is going to be uh connection to Furlane North at the development is going to be in their best interest to obtain uh but then we have it kind of planned in case that's not achievable. Okay. And that's all in as drafted. As drafted. Yes. See if this will work. Go ahead. potential followup doesn't throw you to um it was I think raised that open forum about having any sort of influence on the access for construction. Do we have you see any ability to try to to mitigate some of that? So it's not all coming up for both developments. I know one of them is not being discussed now but right I I don't so for fairway shores the there's talk of that easement that is on a chastic property that is a farm access only so that is not it that is not a construction access easement so that's not something that could be utilized for the construction traffic for fairway shores um so with uh since Ferlane is a public street and that is the only access currently to that property That is their construction access. U as far as the construction access for this one, typically that's handled with the final plat but typically with the final platin a little bit depends on the phasing but because their main access would come from the west I would anticipate we would try to route as much not all the construction but it is a little dependent on what the facing looks like. Got thank you. Okay. So, okay. So, street improvements. Um, the improvements to Maple Hill Road and County Road 10 were identified as necessary to support the proposed development as part of the city's infrastructure feasibility study. a condition of approval for the developer. It's responsible for uh construction of a dedicated westbound right turn lane on County Road 10, 300 ft in length, improvement of Maple Hill Road to current city standards from the northernmost access of the development on Maple Hill Road to County Road 10 to support the additional traffic there that would include southbound left and right turn lanes on Maple Hill Road to access county road 10. The final design of these improvements on Maple Hill Road will be determined as the project moves forward. Uh after additional review completed by staff uh with data that was provided by a traffic engineer hired by the applicant team, staff recommends removal of the requirement in the feasibility study for an eastbound left turn lane with the condition that access to F lane north is provided at the onset of the development. Uh once we had uh more data it it just seemed that that um it's right at the threshold and the reality is it's um with Furlane if there is a connection there was data to support for going the turn lane at this time but just the eastbound right just the eastbound left turn lane correct we still require the westbound right turn lane into on Maple Hill. Gotcha. Uh and then the applicant would like to discuss the improvement requires with requirements with city council tonight and the potential for a city initiated project. The 429 assessment is what's called out in the staff report for the Maple Hill Road and County Road 10 improvements and I I do believe she um I believe Beth is planning to speak after my presentation. Uh the other question before the council tonight is the matter of the trail. The 2040 comprehensive plan identifies a proposed trail to connect Maple Hill Road. Um, sorry that don't know what I was thinking there. The 2040 comprehensive plan is ident does identify a off-road trail quarter. So, um, let me get my laser pointer again. It is not working. Well, if you can see which one the arrow is pointing to, it's along the northern boundary there. So, last right upper well of the actual Oh um sorry I don't know my laser. Yes that that is the offro. So it's shown along the northern boundary. What that doesn't show you is there are two wetland complexes. There are two wetland comp complexes that that would conflict with. Um, additionally, there has been some changes in the off-road trail alignment that was secured with fairway shores, um, which would follow more north before heading along the west side of Cook Lake or the Cook Lake wetland complex on that site. Uh, so really the site constraints do not allow for a continuous trail experience. So, uh, councelor Nichols, if you could help me here. Um, basically what they are showing is the, um, go actually go up to Um, no, no, no. Top side of it. The tops. So, if you go Yeah. So, they're showing this off-road corridor and then it goes down to the road, becomes an unroad trail, and it goes back to off-road. And actually, that happens twice because if you go on the further east side, it happens again due to the wetlands and storm water ponding there. So, it really is a very interrupted experience. You know, staff was looking at this and it was kind of who's actually going to choose with the sidewalk also already on north side of street who's going to choose to walk around to come back to walk around. Um so the it was kind of the question of does that make sense? Um the an idea of an on-road trail instead of sidewalk was discussed with public public works and they there's a lot more maintenance concerns