and we are recording. >> Okay. So, at this point in time, we'll call the um what is it? November 6th, corporate planning commission to order. Um we'll take roll call. Commissioner Lynn >> here, Commissioner Zachman >> here, >> Commissioner Hargreaves >> here, >> and Commissioner Kabiki >> here, and Commissioner Brum is here as well. And I'd like to invite um you to stand and say the pledge of allegiance with us. I pledge allegiance 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. >> Okay. And at this point, um, I will ask staff or the commissioners if anyone needs to make, um, a change to tonight's agenda. And if not, I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda. No changes. >> Make a motion to approve the agenda. >> I'll second. All right. All those in favor say I. I. And. Anyone opposed? Okay. And at this point in time, we're going to open up the floor for what is called a open forum. This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item that is not on the agenda tonight. Um it's just if you wanted to bring something to the planning commission's attention, this would be the opportunity to do so. We only take comments from in person. Um even though we may have some joining us online. Um, and it isn't an opportunity for discussion or debate, but just an opportunity to bring something um to our attention that can be directed on how to h be handled later or addressed. Is there anyone who would like to speak during the public comments opportunity? If not, then we will uh keep going and we will look at the minutes from the November, actually not November, it would have been October planning commission meeting. Uh, and if there's no changes, then I'll just entertain a motion to approve the minutes. >> I do have changes. >> Awesome. What are those changes? >> So, under item six, the High Point Gardens, you have me voting yes on that and I voted no. >> Oh, yeah. Rest assure when I went to council, I did note that you voted. Any other changes? No. Okay. >> All right. And so, um, I will make a motion to approve the October 2nd planning commission meeting minutes. >> Second. >> And all those in favor say I. >> I. Anyone opposed? >> All right. And so then that takes us to tonight's new business section. We have four items on the agenda for tonight. So we'll take them in turn. Uh the first one is going to be the all seasonasons American service animal site plan and we will begin with a staff report. >> Thank you madam chair. Um yeah so item 6A is the all seasonasons American service animals interim use permit site plan and conditional use permit. Uh this is a request from Marine Clifford who is requesting approval of uh those permits and site plan to allow the operation of all seasons American service animals which is a commercial kennel that trains service animals in the rural residential district. This operation would require the expansion of an existing ex accessory structure on site and would uh consist of the property owner, three employees and occasional visits uh from the clients on an appointment only basis. Um so before I get into the application, there's a few different uh items that are being considered with this request. Uh the first is a site plan, which is a formal review procedure to ensure consistency with the zoning ordinance. uh an interim use permit for the commercial kennel use. An interim use permit for a reduction in the required number of parking stalls, a conditional use permit to allow the cumulative accessory structure footprint to exceed 3,969 square feet, and a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure to be constructed with sidewalls that exceed 13 1/2 ft in the rear yard. So, the site itself is located at uh 1080 Trail Haven Road. This is a 15.11 acre site. Uh currently the applicants own two parcels, a 6.91 acre parcel and an 8.2 acre parcel. Uh they are going through the process at the county of uh combining those um two properties. And by the time that this is uh appro if it goes through the approval process, uh the two parcels would be combined into a singular 15 acre parcel. Uh the subject property is zoned rural residential and the surrounding properties are also zoned rural residential. Uh and then the subject property and surrounding uh properties are all guided for rural egg residential uses. Uh the 2040 comprehensive plan doesn't identify any ecologically significant natural areas on site. However, the western 150 feet or so of the parcel is located within the shoreline overlay district uh with its proximity to uh to a creek on a neighboring parcel. However, that is uh far away from the u the proposed building location. Uh and then lastly, this project is located outside of Medusa. So the submitted site plan would exh expand an existing structure uh and have an addition of 2,300 square ft. Uh this would result in a cumulative accessory structure footprint for the property of 21,924.8 square feet. Uh, like I said earlier, the applicant plans to combine their two parcels, which would result in an allowed accessory structure footprint of 3,969 square feet. Um, the applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit, which would allow them to exceed that allowed accessory structure footprint limit of 3,969 square ft. Uh, additionally, the building height is uh proposed to have sidewalls that are 16.1 ft tall. Uh, in the rear yard of uh, properties in the rural residential district, the maximum sidewall height limit is uh, 13 1/2 ft. However, there is a mechanism through the city code in which uh, property owners can exceed that limit through a conditional use permit which the applicant is applying for as well. Uh for the building materials, the front elevation of the structure would be uh constructed of board and batten board and batten siding with cast concrete stone veneer Wayne Scott and then all of other elevations would uh consist of uh 10-ft vertical steel siding which would require a certificate of compliance uh from the city which can be approved administratively on on the back end. Uh and then the roof would be constructed in their building plans of a metal material which also requires a certificate of compliance. All accessory structures in the rural residential district are expected to meet a minimum uh setback requirement. Uh and the proposed building itself meets this setback requirement. Uh and then all existing buildings on the site um except for one uh meet these setback requirements. The one building that uh does not meet this requirement is north of the proposed structure uh but was constructed prior to the establishment of the setback requirement and is and is considered a legal non-conforming structure. Uh all parking areas are also required to meet a minimum setback of 50 feet from the front property line and 10 feet from the side and rear property lines. Uh the existing parking area uh is located in the middle of the site and uh meets this requirement. Um but the applicant has not indicated the use of any outdoor lighting. If outdoor lighting is to be used with this operation, it would be required to comply with the outdoor lighting outlined within the performance standards of the city code, which would be a maximum of one foot handle on the property line and uh a cut off angle of 90 degrees or less for any standing lights. uh with a 2,300 square foot addition to the building. Uh the applicant would be required to install at least three overstory trees and eight understory shrubs to uh comply with their landscaping requirements. Those have been added as a condition of approval to the draft resolution. Uh the minimum parking requirements for commercial kennels is not explicitly called out within code. So when there's a use that doesn't have uh a specific parking requirement identified, uh staff is uh staff looks to the nearest applicable uh use that's identified and in this case it would be office buildings, animal clinics and mental dental clinics, which requires one parking stall for each 200 square feet of floor area. So the proposed structure with the addition would ultimately be 6,300 square feet which would require up to or it would require 32 square 32 parking stalls. Um and the applicant has requested an interim use permit to allow this requirement to be reduced down to seven parking stalls. Uh the site plan does not address uh the storage of refues and uh garbage on the site. uh code requires all trash, garbage to be stored within an accessory building with enclosed walls and roof or enclosed containers within a totally screened area. This has been added as a condition of approval to ensure compliance with this standard. Uh signs are not typically allowed within the rural residential district and the applicant has not proposed signs as part of this project. And then the site is currently being accessed from a driveway on Trail Lane. uh staff does not have any concerns with the applicant utilizing this existing access for uh the new use on the site. So going into the first interim use permit which is for the commercial kennel. Commercial kennels are identified as an interim use in the rural residential district and they are required to comply with the specific requirements outlined in section 1040.030 030 subdivision 5D which is u these are standards that were adopted by the city earlier this summer and were reviewed by the planning commission just to jog your guys' memory. Um but going through those it the first one is compliance with uh chapter 81 of the city code which is the annual ordinance. Uh commercial kennels must have a secured fence area to prevent dogs running at large. The fenced area must contain at least 35 square feet per dog and shelter