Make sure your mic's on. >> Thank you. Uh the first order of business is to nominate a chair or a vice chair for this uh planning commission. Uh do we have anybody who wants to seek the position or nominate anyone? here. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other takers? Vice Chair, >> I'll raise my hand for vice chair. My third year. >> All right. Any objections or discussion? All right. Let's put it to a vote, I guess. First, we'll vote for the chair. All those in favor? >> I. >> I. >> Okay. Anybody post? And then for the vice chair, all those in favor say I. Any opposed? Not a motion per se, but uh it's on the record now. Uh the next item of business is to approve the agenda. Um do we have any changes to the agenda at all this evening? >> No changes. >> Good. Uh the next item coming up is the consent agenda. I don't believe we have anything on the consent agenda this evening. So pass that. We have minutes from the last meeting. >> Thank you. Um, so we have minutes from the last meeting. That's January 5th. Any discussion? I have a motion to approve. >> I move and a second. Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. >> I abstain. motion passes. All right. All right. The first item we have is a public hearing uh for the comprehensive plan amendment resoning site plan preliminary plat and final plat request by Optican Development Company corresponding to a proposed development of 20,61 Vivvilla Road and Mr. Chair and commission members, the item before you as mentioned is related to oped in looking at an industrial development on DB road which is right adjacent to Cabela's. Uh so a little bit on the different land use requests. There is a preliminary and final plat comp plan amendment reszoning and site plan. The um pyramid diagram that you see corresponds to what the League of Minnesota cities has for discretion of what cities have. So the highest discretion being in the green, lowest discretion in the red. Um the comp plan and reszoning fall within that green category, the plat falls within the yellow, and then the uh site plan in the red. A little bit about the property itself. The current owner is the VB family. um their LP. It's a few siblings that currently uh are in charge of this property and the other properties owned by this family. Uh total size is a little over 17 acres. Um it is important to note that this is um in half. So Rogers Drive currently cuts this in half. It's currently an unplatted property, which is why you see it uh it was originally one lot, but then as Rightway went in, it separated it into two. Um but it is all currently within one P. It is currently zoned RC which is our regional employment center district which is a mixeduse district. Um its guidance is commercial and the current use is agricultural and then there's a residential property along the road to the north uh east side of the property. Now the proposed use of the light industrial speculative development and some of the adjacent uses include uh there's three four homes currently including the one on the subject property that are to the east along VV road they all front road uh to the north is commercial which is Cabela's to the south is industrial um which is across 94 and then to the west also across 94 is an industrial um it is also important to note the property uh to the east adjacent to the residential homes is uh industrial property as well zoned and guided as industry uh that Scanel a developer currently owns. Uh so looking at the preliminary plat they are only seeking to plat the north section. So the property to the north of Rogers Drive it would create two different lots. Lot one would be the development parcel which is just over 9 acres in size. Lot two would be um carved out for the existing residential home which would remain and continue to be owned by the seller of the property. Um it would also fix some existing rightway issues uh from the time that Rogers Drive went through. And as mentioned, it's currently unplatted. the land that's currently within the same P to the south of Rogers Drive would remain unplatted um until future redevelopment or development on that parcel. The final plat is consistent with the preliminary plot as well. Uh so looking first at the resoning request, the applicant is seeking to reszone it from RC into GI. GI is a general industry uh designation the same as what is seen across 94 and then slightly to the east um with the scanel properties uh also to note lot two which is a single family home is um shown to stay the same at RC comp plan request uh this similar is um being requested to go from commercial into industry or in industrial. Um same would go for lot 2. It would remain as commercial. Uh we did get get some preliminary um feedback from the Met Council. Um they didn't have issues with requiring a waiver. Um so we don't anticipate any major issues from the Met Council on this. Uh so an overview of both of those requests. The reasoning comp plan amendment would be postplat recording. Um, so this would be something and it's listed in the conditions in the proposed resolutions that it would be following the plat being recorded. So we do a we would work with a developer to have a set recording order for how things must go. Um, it's got a condition related to the final approval by the metropolitan council. Um, it is consistent with the overall 2050 comp plan expectations. This is an item an area which the city had anticipated looking further into the proposed uses with the 2050 plan. So this is just moving that forward a little bit more. Um and some of the reasons why staff was looking at shifting from commercial to industrial and one of the reasons why um the applicant is also looking at it. Uh a lot of commercial uses are going to be looking for immediate traffic volume. So, Rogers Drive doesn't have a very high traffic count that would be conducive to a commercial use. The parcel size is relatively large on either of the sides. You don't see a lot of very large commercial users coming in anymore. Um access, it's relatively long longer access to get to the immediate um inter uh interchanges for either 94 or 101. um kind of mentioned market conditions and not seeing a lot of large commercial user users and then a lack of available industrial properties currently within the city that are undeveloped. Uh so a little bit on the site plan itself total size is uh 117,000t building. It would front Rogers Drive in I94. Uh loading docks would be located to the rear. The building it site itself would be 35 feet in total height which is below the 45 foot code maximum. Uh parking would be along the front and southeast side of the property. Uh minor wetland fill on the uh north side of the development and it would meet all of the setbacks for the GI district and technically the RC district. Um and as mentioned the pre-existing home would remain on the site. Um there are utilities that are already stubbed and run along Rogers Drive. So it would connect into the um utilities already into the area. And one other thing to note, there is a billboard currently on the property. One of the items, and we've talked about this with the site plan. Um there is an existing agreement with the VV family related to this billboard that has to be removed upon the time of development. Uh so the billboard would be removed as part of this development plan. Uh for parking and access, there's 124 exterior parking stalls located as mentioned on the front and side of the building. There's an additional 40 proof of parking stalls that would be could potentially be utilized in the rear of the property. Um taking out some loading docks. As mentioned at the beginning, this is a speculative development. So the end user isn't quite known. Um so if there is a user with higher office percentage and less loading dock demand, they do show the space that's available to increase the parking should that be needed with whomever the end user ends up being. Uh the built spaces are focused the ADA spaces are really focused towards the main entrances of the building which would be either the corners or in the middle. Um there are two access points both off of Rogers Drive and then as in per staff direction there is no direct connection to VB road to the north. Um that's an unimproved roadway. So we really want to focus any of the traffic to the main Rogers Drive which is uh two lanes each way. So four lanes total. Looking at the landscaping, they proposed 30 new overstory trees, 23 evergreens, and four ornamental trees with additional shrubs and grasses located throughout. Most of the shrubs being located around the um direct perimeter of the building. The primary focus of the new trees, especially the evergreen trees, is located on the northeast section to really provide an additional buffer to the residential homes that are located within that area. For storm water, they have two different well three different storm water ponds, one of which is somewhat existing. Um, so you have a stormwater pond to the southeast, to the north, and then to the northwest, as well as a filtration uh ditch along Rogers Drive. Uh, for architecture, this is uh primarily tip-up panels with some uh wood accents located around the entrance points. Uh, so varying different uh colors and gray. They do meet our code requirements for materials as well as articulation having that 100 foot break within the existing facade with the bumpouts on both the roof line and the color scheme. Uh so this rendering gives a little bit of a better detail of what this would look like from the exterior. Uh so as mentioned this item is a public hearing. The public hearing corresponds to the plat uh reasonzoning and comp plan amendment request. Um there are recommended motions on the screen and there are representatives from the applicant here tonight if you have representative uh questions for them. Otherwise I can answer any questions for staff. >> Thank you. H um any discussion [clears throat] before we open the public hearing? Questions for staff? Any questions for the applicant? All right, hearing nothing. We'll open the public hearing. Um, [clears throat] so before us, we have the resolution to approve the preliminary and final plat, the site plan, and my understanding is the comp plan amendment and so forth will be filed after the plat is recorded. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Um hearing no discussion, do we want to make a motion to approve or is questions? Uh chair, the only question I have is regarding the small parcel that is uh to the south of Rogers Drive. So the utility of that in the future and the reason for making that a part of this recommendation. >> Okay. Could you come forward so I can Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> Ryan Dan with Opin 400 uh Water Street in Excelsier. uh applicant has that second parcel under option to purchase and we have a plan phase two for that parcel. >> Thank you. >> Before you step down, if you don't mind, >> I just followup question to that. How many acres is that? We can I believe that'd be about 10 acres. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, as part of this plat, you're going to take a decent size almost an acre and a half from this uh Darwin Sha Shallenburgger parcel. Is that correct part of the plat? >> Uh, it is not. It would just be this one parcel highlighted above. >> Oh, okay. All right. Good. All right. Any questions or feedback? >> Um, actually I'm Darren Shelonburgger >> and I own the property. >> Could you step forward to the podium for our >> All right. >> Yeah. Thanks. >> My name is Darren Shelonburgger and I own the property right adjacent to the Vivvies next to the house that's going to stay. And what uh what zoning is going to be applied to that then? Is that still going to be commercial or is that going to be light industrial? >> Mr. Chair and commissioners, I can answer that question. Uh, so your property and both the home that would be adjacent, the VB's current home that they own would remain as RC. >> Okay. >> And be guided as commercial still. >> Okay. Um, it is something that we can work with you during our comp plan update process to see if you want to retain that zoning and guidance or seek industrial zoning and guidance. Um, that process is beginning here in Q2 of 2026. >> Okay. >> Um, so feel free to reach out to me. I if you got the public hearing notice in the mail, it should have my email and we can have discussions about what you'd like to do with your prop property. >> Okay. At one time many years ago, there was talk about that probably wouldn't be developed unless it was all developed, the other two houses included and stuff and that obviously changed. >> Uh Mr. Chair and commission members, that'd be correct. I would say whether it's commercial or industrial, the three homes that make up well what would be four with the VVS once that's out would likely require all to be combined to do it. um and the way that it's currently sitting and your property currently sits, it is a grandfathered use. So, you can maintain it as a single family home into the foreseeable future should you choose to. >> Okay. >> Um but if there is an opportunity that you would like to seek a redevelopment and your neighbors would also like to, you could still move forward with a redevelopment that way. >> Okay. And you did say the VV would there'd be no access to this new building off of EV. Is that >> Yeah, that's correct. There would be no direct access on VB Road. and all the drainage from that would go because where I live it's kind of low and there's water flows off that field and through. So that would probably not get any worse or probably be taken care of by the drainage ponds. I would think >> so the existing storm water ponds as they propose would handle all the runoff from their existing parcel and any of the new impervious surface. So most of it's flowing to the south and would either hit either of the detention ponds or to the north. There's some opportunities too. So, they're going to capture everything that they have, including the existing that the parcel current currently sees. >> Okay. Well, thank you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I so move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Public hearing is closed. >> [clears throat] >> Um further discussion make a motion to approve the uh preliminary and final plat and site plan. >> Can I second that then? >> Motion to second. All those in favor say I. >> I opposed. >> Motion carries. got a few more motions on the table too. Each of those >> um you can certainly do it as a group. >> Yeah, sure. That sounds good. So, motion to recommend the approval of the resolution approving the 2040 comp plan amendment for lot one block one be the villa lane edition. Now we'll combine that with the motion to recommend approval of ordinance 20 2603 approving reszoning from RC to general industrial for the sub parcel and a motion recommending approval for resolution 202615 authorizing summary publication of the ordinance. >> I second the 202614 20263 and 2026 uh 15. That would be a motion to approve. >> Yes. Sorry. [laughter] >> Do we have a second? >> I thought you moved. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Opposed. A motion carries. >> Thank you. Next on the agenda, another good one here. Um, ordinance amending the shoreline protection code clarifying the description of the river names. And >> Mr. Chair and commission members, the item before you is a very minor amendment to our shoreline protection code. On an annual basis, the DNR provides feedback on any uh issues that they see within any jurisdictions codes related to shoreland. um to which the DNR representative reached out notifying us that the name of the Crow River was incorrect uh because our pre-existing code which carried over from the previous version of shoreline code said South Fork Crow River. Um so the proposed ordinance amendment removes South Fork and just says Crow River and updates the legal description. There are no other proposed changes to the shoreline code. It is just a minor amendment clarifying the name and legal description of the river. Thank you. Any discussion? Make a motion to open the public hearing. >> Second. >> Okay. All those favor say I. >> I. >> Okay. Any public comment questions? Hearing no public questions about the name change. I'll close the public hearing and put this to a vote. I recommend approval of this name change. I have a second. >> I second. >> Motion a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. Um the next item a little bit more nuanced. We've got uh an amendment to our zoning section 125-84 related to accessory structures and fences. Thank you chair members of the commission. This is also a public hearing. Um so um the city we are proposing an ordinance amendment to section 125-84. That section of code contains our accessory structures ordinance as well as our fence ordinance. Um this year you'll see a few more ordinance updates um as we move for towards spring. Um uh the first batch here that we're we're looking at doing is for the accessory structures and fences. And um just as a brief background um so we typically see ordinance amendments after comp plan updates um and oftent times um at request of uh council or commissions. um accessory structures was uh an ask for a future um meeting to discuss changes in response to uh more recent variances. Um if a city is seeing multiple variances for one thing um for example accessory structures or garages or out buildings that we've seen in last few years here um that it might be time to look at the regulations we have in place to make sure that it's meeting the needs of of the city. Um the particular ordinance looks um at changing uh outbuilding aotments for the rural residential type uh uh parcels in the city. So that includes the a district, the R1 district and then the R2 district where those parcels might be larger than two acres. Um so that's what uh the change would would affect and those as well as some clarif uh clarifications um to some of the regulations um found in the code um I don't have a presentation but generally speaking um that that sort of first table in the A and the R1 district is the table that is seeing the most change um or the part that's seen the most change in that accessory structures code. Um that's in the first uh subsection A. Uh the the the change basically doubles the first acreage of up to 1.99 acres from 800 to,600. And then as you uh as parcels get larger, um it's effectively a 2% um aotment of outbuilding for the base acreage. So if you're sitting at 2 to 3.99 um that aotment is 1,800 and then it uh the that sort of calculation moves as you get up to 10 plus acres. Um the other change is increasing the number of buildings permitted by one. Um, so if if you're 3 acres or less, you're now able to have two outuildings and if you're above 3 acres, you're allowed three outbuildings. Um, otherwise, other clarifications include um how we calculate lot size and then reduction of a couple inconsistencies between setback requirements found in other sections. Um, so this is sort of a larger change. Um if and I can pause here because the within the same section as fences. So maybe it's be good stopping point to talk about this one first. >> Um my first question for you is the R1 district what are the minimum lot standards approximately? Are they acre and a half? >> One acre is the minimum lot size. >> Okay. >> Um so one acre with enough room for a primary and secondary septic system what we typically are seeing is about an acre and a half. um effectively because that you just need enough room for that secondary system and then meeting all the required state requirements for setbacks for uh tanks and septic treatment areas. >> All right. Um in the R2, R3 or four districts, which is the or normal subdivision size parcels, right? Um part H says no attached private garage used or intended for the storage of pasture shall exceed the footprint of the home. Can you kind of explain what that means? >> Uh so the intent behind that is to uh make sure so the previously it was um let me just go down to that. Okay. So previously it was 1,150 ft. Um the the intent is that the footprint of the garage is no larger than the footprint of the habitable area of the home. And we can revise that language if you want additional clarification. >> Is it okay if that >> um how would you how would you define the footprint of the home if you have a tuck under garage? >> Uh so I guess that would be with gross floor area. So um the so the footprint like we can make that's a good question um council member. So we can go about that two ways and right now it's just says footprint of the home. So if you have a tuck under garage um then the footprint of the garage can often times be larger especially in a in a um town home type setting. So >> that's what I was thinking >> for that. I can see if um an additional clarification that if it is a tuck under style uh accepting the styles of homes that have tuck under garages but the otherwise we can we can also maintain the same um language there. >> Mhm. >> Right. But the um I do see value in having no attached private garage because the other garages are detached. So we want to make sure that that language isn't confused, right? Because now you've got one section says you might have be able to have 16,00 1600 square feet and then but then you've got this private garage used or intended for storage of pass passenger automobiles. doesn't have that clarification whether or not that means attached or detached. We haven't had any asks about 1,150 square uh square feet being an issue or we haven't seen that as an issue. So, we can