that happen with an on-road trail when it intersects with multiple driveways. uh because we maintain those trails versus sidewalks is something that the HOA or the property owner are responsible for maintaining. So their desire and um staff's desire became let's forgo the off-road trail just do the sidewalk have that connect to Fairway Shores and then the off-road car corridor would begin with the Fairway Shores development. Um however the council could decide to take the trails currently shown the corridors currently shown. Um if we do that there um sorry the fences along the northern project boundary would be recommended to be revised so that they both run along the backyards of the lots because right now one of the fences on the northeast side are more along the northern project boundary and my concern being that that kind of closes off the uh trail. So, I think it' provide more screening for the residents if those were both on the backyard perimeters instead of the outlaw perimeter. Can Can I ask a quick question on this one, too? Um, so the trail width we would have for an off-road trail would be 8 feet. If we forgo that and do a sidewalk instead in the front yard area, can we widen the sidewalk to be the same 8 foot width as the rest of that trail would be when it's not going through this development? Um, so the trail, so you're talking about just the pavement because the trail corridor would be typically a 20 foot easement, correct? But the trail itself, what are your thoughts on that? Um, that's a good question. So, the concern I just think is it's with the 60 foot rideway in a 28t road leaves us with 11 ft on either side. So, it might shrink in that boulevard. So, if we have trees in there, it wouldn't give adequate room. But, if we didn't have the trail in the back, the lots could be deeper. Everything get shifted back three feet. You need additional right away. You with what you're saying accommodate that. Um, so part of my hesitation is just that it's a straight plat. So when we do that, we have a little little room to negotiate additional, but I think there if our standard is for how wide is the sidewalk as is usually the um 5T. Yep. My I guess my grounds for it would be we're foregoing part of our comp plan which has an 8-ft trail with a 20 foot easement in the backyard to accommodate their need to get to a certain density. Um we'd also be getting more park dedication cash on blue though. Yeah, but we would be getting some of that anyway. Even if if we took the trail in the back, we still get some cash in L. Yeah. just minus whatever that amount is, right? Mayor Council, I I think you could um to Natalie's point, I I I think because this is a straight PL, you're kind of bound by your existing standards. You you could um provide some city financing for for improvement like that or offset it with park dedication um you know, uh if that's desired. But just requing the larger sidewalk than you would in the neighboring developments. I think that you would have to have a basis for that. So, Natalie, what was the commission? Oh, parks and trails commission. They agreed that didn't like the disruption to the corridor experience. So, they agreed and they didn't want to take on an on-road trail and the maintenance of that. So, they agreed with staff recommendation. Um, but again, we can take the we can take the corridor. That's it's entirely up to your discretion. Um, just that there is um a severe hesitation to undertake a boardwalk over an outlaw again. I'm sorry, over a wetland again. Um and so it would result in portions of the trail that would essentially either be sidewalk um either having it tee and I think that's what's really recommended if we go this route having the trail tee up to the sidewalk um or it'd be an on-road trail in those portions. Um, but I think for I think for the sake of maintenance, it'd be easier if the off-road trail teed up to the sidewalk if we were to go that route. Gotcha. Is there anything else in your presentation? Um, sorry, my my computer is not working. Um, basically the next slide is just the recommendation planning commission and staff recommended approval of the resolution of the ordinances 2025550, which is the reasonzoning to RSF3. Uh, ordinance 202551 which is our summary ordinance that does require a four-fifth majority vote to pass. And then we have two resolutions. Uh the first one 202553 approves findings of fact to support the resoning to RSF3. And then resolution 202554 is approving the preliminary plan. And then I will just also add unfortunately we are at very near the end of the 120day review period. So we do need a final decision tonight on this. Sounds good. Thank you. Um, just to clarify one more time, I think I asked one of those one of these questions already, but as drafted the sidewalk, the trail to sidewalk is was drafted in the So, what is currently drafted was based on the recommendation. So, we're we're going so we we would need to address the resolution if you wanted to do that. Right now, the park dedication anticipated in this resolution is entirely cash. Sounds good. And then the other one was the