from the weather. Uh the kennel facility must be set back at least 75 ft from any residential structure of another person and must comply with the setback requirements as identified in section 1030.020 of the zoning ordinance. Um and going through those requirements, staff finds that the commercial kennel standards have been satisfied with the proposed application with the following condition that uh the site plan be revised to include a fenced area that is large enough to accommodate at least 35 square feet per service dog being trained. Uh in addition to the standards mentioned, uh commercial chemos are also required to comply with the interim use permit standards outlined in section 1070.020. Uh so I won't go through all of those right now. Those are detailed more in the in the staff report, but staff does find that the interuse permit standards have been met for the proposed commercial. Going into the intram use permit for the reduced parking uh all seasons American service animals consists of the applicant three employees and occasional site visits from their clients which would be by appointment only. The applicant is requesting that the required number of parking stalls be reduced from 32 to 7. Uh the existing parking on site appears to be able to accommodate 15 parking stalls. Uh through staff's review of the existing uh kennel that's on site and with the proposed uh new use on site, staff finds that this would be sufficient for the 15 parking stalls would be sufficient for both uses. So reductions in the parking requirements may be allowed through an interuse permit which requires compliance with the interuse permit standards outlined in section 1070.020. Uh staff find that said the requested reduction meets the IUP standards and propose that the parking for all seasons American service animals be restricted to off streetet parking only that the parking stalls within the existing uh parking pad meet the minimum dimension uh dimensional requirements within code. Uh, and then that the IEP would uh the IEP for the reduced stalls would expire if the property were to sell, if business were to cease operations on site, or if the parking demands for American Service Animals exceeds seven stalls, or if the K9 Country Club expands beyond the current uh six employees. uh to accommodate potential future growth, uh the applicant will be required to provide a proof of parking for 10 additional stalls just so we can confirm if there is a location on site that can allow for future growth of of that parking lot if the operations were to expand. Uh and then an additional requirement was maintenance of public safety access to make sure that emergency vehicles can continue to enter and exit the site should there be a need for it within one of the structures uh on the property. Uh the conditional use permit for the accessory structure footprint uh the maximum accessory structure footprint allowed for a property this size is 3,969 square feet. Uh but uh properties that are 10 acres or larger could can exceed this limit through a conditional use permit. Uh the the current accessory structure footprint of this property is 19,625 square ft. Uh and going through historical imagery of the site, this predates the establishment of this requirement and is considered a legal non-conformity. Uh the applicants plan to expand the exist one of the existing structures by about 2,300 square feet which would result in that cumul cumulative accessory structure footprint of just shy of 22,000 square feet. Uh this would be allowed through the conditional use permit and staff finds that uh the accessory structure footprint meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in section 1070. 020 subdivision 3. That's also outlined in further detail within the stack report. Uh and then for the condition conditional use permit for the accessory structure height uh the proposed structure would be constructed with sidewalls that were 16.1 ft where 13.5 ft is allowed. Uh accessory structure accessory structures can exceed this limit if they comply with uh specific standards outlined in 1030.020 subdivision 5D. These standards are that the that the proposed use be in conformance with all city regulations. A certificate of survey uh is required that identifies all existing structures on site. It complies with the conditional use permit criteria outlined in 1070.020 and that the proposed building be compatible with the surrounding land uses. And staff finds that the proposed sidewall height complies with all of the standards outlined above. So, at this point, staff recommends that the commission open the public hearing and take public testimony. Uh, and then staff also recommends approval of the draft resolution approving the site plan, the two interim use permits, and then the conditional use permit for the uh footprint and the sidewall. >> Thank you, Dwight. All right, at this point in time, we will um open the public hearing. Uh public comments will be limited to in-person comments. And if you were able to fill out a card at the beginning, um I I'm not sure how many members of the public are here versus applicants. Um but applicants will each get the opportunity to speak on your um item. Uh so you don't need to fill out a card, but if anyone else did, which I don't think you have any cards, do you? Nope. Uh but if anyone is here, we'll still give you the opportunity to um speak. We'll just ask that you come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Um, and then for the sake of time, if you could keep your comments to under five minutes, then that would be great. So, if there's anyone joining us this evening that would like to make public comment regarding the all seasons American um, service animal site plan, interim use permit or conditional use permit, we would invite you up to the podium at this time. Sometimes people wait, so we're just going to give it 30 seconds. But if there's no one, then at this point in time, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. >> And all those in favor say I. I. >> Anyone opposed? >> Okay. And we would like to give the applicant the opportunity. I know last time you sort of did a presentation at the end, but I think we would like to invite you up to the podium now to have you um give your presentation or demonstration. Um, and then if you could just keep it to five minutes, that would be fantastic. Um, my name is Marine Clipperton. Um, that's my home up there. Um, for 10 years, our family has been breeding, raising, training, and donating service dogs to min Minnesota veterans at no cost to the veterans. Um, we've done 71 dogs so far um just out of basically our home and we have another farm over on Tucker Road in Rogers. So we train the dogs there at our property and really in public everywhere we go. Um we serve pretty much all of Minnesota and um we are wanting to um not expand anything with the dog kennel but just to have a dedicated site to um train the dogs and the veterans. We spend 120 hours with working with veterans to certify them to become certified handlers of a service dog. So, um the dogs pass a series of four tests before they're even eligible to start training with a veteran. And then, um as we have veterans apply to receive a dog, um they start meeting the dogs and eventually the dog picks the person, the person doesn't necessarily pick the dog. And um we have a class right now of six dogs that um and these are some of them that will go on to serve veterans. and we'll probably start training them with the veterans as the applicants are starting to come in now in the next two months or so. And this building really allows us a place in which to do that training. Um and veterans have told us over the years that um they don't like commercial structures in strip malls and things like that. Um their defense of posture and the history with public is difficult. So, they really like our rural setting that we have. Um, we don't like signage. So, we're not asking for a sign for anything. You know, we prefer that people drive by and really not even hardly notice that we're there and we don't have any impact um on our neighbors who are here. So, we like that, too. Um, and this building kind of serves as a multi-purpose that we've learned. We treat um POTS episodes, which is like a fainting episode that occurs in veterans. Um, we sent train our dogs that can tell when um, an episode is coming on prior to the actual onset anywhere from 10 to 15 minutes prior. And the dogs will start applying pressure to the person to get them to sit down, bear weight on their laps, and then if they do fall, they actually lay on top of them, and they help the person's heart rate sync to theirs and help them recover quickly versus having the episode occur, and then having them not be able to recover quickly, whether it be out in public, at home, if they're alone. The dogs are also then taught to once they stabilize the person to go seek help for that person. And they have go-to people or people that they'll go and they'll actually grab their hand to bring them back to seek help for the person. Um, so these are our dogs. We'd like to have our building that's already there, but we just need it bigger. Um, and the building isn't meant to house any dogs. No dogs live there. Um, the dogs live in our houses. We have a group of volunteers and the dogs help um foster raise and puppy raise the dogs and train them over a period of a year and a half before they go to be finished with their veterans. And so it's really a training facility that has um homelike features to it um to allow that person to have these episodes in a place that's private and not