certainly >> move that portion of that um amendment um with regards to your review of other similar cities and ordinances. Did this come from any of that or was this based on the idea that we generally want to constrain it to not become more important structure than the home. >> Right. So for that that portion of the amendment um right we didn't the intent behind that is not have more garage than home on sort of the more urban smaller lot residential. Um, but the other changes proposed as far as as aotments go are all based off of what we had been seeing for variances rather than just taking a square footage that might be right for Maple Grove and planting it here in Rogers. >> How many variance requests have we had for the 8 acreage [clears throat] plus properties? We've had [sighs and gasps] there was the uh Hoppy variance. There was the variance off of um Brockton Lane that was less that was actually less than and I think that lot was less than an acre and the table didn't actually so without the added language of up to it it was actually kind of excluded from the table altogether. Um so that that was a variance request. Um, I think that was a year ago. Uh, and then we had one off of Park Drive in January or February of of last year. >> I meant I'm sorry, just uh Oh, with the property having been on nine acres or more. I can recall a few of them myself, but with what we're discussing regards to making that secondary or third out building. >> Oh, number >> larger or the number of them. But if you have 9 acres or 8 acres, 7 acres, you're talking about an additional 4500 square foot structure. If I have 10 acres, I can build an 8,700 square foot structure. Is that not like a barn >> barn? that. Um, so that could >> so >> my question is do we want to see a variance you know somebody submit for variance at that scale then >> before making that determination to change >> right because we're jumping from 4200 arbitrarily to 8700 which is yeah more than the 2x that you're recommending on these >> and do you feel is Uh do you feel there's like a halfway down the table? Was it starting at seven acres? Is is that too much large of an ask? I think five acres. >> Uh I don't know how many parcels we have that uh retain that but yeah I think five and under. Uh what does five acres um you make it 4.99 but uh up to the five then uh is that still R2? So there are as far as um so there are pre-zone properties, >> right, >> that were sort of a more rural residential designation west of Will, but basically west of Willandale. Um and there's a few others that are existing homesteads on territorial um that are larger than five acres that are existing a um or rural residential. So there's there was a change that in 2022 2020 >> 2020 zoning changed. >> Yeah. So zoning changes in 2020 and then there was another amendment to the outbuildings a couple maybe a year later after that 21 or two >> 22 I think >> where it um recognized that there were existing homesteads that were pre-zoned that didn't didn't have the same a lotment as previously. So they were if if you [clears throat] had a 2 and a half acre lot, you were now limited to >> uh 500 whatever that number is for the the urban residential district. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So you had asked and I think once you get to five acres and up, there's different reasons to have I suppose even on a sixacre lot having a 4,000 square foot building. It would just be dependent on economics or something, right? If somebody's operating, I don't know what it might be, some kind of hobby farm or something. So, I don't know how many will get above that. We're trying to be efficient, right, with the submissions and the permitting. >> Yep. So, so if there is a need for a larger, let's say someone, let's say we, this is the change you would like to see numbers wise. If someone was requesting 3,300 square ft in the 5 to 6.99 acre range, they would have to seek a variance at that point. Do we [clears throat] want to do one and a half? So underneath those just a suggestion for conversation >> one and a half the area of the gross parcel >> right yes so >> five acres and above >> uh correct yeah >> um but I I can't do the math in my head seems like to me that would make five acres less than four to five as far as the allowable uh >> what's your how do you 2%. >> So [clears throat] above five acres, you know, you would start at 2,850 for a structure. Imagine having two homes on five acres and up. 2850 seems a big I mean is that a four stall garage? Um I have to check typical is what 22 by two stall stall is like about 520 seven square feet. So that's like um basically a four stalls in shop area. >> So 22 by 25. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that's helpful for commissioners to try to visualize that. So 550 square feet is a two stall. And so we're already at 1,900 for 5 acre. I think we've seen a lot of two and a half um and some township um variance requests. I don't know if we've seen anything come in that was really large. >> Was that a park drive one was that on five acres? >> Mhm. >> 5.63 acres the Iverson. And that one basically did double the double the size of what was previously permitted. Using your formula 10 acres, you'd get a roughly a 6,500 square foot accessory building versus the 8,700 at 2%. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So 10 I'd double check uh maybe one and a half% on a tanker one >> 10 acres. They could have up [clears throat] to three structures. Is that right? >> Yeah. So free structure is that >> 6,500. Yeah. Is about one and a half for 10 acres. >> Okay. >> Any discussions about this? Curious to know that solves the variances. >> Yeah. Would it be a wait and see, right? No, no ordinance is perfect. Um, you know, it's it's always a work in progress. It's a kind of a living document, right? So, as technology and attitudes change, we'll have to make adjustments. >> The historical ones recently, right? Yep. Like, so if you go back and you take the the new formula, do we still have the same problem? >> Um, I did check that and it it looked like this one. The only question I would have is the Iverson one. I have to go back and look at uh double check what that one would have done. Um I can just take a >> Was it 4700 combined? >> So that one would have still needed a variance, but that's you know that's over he was asking he asked for over double what was previously allowed. which is a very large that one might be an outlier compared to some of the other >> variances because I know there were several other variances previous to when I got here. I didn't >> that one was he was extending it, right? It was already a >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So then it was rural. Um, so, so as far as the table, I'm I'm hearing uh after once you for five acres and above, shift the formula to one one and a half% of the base lot. >> Sure. I mean, if we wanted to make it loose above, you know, eight or even above 10. Um, other words, go back to the 2X. But I think somewhere in there you want to uh leave some room for conversation about you know what's the purpose and that's the point of a variance right request for it is to have that conversation. >> Yeah. So that my one of one of the issues I have with so you've got a school of thought of so the variance is a quasi judicial action of the city meaning that you have a particular test you have to pass that is around what the practical difficulties are for meeting code and when you're looking at sizes of structures you can meet the code and the ask for a variance is is when it comes to size and number is is often uh kind of a nebulous argument, right? Because you can just meet the code. >> Mhm. >> There's nothing stopping you from meeting the code. Um if your needs are for a larger out building is you may have to be in a different lot, right? Mhm. >> Um, so that's one standpoint is the is the the variance and it's all always up to sort of that interpretation of those difficulties on the lot and ultimate action of the council, right? So the other tool could be a conditional use permit process, which just you just have an additional requirements you might have to meet for a larger outbuilding. Um, I haven't looked at at that, but that's one option that could be done. Um, but if you want to back down of the of that percentage and then see where we sit with other requests in the next couple of years, we can do that and then see if there's another measure we put in place to ask for a conditional use permit or or conditional use. would I was going to ask again because you're bringing this before us city council to consider to make it written and so what are yeah what are the open risks if we want to call them risks I mean what what would be permissible I'm trying to just think of examples of things that would be just obnoxious that could >> be problematic >> um riskwise is always a sort of a larger commercial use I think happening in an out building without a home occupation permit. Um so sometimes we won't know what the use of of it will be >> until it's done and then then now there's a large of maybe it's a contractor service happening in a an out building without that home occupation. So the argument then is if the out building ultimately ends up larger than the home and now there's a commercial use in it is that more of a commercial property now than >> a residential property. Um, so I see that there is value in reducing that percentage after 5 acres and then going through a different process to get it uh beyond that. >> Um, if you want to not have a cop option in there for now and wait and see, that's that's totally valid to wait and see what comes out of the change. we why why not include a coop option in there then? Um I mean a cop is I mean it's a permanent approval, right? So I mean so it's a variance though. So I think the cup if you if you want a tool to go beyond what's in the list of this table that a cop makes the most sense it just comes down to if you're going to see a variance for an out building >> is the sort of the opinion that you'll just if it's a reasonable request are you going to approve it is sort of the question you kind of have to ask yourselves right u and if the answer is Yes. Without there being sort of a uh difficulty associated with the the where how the land >> sits is it not really a like a setback variance is easy, right? Is there a wetland in the way? Yes. So that's a that's a difficulty. You can't meet a setback if though there's a wetland in the way, right? >> It's a different kind of ask then I want to go bigger because I want more. So if the answer is you would just approve a variance that way. Maybe that's the CUP might be the better tool for that. >> Yeah, >> but it wouldn't be either or. Correct. It would be >> I think um I think it would have to be CUP and then CP for size. >> Mhm. >> Um if you're not sure about number >> keep the number out of it. Um, >> and I mean can you do it the one and a half percent all accessory structures greater than one and a half% on parcels greater than 5 acres require a conditional use permit? >> Do that I can add that language as um as a note. Do you do you do you think it's um keep are you thinking the A table and the R1 table will be the same the one and a half% after five or just in the R1 districts? >> Just in the R1 >> I agree. Yeah. >> Not that the R2 R3 they have cup requirement. >> No, no, >> no. Just R1. >> R1. Okay. >> So, I have a question as well. >> Vice versa. >> So, some of those R2 properties are larger because they used to be a >> now they're R2. Yep. >> Um, so let's say you have a R2 property that's seven or eight acres, but yet on this it says they have to follow the R2 requirements as far as number of buildings and size of buildings. So that language for uh where is it? On any property in the single family R2 district that is over two acres in area, uh the R1 district standards apply. Okay. So, if you're in an R2 district that was that's a homestead over over that acreage, then you would be able to do a conditional use permit. >> Oh, so it would have to be conditional use permit though. >> Well, it would be uh Yeah, assuming this this is the change we go with, right? Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. And one other question, some of those larger properties have requirements around livestock. Is there any correlation between like the required buildings required for livestock and size of those buildings? Are they tied together? Um, not I don't think our animal ordinance just says that con I think it's language about confinement. Um, >> I'm just wondering if we allow livestock, but then we're not allowing the building size to accommodate. >> So livestock are only allowed in the R1 district. >> Yeah, >> I think. >> Yep. I'm talking about R1. >> I thought R2 got updated though. >> I don't think >> in 2022. No, it didn't. It was just the buildings. >> The buildings, right? That was some of the cons this discussion we'll have to have for chickens and so forth in the future. >> Okay. >> All I have a question. >> Do these statute and the ones that Amy were referring to um coincide with the state statutes because there are requirements for livestock. So building code um does have exemptions for a agricultural property, right? So if you're agricultural property, there's an exemption from building permits, but not necessarily zoning. >> Okay. >> Um so there's I'd have to talk to our um building official to to sort of confirm that. That might be something we want to double check when we go through the livestock and animals ordinance updates to see if there's any thing we need to reevaluate with the building official. Um, yeah, there's so based off of Bratz, there's no size requirement in the animal ordinance currently for certain types of animals. All right. Um, to simplify matters, do we want to just take a a a voice vote on this uh accessory structures with amendments? I'll let you make the motion since or do you want me to phrase it? rephrase it based on >> you phrase it. I already got it. >> All right. Um to amend the ordinance uh for uh section 125-84 uh part A um table 21 R1. Is that the right one? >> Yes, that is the right one. um leave the table as stands for parcels up to five acres and then um reduce it to 1.5% of the parcel areas up to 10 acres. Um any requests greater than 1.5 acre 1.5% and 2% will require a conditional use permit. And I would say at no point shall it exceed 2%. total personal order. >> So that for the COP requirement no more than 2%. >> Correct. COP requirement for 1.5 to 2%. No CUP would be a variance at that point. Anything of 2%. Any other discussion? >> And then the other the other item was um in the urban residential district that >> yes that >> backing off of the footprint of the home and going back to 1,150 ft gross area for the garage. >> Uh I don't know. Um, to be completely honest, I do not have a concern about this one. The footprint of the home. I don't know if anybody else would like to voice an opinion on that. Um, I feel like the uh situation with tuck under homes is usually because the home is constrained on a smaller parcel. Um, so having a garage of that size is probably not all that practical. Two, typically it's 50% Okay. >> Anybody >> just so we're not recommending then any change to that? That >> that's my personal opinion. >> Okay. >> Uh I think if we include the language with the duck under garage [clears throat] just to cover that. But otherwise know we've had a couple variance uh requests with with structures. So removing that uh that size and then referring to the detach structure size allowed. I'm okay with that. So do we have consensus on that? So that can be >> So just to clarify, you're recommending we don't change the proposed. >> Uh he would like to change it so that uh not exceed the footprint of the home unless any garage area that's included under the primary residence >> is it? Yeah, I would refer to you with the language because we >> raised that or >> Yeah. wondering I'd have to look back at some of the I I'm pretty sure for the two family garages uh or two family homes like attached town homes typically it it isn't larger because they're usually just a two stall garage. >> Mhm. >> I've never seen a three stall in a town home. Um tuck under for a single family home. >> This one territorial health. It's not real big. >> Yeah. Is it a two saw? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I And those are often times splantry homes and they still have a footprint usually that's larger in the garage. So, I'm not sure if it's a huge issue, but we can look at that and have something with the council to look at and see if that's a concern there or if it's not a concern. I just wanted to acknowledge it because it was brought up as a >> Yeah, >> I just think it needs to be defined. So, if it comes up, >> well, then we'll recommend the council define it. Maybe we could do grow I mean could do gross square footage but then you've got >> permit wise is a lot a little bit more um time just to measure all that out and >> you don't want to define it to three stalls either or two because >> probably not right because I I have seen >> you'll have a lot yes >> I've seen four you know four four stall garages are in some of the custom homes on some of the larger even some of the larger R2 lots are are a couple not a lot but >> sorry >> yeah that was I mean good question it um >> All right so I think we just recommend a council to mind letter H. And do we have any recommendations there? As far as language, >> I mean, you could leave it up to staff to draft something to bring forward if you're okay with the tuck under part. >> Mhm. Could you state again the language for that that uh you were both >> Well, um so for Tucker garages, I guess it could be based off of gross square footage, but um then we could even do um a different percentage. I don't want to pick a random one without looking at some of the more recent permits that came in. Okay. Um, so we can prep I can prep uh sort of our sort of average size that we've been seeing for some of that and the breakdown. >> Sure. And add 10 or 15 20% to it to >> Yeah. I mean it could be tuck under garages are no the garage can't be no greater than 60% of the footprint or 75 or >> so there we are. So recommendation to look into how to phrase that consensus on this. So the recommendation for uh letter H is that uh staff will review and revised the language to include a provision for tuck under homes based on accepting that area in the total allowable area for the accessory garage. Okay. Uh, next section is in the same section but subsection F for fences. Um, basically for residential fences, we are moving away from requiring permits. Um, so we the last couple years we've had a permit, but there haven't been any inspections involved. Um, so, so the in order to free up time because we do see a lot of fences, but it's just a site plan review. It does add up even though it's not a huge amount. >> Um, the we have to back off on some of the regulations. was currently and this really is specific to to kind of corner lots and how some of the fence code was kind of peacemeal and kind of created some difficult language. Um so the right now if you're building a fence that's basically six feet tall, it's only allowed in the rear yard to the back corner of the house. And then if you're on a corner lot, you're also restricted to meet the setback of the corner on the house. So basically that if you're on a corner, you're now 25 ft away from that corner lot line. >> Mhm. >> So then you've shrunk the amount of fence um allowed. And then there's um uh language regarding decorative fences um being outside of the easement. uh doesn't have that restriction for six feet tall fences that are privacy or boundary yard and then there's no clear distinction between boundary versus decorative versus some other fence. So um the shifts would um permit would only be required over uh for so it kind of reorganizes the fence section if you you require a permit when you're a building permit when you're over 7 feet. That's a state statute requirement, building code requirement. Those types of fences are only permitted in non-residential districts as it is, right? So, we wouldn't see any residential permits for anything beyond six feet. Um, since that just isn't permitted. It's not permitted now. Um, and then the requirements basically you're allowed to be in the sideyard now for 6 feet and above or 6 feet tall fences. Um, and then you can be in the front yard if you're uh 4T or 3 and 1/2 ft depending on where it sits in relation to uh opacity. Um, there's the same traffic visibility requirement on corner lots. So, you can't just you can't place a fence above the height of 2 and 1/2 ft in in that corner visibility triangle. Um, so that still remains the same. And then there's language regarding um drainage utility easements are sort of at your own risk since we currently allow boundary fences on the property line. Those if you're in a developed a subdivision, you have a storm water management plan already. Um DNU easements are built at your own risk, right? Placement of structures that are permanent. Um or fences are at your own risk. If if there's a city requires maintenance in some of those areas for regrading, that would have to be removed at the owner's cost. Um there is in here it's um that they can't be within maintenance routes for ponds. Um and then can't cause drainage issues uh to or drainage to change or impact storm water management or impact the physical infrastructure. So you can't just put it down a pipe and punch a hole in it. uh that'd be an issue. Um so and it's it's