potential culac or emergency access if they can't get that. Is that all I confirm that language is currently in the resolution in front of you tonight? Okay. Council thoughts on the trail. Mr. Mayor, I apologize. I believe the applicant wanted to say a few words about the road. development. We would like to suggest and to ask the city council to consider a scaled back or phately reflects the level of improvements needed for the new and existing residents generating traffic. We are uh not asking you to assess properties that are not benefited by the improvements. Um we are just asking you to assess the benefiting properties for the appropriate level of improvements that are directly and proportionally related to their use. Maple Hill is in fact in poor condition and in need of maintenance and repair. This poor condition is a pre-existing condition and not related to the chastic project for it proposed traffic. The chassic project is the first is not the first development in the area using Maple Hill Road as access. There are approximately 200 plus existing homes on in Maple Hill estates and other homesteads along Maple Hill historically and currently using Maple Hill Road as the sole access to their property. In Bass Crossings, there are 97 units of single families um that that access that also currently have an access on road. All of these properties are benefiting from an upgrade or an improvement to Hill Road. If the 429 project is designed to address existing needs, then assessing the benefiting properties is is appropriate and cost effective. The traffic study confirms the Chastic Cross project and the Fairway Shores project combined will generate 16% of the overall existing traffic on Maple Hill Road. This is not enough traffic to justify charging the entire improvement project to the Chass project. 25% of the cha of the traffic from the chassis project will use Maple Hill Road. The chassis go the chassis project is project is not the only new development proposed that will benefit and use Naple Hill Road as the second access. Developing the chassic property provides a second access for fairway shores project and also improving safety access and traffic for that development. The infrastructure improvements for Maple Hill are proposed to be constructed within existing rightway owned by Hen County and existing rightway owned by the city of Corporate. They are offite and outside the chastic proposed preliminary plan but within public. We believe there is a solution that proportionately and reasonably addresses a level of improvements that accomplish the service requirements for the traffic generated by the chastic district and the benefiting properties. There are approximately 409 benefiting property units adjacent to Maple Hill Road and there are 75 units that benefit an additional 75 units that benefit from Maple Hill as a second access. There's a total of 484 units that benefit in some manner from the use of Maple Hill Road. If the approve if if the improvement costs are roughly $1.5 million and the chass project is anticipated to be 16% or less of the existing benefiting traffic then $240,000 would be appropriate. Where are you getting the $1.5 million? I said if I said if it were simple as so that's a madeup number. It's not a madeup number. It's an estimate of potentially an estimate or a madeup number. That's a great question and here's why. We don't know what these improvements are going to cost. We have no idea the extent of of we don't we're being asked to improve property that is off our site. So we have no idea what the soils are like. We have you know it's not even our property to be working on. So that's a great question. We don't we don't know what that that's just a madeup number. You're right. It's just giving you an estimate so you can get an idea of the percentage. So, with that madeup number though, you're requesting a cap of $500,000, correct? Actually, that's not how I worded it, but I I'll get there. I'm almost there. And then if you just give me a minute. Well, hold on. I'm not done. Okay. In your letter though, you said that you wanted your contribution to be limited to $500,000. I did call it a contribution. Okay. So, Okay. So five, you're limited to 500,000. We don't know what the ultimate price is, but if it's more than 500,000 that you want the city to assess the other benefiting properties. Okay, that's which would be a large departure from best practice. The remaining million of the 1.5 million or 70% of the cost would be proportionately assessed over the remaining 380 benefiting properties. The Chastic development team proposes the first phase of improvements be constructed by the city reflect and align with the needs generated by the existing benefiting community and the proposed low density development of the Chastic Farm and the Fair Short. The first phase of road Improvements constructed by the city can effectively serve as a solid foundation for the future final improvements required for the ultimate development of a connector road system or second phase of improvements to be completed in conjunction with the development of the