strange. Because like right now we're treat training for these episodes on like a hard floor and that it's hard for them the dogs to transition into houses to learn those things. So, um we keep them in a homelike setting through their entire training because then they don't have those transition potential failure points. So far, we have one failure. That dog currently lives with my daughter in Washington DC with my grandchildren. So, um and he's the best failure possible because he's just like, you know, a horse on the ground that the kids climb all over. So, he was just too lazy to work is really what the problem was. So, we breed British Labradors. That's it. Um, we have these dogs genetically tested. We've been doing it for 10 years. I have a grandma that lives in the house with me. She's 14 plus now. I have uh her daughter-in-law that lives in the house that bred for us. And then the granddaughter, which is now have a litter of 10 puppies ago that are at my house. So, this is the previous group. So, um, yeah, when we bought that property 20 some years ago, there was a lot of buildings on it. So, we didn't put those buildings there, but we're happy to have them nonetheless, especially for what we do now. So, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer any questions that somebody might >> Thank you, Marine. I will ask the commission if they have any questions specifically for Marine before we begin uh any sort of discussion that might need to take place or motion. All right, no questions for you, Marine. I do want to say thank you. Uh, personally, we uh we're a military family and so I certainly appreciate it and know how beneficial that those service dogs can be um to veterans. So, >> well, I say if anybody knows anybody that's a veteran that is suffering or needs assistance, you know, let us know because they work great. They're great dogs. We um flight train them at the airport, so they've flown on planes. Um they go to work with people every day. Um you'll see them out in the community. Um but we serve everybody throughout the state. So thank you so much. Feel free to um to return to your seats or stand there if you're more comfortable. Uh the next thing that takes place is just if anyone has questions for staff or discussion and then we'll um or if someone wants to is ready to make a motion then that's what we'll do now. So wherever you would like to be whatever's most comfortable for the dog. Okay. At this point in time does anyone have any questions for staff or uh discussion points or someone ready to make a motion? Any and all is acceptable. I was going to say, um, love the idea of reducing parking. Um, if I'm reading it right, the sidewall height is being requested because if you were to continue the building, that's how tall it already is. Okay. All right. Makes sense. Um, I thought it was well put together and I live a street over, so I'd love to be a volunteer. Um, but no, no other um questions for me. A question that I have for the two IUP pieces, do they each individually have their own sunset clause or do they run? Do you know what I'm saying? Or are they >> So the sunset clause, there's two sunset clauses for the commercial kennel and those two sunset clauses overlap with the reduced parking. >> Okay. >> So, um the the reduced parking just has an additional sunset clause that if the parking demands exceed that, then we look at expanding the parking lot. But if you know if one of the sunset clauses that overlaps um causes one of the IEPs to to expire, then they would both expire. >> Okay. Okay. And then um I just am more noting the sidewall height is still here and we have been asking for a while for that to be reviewed. So, I am just again bringing it up for the sake of maybe any council members who are listening um that we'd really love um staff to have the time and opportunity to be able to review that to maybe update something that seems a little reasonable and e more easy for residents. Um and then the fenced in area, that was a question I I do have for you. Um, >> is that something because this is training and not we don't um like these dogs as you can see they're never off leash. They're not, you know, I mean like that's not a thing for service dogs in the training. They're always with you on leash. And to be a legitimate service dog, they always need to be under the care, custody, and control of the handler. We don't we don't do that type of thing with them with their training. when they're off leash, they're in the building in the training room. And because passing some of these tests, some of the requirements are you have to have so much of a distance of a stay, a heel, a down. Um you have to leave them and go around a corner where they can't see you and it's timed for three minutes and things like that. So those are the only times really in the testing phase where they are off leash and that's actually done out in a public facility because you have to randomly they'll say the tester will say you have to go to this store here. I'm going to meet you there. You have no idea where it is. there's no prep for it or anything like that and the dog has to be at that level of obedience and command and control at that point. So, we don't really need a fenced area for them because it's we have a fenced area at the dog hotel itself, but these dogs aren't like that. It's >> it's apples and oranges. >> Yep. >> The other thing I was going to tell you is that we did get the lot merge done and the new um P from Henipin County. So, that is complete. >> Great. I'm glad that worked out. So I I know that it is a condition of approval and so I guess at this point in time um because a conditional use permit is willing to look at the particular use of the property in question. I guess I am ready to make a motion for approval, but I would like to change the requirements for that fence in area. Um, just because I would hate to require something that wouldn't be utilized just because it would be standard for a different kennel, but that kennel could be reviewed under its own conditional use permits. If I'm way off base, please um counter um or if there's anyone else who feels differently um let me know. Or I guess was it a condition in your staff? It was you indicated that it was a condition of approval. >> The condition that was in the IEP figure how I do it. >> It's a smart recommendation though to keep the fence. >> No to strike the fence. Yeah. Because it is it is a different um it's a different use. Yes. We don't we won't even use it. >> Is there an existing fence area? >> There is for the dog hotel that's fully fenced. The fence is buried 2 feet in the ground. >> And and then we'd also have an explanation that these dogs in particular would not be. >> Gotcha. So because the extension or the expansion is related to this side of the business and not the other, right? >> I I I think we can I think we can do >> verbiage. >> Yeah, we can do some gymnastics around it. But if there's already a fenced in area on site, I think ultimately that standard is accomplished. >> Okay. And there was a question there about the refuge thing. Part of our original um home occupation license with the dog hotel and there's no waste on site. It's hauled out. We have actually a dumpster that's emptied every week and so there's that's that's okay. Perfect. So then if no one else has Well, actually I was >> just for clarification, you also run a commercial kennel where you board dogs. >> Yes. So separate building. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> But all of these are just for the building that you're going to be doing the training in. >> Correct. And you guys only require seven parking spots for that. But there's room for 14 and you don't have to make any changes to allow that. So, at this point in time, I'll make a motion to approve the um site plan, the interim use permit, and the conditional use permit with the verbal gymnastics of somehow indicating that there's already a fenced in area and an additional fence in area is not required for this particular um application. >> I'll second. >> And all those in favor say I. I. >> Anyone opposed? >> All right. Thank you so much. Nice to meet you guys again. >> Uh and we'll let them clear out. Uh but if um >> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> And then we will go on to the next item of business. We'll we'll just kind of give them a second here so that there's no disruption. Uh the second item on the agenda tonight or under new business 6B is Phil's quality quality automotive site plan conditional use permit and variance and we're going to begin with another staff report. >> Thank you madam chair commissioners. Uh yes, this is several items for an existing business in the industrial park at 7590 Commerce and um on the screen is the zoning map with the arrow to fills. Uh this is an existing business and they are asking for approval of a site plan amendment, a conditional use permit amendment to add an additional uh dealer parking space on the south side of the building and then variances from setback requirements and drive a width. Uh the goal uh this is something we've been working with the applicants for I think a little over a year trying to address some of the ongoing issues. uh they were able to remove the existing septic system uh septic tanks which is on the north side of the site which gives them an opportunity to expand their parking area. If you've been past the business you can see they need to expand their parking area. Um they've been growing and in fact transition the owners to the next generation here and they're here this evening. So the site is zone light industrial. Next