more of an overhaul than the outbuilding ordinance, right? It's a reorganization >> and then just breaking it down into what types of fences and anything that goes up now is still permitted, >> right? So if you're you can do split rail now, you can still do split rail. There's no changes in types of fences allowed. is just backing off the restrictions so that um you know we're not getting in the middle of civil disputes as well, right? So that's another consideration is fences are the largest of neighborhood disputes by far. Um and typically it is a civil matter at that point anyways, right? It comes down to an argument between where my property line is, right? So we can't get in the middle of that. we don't have a licensed surveyor. Um, and if we're doing final inspections, we don't want to come in to a situation where we're acting as a licensed surveyor when we're not. Right. So, it's still the owner's responsibility to m know where their lines are. Um, real quick, I don't know if this was just me, but I had a fence built seven, eight years ago. I had to go to my neighbors and have them review and sign. Is that still a policy or that policy? >> So, it's not really a policy now. It's not It hasn't If you're reading I mean through the strikethroughs there's no ordinance requirement for permission. >> Gotcha. >> So, it had just been a practice. >> Yep. That's practices. >> Um but never was would have I I it hasn't prevented me from approving it because it's not codif it's not a codified step. Thank you. >> I did it last year and I did get my neighbor's approval. >> Yep. Yep. >> Thought that was required. >> It's a It's has been in the uh submitt package for as long as I've been here. Um it did confuse me, right? Because there I mean it it's it's a good practice to notify that, hey, I'm going to be on the prop right on the property boundary typically, right? So, um I mean that way you at least have a conversation. Yeah, I appreciate it. Could we My neighbor's deck is like literally like a foot away from my property line. It's not on a solid foundation. Okay. >> Going to be removed. And so to give them some space and be a nice guy, >> I showed him the survey and I said the f the fence is not going to be on the property. It's going to be two feet from your property line so you have room to mow. >> And so I I really appreciate that that I could have that conversation. Is that going to be available still in a packet from the city if somebody calls or can it be made available online? >> Um, I mean [clears throat] we can keep a I mean we can keep an information section on about fences and and just have hey we don't have a permit but here's what you should think. >> We can just call it the good neighbor >> packet. Yeah. Uh and then along with that is there language in here about offenses? You go through neighborhoods and you see uh there's a fence here and then a foot and a half away there's a different fence totally different structure type and then there's this nuisance in between. So, is there language in this that is supposed to solve that or not? >> As far as like, hey, we've got two fences and then there in the middle there's no maintenance being done is >> yes, >> it doesn't the both sides still need need to be maintained. >> Okay. typical is well I mean can we make the language requirement where if one neighbor you know they're first right and it's this domino effect but you have to connect the fence to the other or not um I hesitate to add to require conjoining of the fences um I because if it's placed in the wrong spot. Now we've got I mean it >> Yeah. So >> at your own risk. >> Thinking of still at your own risk, but thinking of my fence last year too, they they purposely even though I had the property line and everything was drawn out, they purposely moved it back. I think it was either six inches or a foot. So now my prop my fence is actually in on my property. My property extends. So that theoretically if you have that requirement, you're seating property to your neighbor. the the builders will always do the on the inside to be safe. >> So, >> that's why I had my neighbors sign my document because I didn't want them to get prescriptive rights over the land I'm letting them maintain. >> Yeah. >> Right. Right. >> Adver adverse possession is a hard I mean it's you can do it but it's uh it's like requires years of documented aggressive maintenance of adjacent property. Um I don't I don't know if there's all that many cases here in Rogers. Um we can put in there, you know, a best management or best practices section in there in the in the general to say, hey, if you're not going to connect fences, you've got to have enough you should have enough room to maintain both sides. Um or if you're conjoining the fences have a joint maintenance agreement because then it's a shared fence line. >> Mhm. >> Sure. something rather than >> I think which would be in such a manner that it's it's sort of >> I think that if there must be you know a distinct space between I think it ought to be not a foot I think it ought to be three five feet but yeah I don't know if we can >> do that like that's up to the homeowner still right I mean you can build a where as long as it's within your property line. >> Sure. Yeah. >> I don't think we should be involved with letting them or telling individuals you have to connect your fences together. >> Right. But in the case where we're going to have a a fence that's not joined, how much space should be between them, how much setback between them. >> Again, I kind of feel like that's up to the owners to place where they want to their fence on their property. I mean I I understand the the feedback of having some guidance on having a agreement with your neighbor or it must be maintained. >> I don't I don't think we should recommend where on their property they have >> certain distance. >> Yeah. >> And sorry to maybe change the topic a little bit. I had a question on section B where it says rear yard boundary fence. Um it says decorative fencing shall not include chain link fences. But then if you go down to section C says a chain link fence be erected at feet in excess of 4 feet. That verbiage was just it's confusing to me. I maybe I'm just not understanding it. But in one section it says 3 and 1/2 ft no chain link and then this next section it says chain link. Okay. But not in excess of 40 unless I read that wrong, which is totally Let me double check. I think it would I think that section B should maybe be just um retitled. >> Yeah. And we don't I just wanted to call it out is maybe you guys could just take a quick review on that verb. I just >> I think >> I said I could be wrong in reading it, but it it was very confusing to read through. We could do um it's yeah it could just be boundary boundary fence or even fence performance right restrictions height and location could be performance standard and then then uh C remains design requirements. Mhm. >> Because that section B includes height and then location of what where one type of fence is allowed and where the other is allowed. So the intent is you shouldn't you can't have the intent is you can't have a six-ft tall fence in your front yard. You can only have a um decorative right in the front. Yeah, like you said, um we don't have to go through it. It was just maybe something you can take back and review the verbiage a little bit more just to help make it a little clearer. Thank you. >> So that part C1 there where it says the decorative chain link fence and okay shall be erected in height of excess of four feet. Is that a conflict there? I said I was questioning because I thought team link wasn't allowed decorative. >> That's It says privacy, decorative, comma. Um yeah, boundary fences may be a variety of styles, >> but the chain link fence can't be in excess of 4 feet. >> Yeah, I think that's fair. That's a design requirement, not a >> So then, yeah, we'll do Oh, we can clarify B to make sure it matches seat, right? Do we want privacy fences or decorative fences? May I mean, let's see. Privacy decorative. Yeah, I'll we can do that. We can do a make make sure that matches, right? The intent is that chain length can't be in excess of four feet. and then the other other types and nexus of um six. >> Yeah, I think that makes sense if you had that provision regarding the four versus six in the front and side yards >> yards. Uh one last question. Uh none of this affects any of the building code or grammar for swimming pools. >> Correct. Um there will be that there will be some modifications to that section. Um our building official is working on on that to make sure it matches state statute requirements. Um but depending because right right now you you basically you need a non-climbable fence around your pool or an automatic pool cover um that meets the A stem requirement by building code. Um um so we'll have to it shouldn't impact that, but we'll make sure that the pool ordinance is clear on what's required and whether or not a an existing fence meets that safety fence requirement or not. >> Yeah, the chain link fence is a climbable fence, right? So that would not be permissible, >> right? >> Closure for >> So that's Yeah, it's got to be non-climbable fence, which um I don't know if it was like No, it was a weird >> Yeah. Something about no openings greater than >> greater than like so many inches. So you can't >> Yeah. >> All right. Um any further discussion? This is a public hearing. We should open it to the public if there's any comments. >> So I have one question. Since you're talking about decorative fencings, um it lists brick. Yeah. But then it says opacity 50% or less. That was on page six. I think. Okay. Unless I read it wrong. capacity of decorative fence. >> And I think that could be changed to um maybe could remove brick fences or have um design no greater except for brick. Well, there's not a lot. And usually railroad is another one that has >> Is it a section? It's It's not >> No, it's it's kind of like this solid. >> Is it the front only? Yeah. >> And it's not very tall, but it's >> doesn't have spaces in it. It's solid brick. >> Yeah. We can make an exception on the opacity for brick. >> Okay. >> If we want to keep that in there. >> Yeah. It's up to you guys if you want to. >> No, I think that's good. And I think that we should allow uh decorative brick fences in front yard at 3 and 1/2 ft. And obviously they're not going to have less than 50% opacity. So we accept that makes sense. Okay. Further discussion. All right. I'll open the public hearing if anybody in the audience just to comment. Uh, hello. My name is uh Colin Bower. I live at 12617 Auto Street right over here. I lived here for 23 years. My wife is Darcy Bower. She has lived here for 45 years. And the reason I'm here tonight is because of your guys' uh fence ordinance. I saw it was on the agenda. If