downtown or the city town center district. There's no application for that. Correct. So it would happen at the time it is. It would be the the full development, the full design and buildout of that connector road would happen at the time the demand from the downtown district is being proposed or approved or it would be a part of that project as proposed. The improvements have a disproportionate financial burden of the cost to be paid for by the chastic project compared to the traffic that it will generate. As proposed, the chastic project will pay for 100% of the improvement costs. Using a phase 429 directly related to percentage of benefit can sufficiently address traffic and roadway issues generated by existing and proposed neighborhoods and proportionately allocate the improvement costs. The city has a strong vision for a town center in the downtown district immediately west of our project. As proposed, the improvements for Maple Hill Road should be a district-wide solution and a cost sharing program. Again, the chassic team has agreed to contribute $500,000 to the city improvement project for Maple Hill Road. This contribution can sufficiently construct a westbound right turn lane within county rightway and help pay for more than the project's proportionate share of Maple Hill as a benefit. We this evening your approval of the resoning and the preliminary plan and ask that the city agree to work together find a creative and equitable solution and to assess the benefiting properties for the neighborh And I just also would like to address and I did return your emails back and forth. So I am looking I appreciate it but let's probably have that separate conversation that council meeting. Thank you. Okay. Um council, uh any discussion on I think we could tackle the 429 request first perhaps. Um I believe that would be a significant departure from past practice and and how we've um and policy of of having development pay it way and not uh having a city funded road project to support development. We've never been a if you build it, they will come city. Uh and I would prefer to keep our liabilities as low as we can until there's a development that is sufficient to pay for the improvements that are needed in a given area. So I would be opposed to a change in policy at this time. General agreed. Yes. With the caveat of And again, I I I I've been doing this so long and in and coming from Maple Grove and being part of their planning process, everything was done related to developments and the the cost was burdened to the developers and and those kind of things. the the caveat here, the the difference here is there's we have a wish list of what we want to do with our downtown, but there's nothing in front of us saying it. A lot of the developments from where I came from were done at the same time on both sides of the road, and the burden was shared between both property owners. I don't want to suggest this. I'd agree with uh council member Lannerman and council member what's your name again? Nichols. That's it. Um it's been a long night. I don't want to defer from that but would there be a way to split that cost? The city doesn't have that money in a fund or anything right now that the two property owners if they wanted to come to an agreement they certainly could. has been recommended by staff that they explore a private agreement with the property to the west. And I would say at this point um the removal of the left turn lane which based on our comparative bids done recently is more expensive than a right turn lane on the county road. Um that pretty much now has been deferred to most likely the west side coming in. Um you know could something else come in on the east side where all of a sudden that is triggered is possible. most likely be the west side at this point that would trigger the need for the left turn lane. Gotcha. For sure. So, yeah, I think that's your question. Yep. And then I know that there's a study going on with the county from the Lions Park all the way to 50 1050 split I think, but that's two or three years out best case scenarios. So I just I I agree with the other council counselors that the burden is not part of the city right now. Just past practices and many many municipalities. So I I love the design. I love the looks. Um the uh property to the east. I can't wait to see it. But again, we're we're putting a burden on a a single street for that property through an existing neighborhood. But, uh, all things we're going to have to deal with and talk about. Okay. As far as the trail, did we get through the trail? We did not get the trail. That was my next one. The trail. Well, Jeremy, I I applaud you for trying to get as much as you possibly can, but just a normal sidewalk. And then I think the the layout of that trail out to a point or a destination or a lookout on Cook Lake and stuff that's still part of that plan to the east of this course. Yeah. So I I don't know if we if I lived in these properties, I don't know if I'd want to trail behind me. The fences and stuff I' I'd love to see, but I'd rather see the cash I also think I'm assuming the design would be