slide. And uh as I said the automobile repair services for Phils have been on site since the late 80s. The files are a little sketchy but uh it is a legal uh non-conforming business for a variety of reasons. There are a lot of legal nonconformities on site and um in 1997 then uh they got a dealer license for five um uh to to have auto sales for up to five vehicles. And so part of this application would expand that to have a sixth vehicle and then improve the parking lot. So if we go to the next slide. So one of the challenges is back in 1997, you know, was a little different. So we got this site plan that was approved and the reality is the site plan that got approved really couldn't be built that way. It just it didn't match us. It wasn't based on a survey. So, we had a drive aisle and parking stalls that in theory met the code, but in reality there wasn't that much space on site. So, now we have the condition uh on the right, which is the proposed condition. And a couple of the challenges that I just want to point out with the site on the south and the west side of the property, you can see uh what is a a drainage ditch and it's a regional storm water system. And so the south has a 50 foot drainage and utility easement um which really restricts the ability to expand to the south. On the west the parking is really at the edge of the um drainage ditch. And again theoretically possible to fill but it's really a complicated site. You need to pipe it. And so really those are a couple site constraints that we're dealing with. It's a relatively small lot for a business of this type as well. So the um uh improvements uh shown by the applicant, this is their proposal. Um >> can I um I just want to point out so this is the new parking on the north which is parallel or diagonal parking which is uh new. Uh this parking that exists here basically exists today. And then on the south we've expanded this dealer parking. There's a sidewalk in front of the building in this location and we're adding the handicap stall here in what I think is sort of a patio uh today. And what the applicants were proposing um and they can certainly correct me if I'm wrong. The details aren't on this site plan, but I think the plan the request was to stop the paving here and leave this all gravel and the that's what I thought from what we talked about and what uh when engineering reviewed it, we do need we do recommend per the code that all drive a parking areas are paved. So that would mean this access needs to be paved. And one of the reasons is we don't want to continue to track dirt onto the public streets is so when people make improvements, that's the opportunity to bring it up to code. So, this area would need to be paved as well as the drive aisle to get back to the uh sales lot. I'm going to talk a little bit more about that when we get to the sales. It's not a sales lot. That's an overstatement of what it is, but the um dealer stalls. So a variance for drive width is needed because the current site plan doesn't comply with drive a width. So we typically um you know would look to bring sites into compliance as part of an approval but we physically cannot do that where the existing parking is. We're just pinched by the ditch and the building. So frankly it is what it is. But the variance will um uh formalize the approval because right now the 1997 site plan showed something different than what's actually on site. So the way you clean that up is you formalize it with their site plan amendment and variance. Um so one of the things they're doing that's sort of adjusted is they're adding the curb line that sort of straightens out that line a little bit. Um and so we support that variance for the drive by. that allows them to pave those parking stalls, add add curbing gut or better manage the drainage on site because again those ditches we want to control the runoff because that's a regional storm water system under our MS4 permit. So we're very happy about that improvement. Uh the second variance is for a north setback and um that new parking on the north um is angle parking. Um I would note that the code only requires 13 parking stalls for this site which is kind of laughable and maybe warrants some evaluation because we we clearly need more than that. Um but the angled parking in that location also needs variances both from uh the setback to the north um uh to allow 27.3 foot setback where 50 ft is required from the front yard. Um and uh because it's 30 uh 60°ree parking stalls the drive aisle width um uh does comply under that standard. So, we do recommend approval of that variance for the north. It's a similar setback to other non-conforming parking on the west side of the site. Uh the parking will require screening on the north. They've got some uh trees shown on the plan, but we will require some shrubbery in that location as well to screen the headlights uh to the north. Um this will allow them additional parking to help the business uh grow in the existing location. The uh staff report includes findings effect for both of those variances. The conditional use permit uh again the existing auto repair uh predates the requirement for auto repair being a cup. So it is considered to have received a cup. So that part is in compliance. Um outside storage was never according to our records granted approval. And so uh they asked for a conditional use permit for outside storage. And so um on the plans initially submitted all of this area is shown as as storage area. Well the code allows storage but only if it's fully screened. And um one of the challenges with the site is again uh engineering requires this all to be paved plus paved access to the um uh dealer stalls because again those are essentially parking and you need to have a dry aisle. Really this is the area where you could put outside storage. Perhaps you could meet enough of a dry to get a skinny strip in here. Um but the code does require that that be fully screened. So you need to fence that storage area. And so we do recommend approval of outside storage for this business uh to the extent that they can accommodate it outside of the required drive aisles and parking and screen or fence it. Uh and we have recommended approval that with the with the cup standards in the resolution. They may find that it doesn't make sense to do that with those conditions. Um, but we do um we do have an approval condition that allows storage outside of the parking and drive aisle areas. Again, this is the red box where I think it is, but you could do a little narrow strip along this area as well, but it's pretty limited and it does require screening from the street and adjacent properties. So in summary, uh the site plan approval allows the expansion of the parking area. It allows us uh them to pave the drive aisles and parking lot to bring it up to current code standards as well as adding additional parking for the business. Uh we do recommend approval of the variance for a drive aisle that's 27.7 feet in width where 26 feet is required for the what I would call the existing parking the 90°ree parking uh which again for the record is what exists today for all intents and purposes and we're simply paving it and sort of straightening out the the curb lines. uh variance for parking on the north where we have a 27.3 foot setback where 50 feet is required. Uh conditional use permit amendment to allow six vehicle sales stalls on this outside of the building and a conditional use permit for accessory outside storage provided that it can meet the standards in the code which requires screening. And so uh we'd need an updated plan from the applicant should they choose to pursue that. Um but again the draft resolution does include approval of that with those conditions and again um some conditions related to some additional landscaping uh to screen the headlights here. Um we did not make that a condition for the existing parking. It's existing. Uh we do encourage that but we did not make that a condition simply up in this area uh uh requiring the the screening for that. Um, so in your staff report is a single resolution approving all of those items with a number of conditions. I'm happy to answer any questions. As I said, the applicants are here tonight um to answer questions about the business as well. >> Perfect. Thank you, Sandra. At this point in time, what we'll do is we will open up the public hearing for this business item. Um so if there's any members of the public who want to um provide public comment on this particular issue, we would invite you up to the podium at this point in time. Um if there is anyone here for that and if not then I will make a motion to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. I. and anyone opposed. And then we'd like to invite the applicant, whoever is going to speak on your behalf, to uh come up to the podium. And you're welcome to uh to sort of give a narrative if you want or if you just want to address some of the particular things that you'd like to be considered, that's also welcome. >> And madam chair, if I could, as someone who's listening to the council meeting last week, if I could ask you to speak into the mic because it's super hard to hear if you don't. All right. Do you want my name, too? David Rasmmanson. Um, Phil Kerber's nephew. We're going to be the my business partner, Sean. We're going to be new owners of the building. Um, we're just trying to get everything into compliance and uh get everything up to code so that every there's no questions, there's no issues moving forward. Um obviously all the improvements as Kendra said uh were kind of limited because of that major watershed on the uh north side and the west side there uh make it tough to expand the parking lot or anything with the mound gone now. We are able to expand into that area. Um I guess I did have one question for you as far as the dealer lot. um and having to pave that back section. Um what if the dealer lot was flip-flopped to the front parking and those were just regular like storage cars that we had talked about. Um because we do have we we do long-term projects and sometimes the cars sit outside and that's the whole reason we weren't taring that back area and we plan on expanding the building down the road. So, we didn't want to rip brand new asphalt out to expand the building. >> That's a great question and we will make sure that Kendra is able to address that. Um Okay. Because I also have a question pertaining to that once you're finished. So, and we move into the discussion portion. >> Yeah. And then, uh as far as the screening goes, um the shrubbery up there is all, you know, 3 feet high or higher and uh obviously as it grows in, it will match other businesses in the area and uh provide the screening. um to be in compliance. >> Pretty much all I have. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh what we're going to do now is we just move into like uh some discussion. We'll make sure that um your question in particular is um addressed. Uh I'll give Kendra the opportunity to actually speak to that, but I have a question sort of along those lines that would address that as well. So feel free, Kendra. >> Thank you. Um yes I think there are options. So one thing and I meant to I meant to also uh when I was talking about the storage area mention this um what you suggested is an option. You could move the dealer lot stalls to a different location. Um, you dealers cells do have to be paid, but I think we could if we said, you know, take this sidewalk to the south and said this is the storage area and so vehicles that are waiting to be worked on could move in there. Um, I think we could probably do that. We'd still have the screening requirement, but it would give us a way to do that. And what I would say is I feel like the way we've written the resolution has some flexibility, and we could work between now and the council meeting to some options uh to address that. So that is an option that we could certainly do. >> Perfect. My question for you was going to be and I guess it's a question for you but then also for staff to see if it's possible is you right now you currently have two access points. Is it possible to just close one of those access points and only have one or is that not desirable? I was just thinking it would give you some opportunity to, like you said, flip the dealer spots up, but then not potentially have to pave all the way because now you don't have an open drive on the south side of the site. >> I'll let David answer first and then I'll answer. >> I I'm not opposed to that. Um, we honestly use the other one more than the than that. Uh, that where the dealer lot currently is on there, that is our main entrance to the building. And then where that other screened area is on what would be the west side where the diagonal lines are, that's our alignment bay. So there's two entrances to the building for vehicles to drive into. So the I'm trying to figure out the orientation here, but uh on the bottom of the of the key right there, that is our main pulling in customer cars. >> This part? >> Nope. >> On the south end south end of the building. the south end right there >> where the >> Yep. So that section right there is our garage door pulling into the shop. So that area gets driven on quite a bit. Um but only for us similar to how similar to how uh Protek across the street is the back their new development their new building doesn't have asphalt on it. It's just gravel back there. >> So, I think what Kendra was highlighting is that in the the reason the verbiage matters is because whatever resolution we make a vote on tonight, whatever is included in that resolution is what is uh the recommendation for that goes forth to the next meeting. So, I think what is possible, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that some of this maybe uh thinking, creative thinking about that uh could be worked out outside of the planning commission meeting um but prior to it going to council. >> Yes. I think uh my concern about closing the second access point is public safety even though this exists today does not love that 20 foot wide drive aisle and so you can't really have vehicles meeting there and so having that second access I think is important to public safety it's certainly if we wanted to explore that what we'd need to look at is how do you have a fire truck turnaround on the south and maybe you could do it if you came in >> I can turn a truck in a 30ft trailer around down there. So, >> well, but you have this if we close this off and put parking here, which is I think kind of the point >> or just giving you some wiggle room for storage for for how much is paved. That's >> right. >> So, part of the challenge is designing on the fly. >> Yeah. Right. Which is what I'm not trying to do. >> So, I think I would need to review with public safety. uh they were concerned about this narrowness and we said but it's narrow today. >> I I think they would have concerns about closing this but certainly we have three weeks before the council meeting. We could certainly you know visit um in the next week or two and decide if there's if we can come up with a different plan that might look a little different before council. Um and certainly we could also table the council meeting to the next one if we needed more time. Um, I think those are great options to explore. I don't know that I can answer that today, but that would be my concern is the public safety. >> Sure. >> So, I have a kind of a side question to that. What if we put signage up that that was not public entrance so that it was only emergency vehicle entrance or something and kept it open but didn't tar because it's not used as a normal entrance right now. I think that's a good question and something to be noted that would have to be >> yeah about >> I feel like we might um good discussion. It feels like maybe a discussion next week uh at the staff meeting >> because I feel like there's a lot of things. I feel like the plan that was submitted, we have a path forward with the plan that was submitted, but if we wanted to make some modifications, none of the things that we've just talked about to my mind are significant changes, but they're significant enough I would want to review with engineering and public safety. Um but it doesn't my opinion doesn't feel like it's a different project that requires it to be tabled tonight to work through that. I think we could work through it before council. >> Okay. >> Does anyone >> So, how does that work as far as approval when there's so much? >> So, what or we approve it as it is today and if it changes it changes. >> Okay. Well, it's sort of like approving and then there's changes to the plat like the final plat that we don't ever see. So, it's sort of like the the the broad site plan, the conditional use permit and the variances are there >> uh regardless. >> So, >> it's not unusual to have a change happen between planning commission and council to try to address a condition that is in the draft resolution. And really, that's what we're talking about. I think the applicant saying, "I see your condition. I don't love it. I'd like to think of something different." >> And that's not unusual. So, um, again, I think we want to find a way to bring this site into compliance and allow this existing business to grow in town. They've already been growing and we want it to be in a safe um, manner. >> I'll make a motion. Well, >> does anyone else have any other Well, you are welcome because technically that's the way we're supposed to do it is we're supposed to have a motion and then have discussion, >> but we just are always shy to make motions around here. >> Were we supposed to close something or were >> Nope. >> Oh, well, I just wanted to give Did you guys have any further questions? >> I don't think that's It looks very tight, but if you guys have been operating in that space already and it sounds like the different changes you want to make are acceptable, too. I'll make a motion to approve the draft resolution. >> I second it. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. And is there anyone opposed? >> Nope. So what that means is that the planning commission has reviewed it and they make a recommendation to council. Usually you have uh like Kendra said three weeks before it would be on the agenda. um at least enough time to sort of look at what are all of the conditions in this draft resolution and address any with some changes that you're able to and if nothing it really gives you the ability to be prepared for that council meeting. >> Okay, >> perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes. And Madam Chair, I'd say to Dave and Sarah and Sean, if you want to connect with me this week, if we if you want to come in on Wednesday with our staff meeting, we can certainly schedule that. All right. And so then we are going to keep moving. And um the next item is Schmid Schmid's Hidden Valley Third Edition Preliminary Plats and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment. And we are also going to begin with a staff report. Is it Natalie this time? >> No, it's me again. >> White again. >> Okay. Uh yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. So item 6C, Schmidz's Hidden Valley Third Edition. This is a preliminary plat and uh should say subdivision ordinance amendment. That's a typo on my end. Uh an overview of the request. Uh Michael and Judith Ball are requesting approval of a preliminary plat and subdivision ordinance amendment to allow the development of a three lot subdivision called Schmiden Valley Third Edition. Uh this is a preliminary plat for three lot subdivision and then a subdivision ordinance to amend the language for the private drive design standards. Uh so the site is located at 21900 Oakdale Drive. This is a 28.26 acre site. Uh the property is zoned rural residential and guided rural egg residential. And then the surrounding area has the same zoning of rural residential and same land use guidance of rural egg residential. Um some n natural characteristics of the site include Rush Creek which flows through the eastern portion of the site and then the 2040 natural resources map identifies savannah pasture upland on that same portion of the site. Uh also a wetland delineation was conducted last year and identified uh several wetlands throughout the site and the property is located outside of the Musa. So before we get into the analysis, just want to touch on the level of discretion for the two items being considered tonight. the preliminary plat. Uh the city's discretion for approving that or denying it is limited to to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the city subdivision and zoning ordinances. If the commission finds that the proposal meets these standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. Um with the subdivision ordinance though, the city does have a higher level of discretion. um as this is where the city has legislative style authority, any amendment to this ordinance must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. So going into the preliminary plat itself, this does consist of three residential lots uh ranging in size from 3.04 acres to 21.49. I mean really the the two lots on the south are closer to 3.04 4 acres and then the uh northernmost lot is the one lot that is 21.49 acres. Uh all of these lots in the proposed subdivision would be served uh by a shared private drive. Uh and the site currently contains four development rights. Uh this development would utilize three of those development rights and right now it's unclear where that remaining development right would be allocated or how it may be used in the future. Uh as presented, all three of the proposed lots meet the minimum loss standards for the rural residential district. Um however, it's worth noting that the dedication of right of way is not does not appear to be included in this calculation. So staff has proposed a condition of approval to the to the preliminary plat uh be that that right of way be excluded from the lot size calculations. If you were to take those lot if you were to take that right away out of the lot size calculations though staff is um confident that the lot sizes would meet that minimum lot size requirements of the district. As for lot width and depth, all three lots do comply with the minimum lot width and depth requirements. However, um staff had to use an approximate measurement for the u lot width measurements on lot one since it is at the end of a culdeac. the way that you measure or the way that our code measures lot width is measured at the setback line from the front setback on on callac lots and that wasn't clearly identified within the survey or site plan. So as a condition of approval uh the preliminary plan would be revi must be re must be revised to label the lot width for lot one to confirm compliance with that minimum lot width requirement. So the proposed access for the site is a shared drive along the western boundary of the site. All private drives within the city are required to comply with the design standards of section 945.020 which states that alleys and private drives may be permitted by the city council and are subject to the following standards. Private drives in the rural residential district in conjunction with the review of plats in the rural resident rural residential zoning district. The city council may approve private drives provided that all the following conditions are met. Uh and then the one that is pertinent is that the council finds that a public street connection is not required for a public street network. Through throughout the years, uh the city has made efforts to establish an internal road network within this area off of Oakdale Drive. uh and the proposed private drive does not meet the standard as uh as the city has been planning for this since 1994. So going through uh some of that history, when Corkran Hills was platted in 1994, it did stub right ofway for High Bluff Lane, which is uh runs off of the county road here through the development and is uh ends up at the northernmost boundary of that flat and borders what is now considered the southern portion of outlaw B for Schmid's Hidden Valley second edition. Uh and then when Schmid's Hidden Valley second edition was platted in 2013, uh it was identified that there was a need for a future roadway when tonight's subject property was developed in the future and included this exhibit of a future road alignment through the subject property. And as you can see, I'll get my laser pointer here on the bottom half here is where that high bluff lane that I was previously discussing is uh stubbed and then it's expected to extend through outlot B of Schmid's Hidden Valley second edition and then through uh the subject parcel that we're reviewing tonight. So since the public street connection is required to establish a public street network, staff finds that the proposed private drive does not meet the design standards of of the subdivision ordinance and requires as a condition of approval that the private drive be uh revised to meet the public street requirements within uh our engineering design standards. Uh however, the applicant has requested an amendment to the subdivision ordinance and we can uh discuss that further on in this report. Continuing on with the preliminary plan analysis, uh in 2024, uh wetland delineation report found a number of wetlands throughout the property. Uh all wetlands throughout the platting process are subject to the wetland overlay district which includes wetland buffers, monument signs and additional 15oot structure setbacks from the edge of the buffer. Um the actual size of the buffer does depend on the quality of the wetland. And when the quality of the wetlands aren't identified on the city's 2040 comprehensive plan, uh it's assumed to be of medium quality. And I've attached a table outlining what the um what the buffer width requirements would be for a medium quality wetland. So as a condition of approval, uh the prelim pre preliminary plat would need to be revised to mention the buffer widths for each wetland to confirm compliance with these width requirements. And then the wetland buffer monument locations would also need to be revised uh so that there is a sign installed where a buffer is crossing a property line uh to indicate contours in the wetland buffers and um to ensure that there isn't more than 200 feet between wetland buffer signs. As I said at the beginning of the report, the site is located outside of the Musa, which would require them to be which would require each lot to be served by private uh septic and well system. Uh and so as part of the plat, each uh lot is required to have a primary septic uh location. Uh and all septic sites are required to have a minimum setback from the from a wetland edge of 75 ft. Um it looks like there is a typo in my presentation here, but the alternate septic site location on lot two is set back less than 75 ft from the wetland edge. Uh so as a condition of approval, uh this would require the alternate sites to be re relocated to meet that setback requirement. Um since this plat is less than four lots, a landscaping plan is not required by code. However, um the landscaping requirements for the flat would require one overstory tree for each dwelling unit. Uh as far as lighting goes, um if the applicant were to come back with the final flat application, public safety would have to determine whether or not uh the subdivision warrants an overhead light at the intersection um as has been done with previous uh subdivisions in the rural residential district. Um and through the planning process, each lot is expected to have a perimeter of drainage and utility easements. Uh lots two and three meet this requirement. However, it looks like the northern property line of lot one is missing this easement and must be uh revised as a condition of approval to the preliminary plat. Uh and then DNU easements are also required for all wetlands, storm water ponds, creeks, and flood planes. Uh, so the preliminary plat would need to be upgraded to reflect this requirement as well. So the 2040 parks and trails map doesn't show any parks on the site, but it does show a proposed onroad trail along Oakdale Drive. The applicant isn't required to provide the on-road trail. Uh, and a painted shoulder may be provided in the future as part of a larger road improvement project to Oakdale Drive. So for the park dedication of this application, it would be handled in cash in lie of land. And looking at the 2025 fee schedule, it uh the park dedication fee for each single family unit is $5,954. So using 2025's fee schedule, uh the estimated park dedication would be $17,842. So, going into the subdivision ordinance amendment request, the applicant is requesting that the language in red below be added to the subdivision um ordinance for design standards of private drives. Uh and the language is added