you want to see it at work, uh you can go drive by after this meeting by my house and sort of see what you guys allowed uh to happen in my neighborhood there. Um I have a pole barn in the backyard. It's a 28x30 pole barn uh that was approved by this very board probably 30 years ago and uh I have 14 foot off the side of my house that was actually submitted to Mr. Henderson here before the fence was built and uh a guy came in and surveyed it out of Duth and uh you guys approved a fence that now I can't even get my boat in my shed or anything and so I actually tried to buy that land from my neighbor. He extorted me and I encourage you to Google him after this meeting as well. And uh you guys are creating issues with civil matters that don't have to happen. You need to have setbacks. You can't have the homeowner put the thing on the line as well. So he considered that the line. There's no pins, no markers out there. The property markers are gone. I used to be a surveyor. Um they actually had to go from the other side of the block and try to pull where the pins were. So they couldn't find the pin and they came and relocated it two separate occasions so that he could move that fence onto my yard. And so going away with these ordinances and I honestly I don't have no idea why you guys pay for a permit for these things. They're 100 bucks. Nobody comes out and inspects them. Uh I've wrote to Mr. Henderson many times. I've tried to speak to him. I've even had the secretary uh have him on the line on the computer and he wouldn't call me back. And so uh we've had many heated discussions about this. But I encourage you guys to look at this strongly. I grew up in Alexandria, Minnesota, where there's a five- foot setback. And I'm telling you, you guys need to get this under control before it gets really bad. So, >> thank you. Any further discussion, questions? Make a motion to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. post hearing is now closed. Um I have a motion to approve this uh provision to the ordinances uh as noted in dur uh commission discussion. I don't know how else to phrase it. There's a lot of different nuance in this. Anyone? >> I'm sorry. Were you making the motion? >> No, I was asking if we have somebody would like to make motion. >> Oh, got it. >> I'll make that motion. You summarized it very nicely. Thank you. >> We have a second. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. I opposed. It's approved. Okay. Um item number four, consideration of a preliminary final plant and site plan corresponding to Roger Civic Campus Development at Industrial Boulevard and Main Street. >> All right, Mr. Chair and commission members, the item before you is corresponding to the proposed civic campus, uh, which would be a city hall and police department and some ancillary uses for the city, um, right off Main Street in 81. Uh, so a little bit about the property itself. It's most commonly referred to as former Boyer Truck site. Uh it technically is six different PIDs currently. One of which was the former Holiday gas station which was uh demoed in late 2024. A former Main Street Triplex which was demoed at the same time. And then the former Ber trucks which is currently being used for storage. Uh the city acquired the former Holiday back in 2015 and then completed the acquisitions of the former ber and triplex at the end of 2023. Combined, this has a total size of about 4.35 acres in total. It is zoned and guided as downtown mixed use. Um, in the master plan, the main street master plan, which we're currently working on updating, it is shown as the civic campus. Previous master plans showed this primarily as commercial use. Uh, it's currently just vacant and used for storage. Proposed use would be new city hall, council chambers, and then police department. uh for your information just on its existing buildings and what they would be utilized for uh where city hall is currently located would be um which was originally anticipated as a short-term solution while longerterm solution was identified that would become for public works and engineering which is currently the first floor they would take the second floor and then if once this would be completed the police department building once they're fully moved and settled and would be then likely put up for sale dependent on council direction there. Uh some of the adjacent uses include commercial to the east, commercial to the north. I put industrial and commercial to the south just because there are some pre-existing grandfather uh industrial uses in that area. And then west is primarily industrial with the directly adjacent site being Grobner which is a manufacturer. Uh so the proposed plat would take the six parcels and put them into one regardless of the site plan or future use. This is something that we were going to need to have to do regardless. Um so the proposed use would just make the one lot. So lot one block one Rogers civic campus. Uh this proposed plat was reviewed by Henipin County which did not have any concerns or any needs for additional rightway corresponding to the overall site. Looking at the overall site plan itself, uh total size is approximately 60,000 square feet. Um, it's structured and I'll kind of go through the internal structure a little bit uh more in future slides, but uh there would be a plaza space that would be identified on the main street side which would connect into the sidewalk connections throughout the main street area. Uh the primary entrance would be fronting John Deere. Um this site's fairly unique that it is technically a threefront um building. So we were really trying to be cognizant of that through the design process for this building. Um total height would be 1 to two stories in height. So the city hall and um council chambers would be the one story in height and then the police department which also houses our IT would be the twotory. uh it would be and police would be on the west side of the site including the garage and then the city hall functions which includes administration, community development uh and finance would be on the eastern side with adjacent to the plaza space would be the actual council chambers. Uh so a little on parking uh total of 138 exterior parking stalls. Um of that 51 would be in a secure gated area for the police department on the western side of the site. Um so really in see if I can get a marker here in this area if you can see the little red dot. And then 87 total stalls on the public area. So this is above our code requirements but this was an important feature that we were looking at early on in the design process. The intention for the over uh number would be to create a potential solution or potential ad to the main street district to allow for public parking. Uh city hall typically um is going to be non- peak hour. So it's a daytime weekday use. Uh so the intention would be to create public parking that could be utilized for nights and weekends for the entire district. Um so that would be public parking post uh council and city operations. There are a few different access points there. There's one which would be a right in right out on Long Main Street. This was where the former triplex was located that property. um a access point on John Deere Lane which would connect into the overall public area. Um it's also important to note that both the front doors whether it's police department andor city hall and council chambers all are with deer and would be accessed off this main public parking area. A secondary access point on John Deere this would be gated. So this would be purely for police use um and potentially building department use. Um, so this would be a controlled uh entrance into this location, not open to the general public, as well as the access that goes directly out onto industrial that would be gated as well. Um, so not something that would be publicly accessible to get into the building or to park. Looking at the landscaping, so uh nearly 100 trees in total, which would be a mix of deciduous and coniferous trees as well as ornamental. Uh the primary focus of it is around the perimeter of the site with the focus on John Deere Lane. Uh that really coincides with the master plan of what we're doing and the potential future pedestrian corridor that would run along John Deere as the properties to the west further redevelop. Uh additional shrubing grasses throughout. And it is important to note with this site plan and the overall plans for this development, there's overall reduction in imperous surfaces. Uh the current former Boyer site is nearly 100% impervious. Uh so this is actually uh improving and getting uh to our code in that area. Uh so I previously mentioned the plaza space. This is just a little bit more of a zoomed in uh feature of that. So, uh, with the master plan, one of the identified features from both public and, um, city staff direction was creating areas and pockets throughout the main street district for public gathering spaces, whether it's, uh, just for break time to sit or it could be potentially combined into larger city events should it be needed. Um, but this would be right around right at the main street piece. So really trying to be a focal point for the main street. Uh so a little bit more on the internal buildout just more for curiosity purposes. I know we don't typically go through internal buildouts, but since the commission hasn't uh seen too much of this before, I thought it'd be important to just note uh this area um where you can see the little red dot going in circle on the east side. That would be the council chambers. Um so that would be the potential location of future planning commission meetings. This is the main entrance into the building located in this uh very front east side to which it enters into the counter which would serve administration, finance, community development. And then there's some additional workspaces corresponding to both engineering and fire department. Um so really serving as a primary focal point as someone enters the building. Uh so offices would be in this general area, break room, uh training rooms for all staff. The police department and it are located on the western side of the building. Um so with police departments, they have a lot of different needs corresponding to um like evidence rooms, things of that. So their space um really is designed in a manner to accommodate and work well with the police department. Um one of the challenges with the existing building is it was a retrofitted building so there are some operational challenges that that can lead to. Um it's working great but kind of out of space and the same could be said for city hall. And then a little further to the east on that side is the enclosed parking which would be used for the storage of any of the city police department vehicles. There is an internal connection