somewhat similar to like uh Ravenia where there's a sidewalk in certain areas that kind of goes through driveways. Is that what's being proposed? Yeah. So the sidewalk would be on the north side of street C is what's currently proposed. So that would provide the access to fairway shores to the east and ultimately the off-road corridor, off-road trail. And the only reason I bring that up is that obviously you don't want people walking into other people's driveways a bunch, but it's not like it's a you know, five foot, right? You fall off the cliff. If you want people to stay perfectly on the five foot, you like crazy French bulldog out the front yard and have them bark at it. But other than that, there's a it's a little bit more give than just the straight five foot for what it's worth. Um, but I would agree agree with you, Dean, on Yeah, I'd rather just a sidewalk and then it's a destination out to that lookout point and then it turns into a parkway there, but a true parkway through this. It's already challenged enough with the water and those kind of things. I agree. Well, I it doesn't matter to me. I can't I can't get my arms around this contribution of $500,000 with the expectation that the city and and and other residents through a an assessment are expected to pick up the rest of the tab. So I think we're saying no. I don't Well, for me that's the whole thing. So why why even talk about sidewalks? Councelor Landerman, the resolution in front of you tonight says that those requ ments are the responsibility of the developer. So it approves the development with um being responsible for the road improvements as currently recommended by staff. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I think we have general consensus on the sidewalk keeping it as drafted. Um and on the 149 um then the other one was the e was there anything need to be decided really on that emergency that seemly Well, right now whether it's emergency turn or as it's drafted um currently as it's drafted the north access would must be changed to either a culde-sac or other city standard turnound. Um and that would be determined by final plat right. Yep. That'd be determined for the final plat um and then the public safety access would be determined um basically with that first addition if they have access access to Cook Lake at the onset of the development or not. And that's included as a a condition of approval that uh if Berlane is not available day one, they must provide that public safety access to the north. Other than that, does anyone have any questions or discussion items? Pretty straightforward development. Um you know, standard uh zoning, great zoning. um like the some of the architecture stuff that was discussed and the general design of the neighborhood I think was nice. Anyone have any questions or want to take a crack at a motion? There's no questions. I will make a motion to approve or adopt ordinance 202550 resoning to RSF3. Approve resolution 202553 with findings of fact and resolution 202554 approving the preliminary plat. I will second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I opposed. Nay. And so that passes 41. And then um we just have the summary ordinance which is just for the newspaper. Um so I will make a motion to adopt summary ordinance 20251. We have a second. Second. Um either one. Oh, you pick. It's okay. We are going to argue. You can pick. Um, got to spice it up, Michelle. That's That's fine. You get to pick. That's totally fine. All right. Um, any discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Perfect. Thank you very much. And that is all planning items. Thanks for staying you guys. Yeah, appreciate it. Absent that, uh, we have no unfinished business, no new business. Uh, staff reports, anything that uh, no staff reports. Council reports, anything from council? I'm trying to get an update on the timber rules. They were well behind the last time I checked. Can I mention one thing, Mr. Mayor? Yes. Um, I noticed, this is just for staff. Would you keep the chatter down just a little bit? It's hard to hear on the mic, guys. We're still going here. Thank you. I just wanted to make a note for staff that um I've been noticing that people the new trail that just went in in Terara on the northwest northeast side, the diagonal one on the corner right across from my house right there. Um people have been driving across that when they come into the to like view the lots. They think that it's actually an exit and they've been driving on that trail. So, I just I just wanted to let staff know that. I don't I don't know if that's clearly it's not meant for cars, but it's not meant for regular cars. I'm sure we can get some sort of cone sign. We can sign it. So, once the house is there, it'll be then it should be obvious. We can get some sign then then we'll send PD out if they keep But for now, Yep. Perfect. Mr. Mayor, yeah. I was fortunate enough to go to the practice burn over off of Larkin um and such. The old old home, 130y old home, bricks. Um the fire departments got 15 burns out of that thing before it was beyond um approach. Um many many department's