at the bottom that unless uh the council finds that based on current development circumstances reasonably expected to continue for the foreseeable future, a public street connection is not presently required if a future public street connection is accommodated by dedication of a public roadway easement. Uh staff does not recommend approval of the proposed amendment for the following reasons. Uh the first one is that it does create uncertainty and ships costs uh to the city and future residents. Uh through Minnesota statute 429, the city does have the ability to levy special assessments for local improvements such as road projects when there are measurable special benefits to the properties. Uh however, in this scenario, we would be looking at deferring the public road construction to a later date. Uh and the three lots would be served by a private drive and would have full access. So it would be difficult to establish what that special benefit would be and recover the full costs of that future road project through that assessment process which would likely result in a funding gap that would be borne by the future taxpayers of the city. Uh the applicant has communicated their willingness to wave their rights to contest that future assessment. However, this would also uh put the put the responsibility of costs on a future homeowner at an unforeseen date. Uh the second reason that staff uh recommends not approving the amendment is that it would undermine the city's adoptive street network plan as the current ordinance intentionally allows private drives only when a public street connection is not required for a street network. Um but when development occurs along a private drive, it does become financially and physically difficult to retrofit that corridor with a public street. Uh, and this amendment would essentially allow private drives to occur in areas where the city has already determined the road member connection is needed and would threaten the integrity of the planned roadway network as a whole. Um, as far as anticipated development potential, uh, the parcel to the west does not currently have development rights, but that doesn't mean that that that parcel uh would remain undeveloped in in its entirety. Um, abuddy parcels have the ability to consolidate or transfer their development rights through the platting process and this has been done several times over the last five years. Uh, it's been done with Kini Acres, Larkin Road Edition, Magnum Acres, FRA edition, and Heather Meadows third edition. Uh so the neighboring properties collectively include 12 development rights and with the frequency of similar consolidations in the past, staff finds that it is reasonable to plan for further subdivision in this area. Uh and a street connection through this area remains remains essential to support the growth and ensure internal connectivity and avoid uh additional driveways off Oakdale Drive directly. Uh as far as any precedent or consistency with past approvals, uh there have been previous developments that the city has allowed single-user driveways within roadway easements. Uh so an example would be Beal Farms. However, this situation is not comparable to the application tonight as Bectal Farms only had a segment of the uh road network uh that was not needed to serve the new lots. So um oh and additionally the existing home prevented there's an addit existing home that would prevent uh connectivity until the future. So uh at that point the city was comfortable um allowing a singleuse driveway to enter get my pointer on it single-user driveway within the roadway easement uh for the time being. Um, so in contrast, the current request tonight allows a private drive to extend uh the entire length of the future public street serving all lots within the subdivision. Um, and there isn't an example of this uh shared private drive being granted for similar applications in the city. So there isn't a precedent for this sort of request at this point uh in the city's development. Uh public safety, maintenance, and long-term implications are also concerns with this amendment. Uh staff's experience in Corkran and in other cities have shown the private drives often become long-term maintenance and access challenges. Uh residents have frequently called the city or contact the city to request intervention for various disputes and petitions for converting their private drives into public streets. uh private drives are not built to the same structural standards of public streets which do create safety and liability concerns if the safety if the city were to uh assume ownership at a future date. Uh and a narrow private drive of 21 ft wide limits fire and emergency vehicle access and effectiveness especially during the winter as snow storage can reduce that width uh even more. uh and then deferred maintenance and regular up upkeep of shared private drives can uh result in delayed emergency response times. In contrast, a 32- foot wide public street with an 80 foot rightway provides adequate two-way vehicle passing and parking on one side. Uh sufficient width for smoke plows, garbage trucks, and fire engines. uh improve safety, visibility, and long-term durability and flexibility to accommodate future sidewalks, utilities, and storm water facilities. Uh so staff finds that these functional and safety benefits outweigh the short-term cost savings of private drive. So uh at this point, staff would recommend that the commission open the public hearing and take testimony. Uh staff recommends approval of the draft resolution approving the preliminary plat for Schmidz in Valley third edition. And staff recommends approval of the draft resolution denying the amendment to section 945.020 subdivision 20. >> Thank you, Dwight. And just to clarify, those are two separate resolutions, correct? Okay. All right. So, at this point in time, we will uh go ahead and open um up the public hearing for the Schmidz's Hidden Valley Third Edition Preliminary Pat and Subdivision Ordinance Amendment. If there's anyone here who wants to speak regarding this um item, you're welcome to come up to the podium. Don't think we have anyone jumping at that chance. So, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Uh, and that's a second from Kazaki. And all those in favor say I. >> I. And anyone opposed. Okay. What we would like to do is I know the applicants are here. So we'd like to invite you up to the podium. Um, if you want, you certainly are not required. Um, and if you would like it, not so much an opportunity to discuss or debate, but really if you want to highlight anything, um, or share your narrative, um, you are welcome to come up to the podium. Um, is there a way to pull up the 2040 comprehensive plan map 6-7? >> We can see if that's >> We have copies of >> Sure. Why don't you pass out the copies and if staff is able to pull that up but we can at least um see those copies and then um and then just for the sake because we do have folks joining us online then we're going to ask that you use the mic so that they can hear you as well. >> And then also kind of what I'm saying tonight into the record. So I don't know if you need multiple copies or just one copy. Um I think we if you we probably won't have the opportunity to read through the whole thing, but if you wanted to give it to staff. Um >> I'll be reading this today. >> Oh, sure. Yep. Then we will just take a copy so that we can make sure that and then Yes. >> Okay. And then if you could just state your name um and then go ahead. >> Yes. Um so my name is Michael Ball. Um a lot to digest here but to start I wanted to kind of share a little about myself, my family, and explain why I'm here with you today. My mother, who is 77, purchased this land to build her retirement home. Her dream is to be closer to her family and her grandchildren. Currently she lives three hours away in Iowa which makes it difficult at her age of 77. She is a disabled widowed veteran error Vietnam error veteran and unfortunately my father is no longer with us to help her with this endeavor. My father was shot in Vietnam and spent 12 months in the jungle during this time. He was exposed to Agent Orange and was 100% disabled veteran. Uh this exposure led to numerous cancers and unfortunately he passed away. My mother has endured so much now seeking the comfort of being closer to her loved ones during her retirement years. My brother's family lives in St. Michael and plans on buying a lot to build their dream home and the last lot is planned to be sold to a family friend. I am here today to support her in realizing her dream and to ensure that she can enjoy her welldeserved retirement surrounded by family. I live in Maple Grove career. I'm a private banker of which I have my security insurance and NMLS mortgage license. Financial planning is what I do all day and every day for our clients. So I'd like to think I have a little bit of knowledge making recommendations. From a fiscal perspective, it seems quite irresponsible to have taxpayers cover the cost for an undefined period, especially when there's no supporting data indicating development to the west. The decision appears to be based on solely on hypothetical possibilities, which further adds to the fis financial uncertainty. Instead, a more fiscally responsible approach would be to pass the maintenance costs onto the property owners with a private drive. As a result, the city would collect property taxes on the newly created lots, ensure a more balanced and suitable financial strategy. I believe the situation would better serve the interests of our taxpayers, and maintain the city's financial health. I want to bring