that would serve between a hallway connection between the city hall and police department side um just for the public purposes. So looking at the architecture that was one of the features that was a primary component for the city as we looked at this site. Um so most of the building and what you see in the primary areas of the building on the three sides are a brick facade uh brick with glazing, some metal accents and a little bit of wood accents here and there. Uh this was an important feature for during the planning process. This was to ensure that we have consistency throughout the entire district. Um, obviously we have a range of different ages of buildings throughout Main Street, but brick is the one common theme that seems to be more timeless. So, we wanted to ensure that we are consistent with the types of uses and types of materials that were seen in the past. Uh, the only difference would be on the garage area that's anticipated to be pre-cast paneling. um one just for cost savings, but two um it still can overall match the features of the proposed building. Here are a couple renderings. Uh the one you see on the right hand side corresponds to the plaza space and then the one on the left hand side would be if you're looking at it more from the county road 81 to Main Street intersection. So the left hand side with the glass that's lit up that's um reflective of the council chambers and then on the right hand side of that being more of the office locations. Uh one of the important features was kind of creating a and this tied back to when the property was acquired and we were looking at different uses as well as the master plan creating a strong gateway to the main street district. Um so there'd be likely some signage as well that corresponds to Main Street generally. Uh so this one is also a public hearing uh corresponding to the plat and there is also representatives from our architect here from Leo AA Daily if you have any direct questions for the architect. Um corresponding to I can just quick go back to to mention it storm water. Uh there is an existing pond that's located in kind of the right ofway area. This would be expanded. The expanded pond really is going to encompass all of the building surfaces that would flow that way, but most of the site flows to the north. So the parking areas are really going to flow into the storm water basin that's shown on the um bottom of this image. Um so with that, I can stand for any questions that you have for staff. And one important note for this one as well, um the vote tonight or recommendation tonight corresponds to the actual site plan itself. There are additional conversations and requirements for the council corresponding to actual funding of the project. This does not relate to the funding. This is purely the site plan. >> Thank you all. Um, first thing I have a question about is um the improvements [clears throat] um within the rightway of Industrial Boulevard. Uh, the screen wall, trash enclosure, the generator um and the pond uh the physical things are those going to be on an encroachment agreement basis or is there going to be uh vacation of right away? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, that that's a great question. We did explore both of those options or it's going to be likely a rightway license that corresponds to it. The reason why we went away from the vacation process is there's a quite a few utilities that run right along that property line. >> Um not cityowned utilities as well. So you're looking at Excel and some other uses. So it didn't seem feasible to do the right ofway um vacation at this time. It is city-owned rightway. Um so we do just anticipate to do an encroachment agreement or rightway license. Haven't figured out legally which is the best option yet. >> Understood. And the stormwater basin, is that uh Henipin County or is that city? >> Uh Mr. Chair, that's city. Uh so right now, well, primarily city. So right now the rightway line is close to about right here. So 81 being a uh county road and then Industrial Boulevard is a city road. So most of that right away almost entirely is uh city uh the county did ask a question. I believe we're currently maintaining that storm water pond as it is. >> Um so as long as we're doing the maintenance, county didn't have concerns related to that that they expressed to me. >> Um everything on this is really awesome. I love it. Um personally I am concerned about the full access onto um Main Street. Um I presume engineering has reviewed that or will review that as a right in right out possibility or >> maintain full access. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, that's just right in right out. So that's not going to be a full access onto that location. Um >> primarily because if you're taking a left out, you can only get to go right on to County Road 81. So that'll be right in right out and likely the median's going to be extended to that point. >> That's what I was wondering. I'd like to see some access controls either at Pork Chop Island or and or extending that median in the middle of the road. One other comment I have, and this is purely because my wife sells a lot of stuff on the internet. At the current police facility, there's a place that she goes to park. Um, and since the police main entrance is going to be on that west side, um, we'll have those doors on the east side, I think, with the set of stairs. Is there any plans to have a closed circuit TV or anything that could be monitored um, for that sort of thing? >> Hey, Mr. Chair, that's a great question. Um, it's one I can't say that we've had discussions about. There will be cameras throughout the entire property um as we would have with any police department especially. >> Uh so there is glass that fronts along the police department side that would look onto that parking lot. So there is the ability for any individuals to see and there is a front desk that serves the police that could definitely review those cameras. Uh so there will be cameras. We can look to potentially mark a spot for a safe transaction zone too as well. >> I appreciate that. told my wife >> like dominated the questions here. You guys have questions? >> No, the only one I was going to bring up you already did with the main street access, so nothing further there. >> I had a question on the the plaza. So, you'd mentioned uh going to the like main like an idea of main street development having those public spaces. Um I just kind of curious on size and like the thought process of what that plaza could actually entail or is it kind of just something to fulfill the need for Main Street or is there thought of what it actually um how many people could could fit there and it the space? >> Yeah, that's a great question. So a lot of the way it's structured and with the grades, it's not going to be one where you're seeing a farmers market or anything like that. Obviously, we have a central park that accommodates the larger events that happen within the area. Um, but the one thing that we are currently continuing to explore is this main access point and if there's opportunities with the curbing to make that so that street could theoretically or access point could be shut down for larger events. Um, but there's not anticipating any true programming out of here. There's not going to be an amphitheater or anything like that. It's more of a a rest stop or green space opportunity throughout the entire district. Um, and that's really when you looked at Rogers Main Street, the previous master plans had like a church I have shut down for a larger plaza space. Now we're going more towards kind of pocket plazas throughout that provides an opportunity to incorporate a lot more green space into the overall district but as well as kind of serving both pedestrians and then the direct people that are operating in those areas. So the other small pocket parks would theoretically um be for restaurants or things like that too, but there's no direct programming. There's not an amphitheater or anything planned for this one. um more just kind of pedestrian level lighting, something that would provide an opportunity at all times of the day. >> On the um A1 elevation, overall exterior elevation south um on the right side where the council chambers are this uh brown feature, is that glass glazing or what is that? >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, that's a great question as well. So, one of the items that we're and perhaps Leo ideally would want to touch on it more, but um it's really tied to both the master planning process and this process. We didn't want to have a pure brick facade and just nothing on it. So really what we're looking at is potentially programming that with an artistic element, whether that's uh metal lettering or whether that's all the way up to a mural, something that draws a little bit more of a feature to the main street area and to spec specifically the plaza. Um because we didn't just want pure brick facade that is rather uninviting. So that area is intended to incorporate something that kind of spruces up generally and breaks up that facade. [clears throat] >> I know cost is always a concern, but the more natural light we can get in the council chambers, the happier I would be. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair, and that I think that's a good point, too. So this back area that fronts a plaza, this is actually the rear of the council chambers. So, >> gotcha. >> Um, if I kind of the council chambers really ends where this line's going. So, this back area is a secured area. >> Okay. >> Um, both for security purposes for an escape out should it ever be needed. >> Um, or for there's also AV that's located back here. So, it's kind of restructuring. So, this won't directly be in part of the council chambers. There's some rooms back there. >> Okay. I believe a restroom's going to be back there as well. >> And the dis is does it have two stairs? And is there an accessible way for someone to get up there? >> Yeah, below. >> I do see it. I see it now. 5% is not how they say. >> Thank you. All right. The questions I'll open the public hearing. Anybody anywhere? All right, I'm going to close the public hearing. Um, any further discussion? The applicant, the architect, or anybody like to speak, talk about the project, how great it is working with our city staff. Great. [laughter] [clears throat] >> Well, I'll make a motion to approve the site plan. >> Second. A motion in a second. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> All those opposed. >> Motion carries. I'm not looking at the documents. Are we also approving a plot yet or is that come later? >> That was all under the same resolution. So we can Oh, your motion to that. >> Awesome. Approved it. Didn't even know it. >> All right. New business. Consideration of the site plan application by Bader Companies for proposed multif family development at 21601 John Deere Lane former Willis Trucking property. >> All right, Mr. Chair and commission members, as mentioned, the item before you is a redevelopment of the Willis Trucking property into uh market rate apartments. Uh so, a little bit of background on this item. A concept plan was reviewed by the planning commission and city council back in 2025 uh generally in support of the development with comments um primarily focused related to traffic. Um and a traffic study has been completed and I'll go into some details about that in a later slide. Uh so there is general consistency with the past concept plan that was reviewed by both uh city council and planning commission. Uh since the time of concept plan review, there's been a few different grants that have been awarded to the project from deed and hen county pertaining to the environmental cleanup. Um and I'll go through site conditions of what it's currently like in the next slide. Um with the main street master plan currently uh going through the process of being updated and with this potential development that was incorporated into it. past master plans for the area did identify this site for a multifamily use. Uh so the site itself, the the owner is currently Willis Enterprise. Um Willis Trucking is the name of the site in the corner current owner operator. Uh so it's been used for heavy truck repair and service since um since its original development. There's also some uh tire sales that had occurred there with Hooser Tire. Uh the proposed developer is a mix of Bader and Eert companies, both of which are here tonight. If you have questions directly from the developer, uh the site size is approximately 4.61 acres total. It's currently in two parcels. So, one of the conditions as part of the site plan approval corresponds to combining those two parcels. The zoning is downtown mixeduse and the guidance is mixed use as well. Downtown mixeduse. Um, as previously noted, both the planned updated master plan and previous master plans identified this site for multif family. Uh, the proposed use is 181 units of market rate more luxury multifamily. Um, and some of the adjacent uses include commercial industrial to the east. The proposed civic campus, which you just saw, to the north, south would be the railroad, and then industrial across the railroad site. And then west is currently industrial but as mentioned those are grandfathered uses and um are guided for different uses into the future. The site plan itself the total number of units is 181. I'll have a breakdown on the next slide. Uh total of three stories in height which is approximately 31 feet in total height which is below the maximum for the downtown zoning district. generally H-shaped with parking along the edges and as well as underground parking and I'll have a future slide on the total number of parking stalls. Uh pool and clubhouse would be located centralized into the H um where that would be located. Then additional sidewalk connections would run along John Deere as part of our main street master plan. We do identify a pedestrian corridor along John Deere as it redevelops going to the west. um with the development they' be doing environmental remediation. There are currently underground storage fuel tanks on site. So in the past there were leaks and which led to the overall contamination on that site. And then with the proposed storm water plan uh storm water um plans that they have, it'd be underground storage and treatment corresponding to the proposed development. a little bit on the zoning code and how this proposed development um aligns with the zoning code. It's currently at 39.26 units per acre um which is just below the maximum for the downtown zoning district. Uh most of the downtown zoning district has zero foot setbacks. So it meets the setback code limitations for the downtown area. As mentioned, it meets the height limitations. Um and overall there's a reduction in imperous surface. Most of the site's all compacted gravel currently. Uh so there'll be an incorporation of green space that's not currently on the site. A little bit on the parking unit breakdown. Um so of the unit 181 units, 40 of which would be El Cove and studio units. Um 70 units would be onebedroom or onebedroom plus den. 62 units being two-bedroom and then nine units being threebedroom. Um I had the developer provide anticipated uh estimates of what they have seen with comparable projects for total number of individuals per unit based on unit types and that really equates to about a 1.8 persons per unit. So 326. Um, also noting that with the proposed breakdown of unit types being primarily studio and onebedroom, uh, you're not seeing as many kids. So, it's primarily going to be adults that are located within this facility. Uh, for parking, there's a total of 164 I should have updated that 164 surface stall spaces and 209 enclosed spaces. So the 374 total spaces exceeds our code requirement of the two to one per unit. Um so we require two units or two stalls per unit, one of which has to be enclosed. Um obviously they've exceeded the number of enclosed spaces. Um they as mentioned they did do a traffic study. um and the assumption of a 2028 completion date of the project which would be following the Fletcher by Pass completion uh just to the west um along 81 which will connect into 81 territorial um total of 1,124 daily trips both in and out which as it shows in the traffic study has a very minimal impact on nearby intersections. So they did evaluate a few of the different intersections and really you're seeing a about a 1 second change based on existing no build conditions or to the build conditions. Uh one of the items that the traffic study mentioned and the draft traffic study was attached to your packet as well uh is a potential future connection from John Deere to industrial. Um so the traffic study doesn't include that as a component of the study. Um but it is one in which our main street master plan does identify creating that connection from John Deere to industrial. Uh, corresponding to landscaping review, 38 new trees primarily focused along John Deere Lane, which really aligns to what you just saw for the um, civic campus and the landscaping proposed on John Deere on that side. Um, one, this was one of the areas in which staff also directed focusing those trees on John Deere's side for that additional screening between the two uses um, especially the PD side. So most of the trees you'll see are on the John Deere side with some throughout the parking lot areas especially in the islands as well. Uh so the architecture and I do have renderings on the next page which kind of show it better but um really on the front the John Deere side being a focal point for brick similar to the civic campus really wanted to focus on the overall look corresponding to the general area of keeping that brick facade and then um some paneling along all the sides as well as the rear pieces of the building. So, as you'll see on this screen, uh the top right image would be what you'd see from John Deere. The top left image would be if you're taking the curve on John Deere and continuing westbound. And then you see the two sides. And then the bird's eye view on the bottom would be looking into that uh pool and clubhouse area. So this is I wanted to include a slide on the downtown vision both corresponding to the proposed master plan as well as previous master plans. Um it's really looking to redevelop the industrial uses off from Main Street. Um so taking out the industrial uses seeking more of the residential and commercial style uses uh removal of substandard buildings and promoting environmental remediation um as part of their early evaluation of the site. The structure itself was deemed as uh substandard by LHB who does uh those reviews. um a substandard building or blighted building means there's enough ADA and other um building code concerns that it creates challenges to reusing that building or bringing that building up to code as it would be to replacing it. Um integration of housing to support and advance commercial viability on Main Street. So, one of the key components is pushing commercial uses onto Main Street and ensuring we have the support for those commercial uses to remain viable well into the future as well as attracting new um and exciting uses to the area. Uh mentioned the architecture already and then incorporating the sidewalk connection um and landscaping for the John Deere future pedestrian connections. Uh so tonight you are reviewing the site plan itself. Um there is a proposed draft resolution in your packet. This is not a public hearing but the developer is here to answer any questions you have for them. And with that I stand for any questions of staff >> questions. Um, trash handling. Is it interior to the building or is there going to be a closure? So, we will handle all of our trash uh from the inside of the building. Uh there's trash shoots and that'll all drop down and we'll move it out from there. >> Um, it may be that there's dumpsters out, you know, on trash day, but otherwise it would be all handled inside. Um, I always feel like we're over parking everything. If if staff would consider, I'm going to let staff make the decision proof of parking for 25 or so stalls. I just don't think that we need that many parking stalls. >> Yeah, Mr. Chair and commissioner members, uh, we can definitely bring that as a recommendation to the city council >> to see if they would like to go that route. I will also note that in the upcoming proposed master plan of which you will see, there are recommendations on altering our parking standards related to the downtown area. >> We would be happy to consider that as well. >> You guys have been here before and appreciate you coming back again. Um hearing no questions or comments, there is no motion. Just want to say thank you for coming. We really look forward to seeing this this myself come to fruition. >> And Mr. Chair, there is a proposed motion tied to a resolution for site plan. Yep. [laughter] >> Some teams chat there. All right. Motion to recommend approval of resolution 2026-12 approving the site plan for 118 multif family development at the subject address uh in accordance with the terms and conditions listed in the resolution. Uh do we have a motion to approve? >> I motion to approve. >> Do we have a second? >> All those in favor say I. I posted. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> [laughter] >> All right. Uh there is a planning commission report uh staff report if you guys want to go through it. I don't have any questions myself, but I'd like to give you guys an opportunity to comment. All right. Uh do a motion to adjurnn for the night. >> I so move. Second. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I.