part of it. Rogers, um obviously West Suburban, um Hanover, there was some folks even in from Clearwater instructors came from, uh I can't remember where, but uh it was not turned down a free opportunity. Impressive to watch the group do what they did. Um, a lot of great practice and a lot of great thanks to uh us for supporting all of our fire departments. So, it was a it was a really good day. I did, but it got so blessed and cold cuz I only wear a blue jean jacket and it was 40ome degrees. But, uh, it was maybe some of the G stuck. There was people taking pictures, but uh um the I I got a picture of and this was funny, the families actually showed up. The original person that had lived there 60some years, I think her name was Patty Gleason. Um they started in the sewing room. That first fire was in the sewing room and and watching all of the relatives and stuff talk about that. But uh our uh our fire departments do a lot for us. Um Matt, thank you for your um participation in and direction in that stuff. Um the one thing that I had and I think I told J Matt this Jay told Jay this math. Do they have signs that they can put up saying practice in process or in progress? Anything like that? if there's something we could give them or if they have it just didn't think they'd have traffic and and understand it that way. Just a public safety thing and and uh just ask them. Yeah, Jay and I talked about that a little bit. I don't know if the fire department has those signs or not or if they are planning to get them, but I think that's check with them and see. I think you even used that for some police events and stuff too and K9 and everything over the past couple of months too. We like notify the ditch dispatch when something like that goes on or do they just take all the calls? Dispatch is aware of training so they're not sending like 10 response calls to the same house. Yeah, nobody came out. It was it was well ran well done. I'm just the signage and then uh thanks for I think Jay and I talked it was nice to see them wait until road restrictions were off because the fire and trucks do impact our gravel road significantly and I saw that in front of the front of the property and stuff. The residents were the kindest people. They've been there three and a half, four years and the cost to renovate the home that was 130 years old was about the same as them just building a new residence. So it was it was just neat to see what was going on and the interaction between all the fire departments. So it was pretty cool. Jar, did we find out the cause of the fire we had like two weeks ago? I believe that's still under investigation. So okay. And then uh I just wanted to point out that despite best efforts from all the people who tried to repave all of the trails to meet our deadline last year, uh most of them have the same willows growing through the trail again this spring. Um so I asked Jay and Kevin when Kevin is back to look into what the next steps should be to ensure that those don't continue to deteriorate three months after they get paved. Perfect. um public safety, the notice in the Facebook about the police, and then was it this week or last week was public works week and stuff. Thank you to all of the men and women that do those things for us. I just have two quick things. One, uh the Timberwolves lost 103 to 118. SGA had uh probably way too many free throws. I'm just gonna go on a limb there. Um, and then I'm actually trying to see if I can find that stat. Um, one thing that was brought up by a resident about he said he talked to a previous council on trail haven about getting a stop sign there and that previous council had said yes. I don't know the accuracy of that or when that was the situation. Could we look into if that's a possibility, if that's a good idea? We can look at it, but just initially I would probably unlikely. I'm assuming he means coming southbound, but trail him being a collector road. We typically don't want to add stop signs where people aren't going to follow them, especially on the low volume roadways. It just creates more danger in a lot of spots because if somebody isn't following it, then they think they are. So, we can actually set things backwards. Yeah, he wants the stop sign right at the rise. There's no intersection other than the private drive and stuff, but that's the case. It's a complicated place, but if there could be some maintenance attention done, um, it is in serious. We can look at those other those are usually more effective. Stop signs when they work, sure. But the times that they don't, they make things worse. So, we don't want to put them in those situations. You can add signs maybe blind approach both directions because I' I've witnessed it, too, where I'm coming and somebody's all the way over because of the wash. I will end it with this. Uh it does appear that Shay got 13 free throws. He had 38 points on 12 for 21 shooting and one for two from three. So that's 25 points and he had 38 points on 13 free throws. NBA ref suck. And with that I will make a motion to adjurnn. So second second. Uh all those in favor say I. Hi, we're journ