up some important points regarding the staff report. When making any financial decision, it's critical to consider and present both the pros and the cons to the decisionmaking body, whether it be a committee, entity, board, individuals involved. Unfortunately, I feel the rep report falls short in that regard. It presents a one-sided view that highlights only the negatives and the reasons why the report does not support the approval. A balance report that includes both positive and negative aspects is essential for informed decision-making. This allows the decision makers to weigh all factors and make the well-rounded thoughtful decision. The report provided the report should provide a comprehensive analysis that includes all perspectives and then make their recommendation. This approach helps maintain transparency and support more effective decision-making. Let's look into the facts. In the facts, I'll address the report's main points of concern, which are create uncertainty and shifts cost to the city and future residents. Undermines the city adapt street network, anticipated development potential, president inconsistencies with past approvals, public safety, maintain long-term implications. the report falls or the report fails to demonstrate any economic benefit that would result if the private drive was approved covering the next 10 20 or even 30 plus years. Addition, add additionally there is no mention of the estimate maintenance costs for repairs, plowing and other necessaries upkeep over the same time frame. According to various sources, including the Minnesota Department of Transportation in Iowa study and the University of Minnesota, the cost of maintaining these roads is around 19,000 with a national average of 24,000 per year per mile. Baldwin Township, Minnesota has also provided insight into a specific maintenance activities that contri contribute to these costs. These activities include plowing, salting, pothole patching, crack sealing, and periodic reservicing, which typically occur every 10 to 13 years. There are already two citywide streets, Trail Haven and Botoad Road, less than a quarter mile apart. The report has not provided any compelling reason why a third citywide street is necessary. The city has planned for a public local street through our site, but the 1994 internal road network is not part of the N or 2040 comprehensive plan. The report has failed to provide any evidence for this internal road network, relying instead on hypothetical possibilities. >> I'm going to pause you for just one second because we're at 5 minutes. Do we have to do anything when we're at five minutes? Okay, we are at five minutes and I can see you're halfway through and I don't want to stop your report, but is there a way for you to summarize the rest of >> Well, there's quite a bit, but I mean the dog people got quite a bit of time. >> We did keep them to approximately five minutes till we asked questions and I'm definitely willing to give you five more. So, I mean feel >> I mean I I can speed up my reading. I don't I don't want to give you any less time. It's just a very comprehensive report and um and so I just want to make sure that we get the highlights for sure that we grab the important information. But proceed >> um let's see >> you were at during >> during Yep. >> during February 27th, 2025 regular minion city council was initially supportive of a private drive. However, some council members have mixed feelings due to the lead and incorrect information provided at that meeting. Specifically, when council member Jeremy inquired about development rights to the west, qu Kevin at minute 4923 from the city staff incorrectly stated that the parcel to the west had one development right when in fact it had zero. Accurate information is critical for the council to make its informed decision. The 1994 transportation plan shows a public street running through our property turning north and northwest. However, the 2024 comprehensive plan does not support the development to the west and the northwest of our property. The parcel adjacent has zero development rights. The 2020 40 met Metropolitan urban service area line is not even close to our pro property. Considering reasonable city growth and expansion is highly unlikely. the Musa extension and conversion of our property to urban development will occur within the next 50 years. Additionally, table 6.1 page 86 map 63787 of the comprehensive plan indicates lower population growth and employment growth for Corkran due to regional growth being directed to urban and developed areas per the metropolitan council on Oakdale Drive which is a minor collector road on the 2040 ADP volume map 6-6 page 88 indicates ates as a level service a road with little to no delay. The report states the city's practice is to direct to lo traffic traffic towards local streets instead of minor collector roads. But the report counterdicts itself by not considering the benefits of connecting the parcels with 3,8 and zero development rights to Boto road which would limit traffic volume at this access point improving public safety. If the parcel to the west with zero development rights development develops first, it would create another access point on Oakdale Road. Counterdicting the report again, denying our request could prevent significant property tax revenue for another parcel. The recent sale of the parcel to the west with zero development rights was just sold to a farmer, which further supports narrative that there is no intent for future development in the foreseeable future. Regarding the future cost of a public street of an unknown cost at unknown time can be estimated using today's dollar with dollars and growing with a 60-year average inflation rate of 3.75% that will provide an estimate cost at any given moment in time. Regarding the 21 ft private drive safety concern, why has the city code not been updated to wine the private drives to alleviate these concerns? The report has failed to provide evidence on this matter contradicting the city code. Finally, the city's long-standing policy that new developments pay its own way should be enshrined in the city code. Not having the policy in the city code misleads current future residents of Corkran. development would developments with different amount of rights should not be held to the same standards as the costs do not justify the means with a parcel with 12 verse3 now let's consider hypothetical scenarios if I had purchased this property in 1995 and decided to use three development rights back then would the city have recommended building the city road then would constructing a city road have been necessary history has shown when it was not. What has changed now? Furthermore, would it have been fiscally responsible to do so? History has shown it would have not. The city has the city would have had shoulder the cost of plowing, maintaining, and eventually replacing the road over the past 30 years for a road that was never necessary. Where is the road going to go? When asked the city staff what's stopping the parcels with 3, eight, and zero development rights northwest of the property connecting onto Barter Road, they said that is something they'd look at with those development proposals of those parcels. If that was the case, a road may never be needed. Now, fast forward to the present and we still find no supporting documentation justifying the need of a city road in this section of the city. This brings us to another critical question once again. as it physically responsible to build the city road without any evidence of future development. As outlined in our narrative, requiring our family to construct a significantly expensive public street at this time at a cost that exceeds the market value of the property is not economically viable. The market value of the property simply does not support the expense of a three development. No one in their right mind would do this. Following the report's recommendation prevents anyone from developing this property until it's brought into the Musa, meaning the city's development program would no longer apply, which would not fit with the city's vision of keeping the city rural feeling. Present collect prevent the collection of property taxes on the newly created lots. It could potentially decrease tax revenue on this parcel by hundreds of thousands, if not the millions, over the next 30 to 50 years. Furthermore, potentially decrease the revenue on parcels to the west over the next 30 to 50 years could be in the millions costing the city of hundreds of thousands if not into the millions over the next 30 to 50 years. Maintaining a city road to nowhere which was never needed. Devaluing our property and properties around. No one in their right mind would buy a property with a significantly expensive public street needed before development. and even a farmer wouldn't buy because the land there's not enough tillable land as you can see with enough with swamps. In conclusion, the 1994 transportation plan concerning our property extends beyond the study period of the 2024 comprehensive plan is not even in the comprehensive plan. The report focuses our project seems based on hypotheticals rather than concrete facts and data available. However, the study does acknowledge the reports concerned and suggest rightaway prevention noted on page 85 as a way to migrate these measure measures. Our creative approach not only aligns with the city code, but also supports the 2024 comprehensive plan. I believe this position is both practical and in line with the city's vision and city voters vision of what they want their city to look like being keep the rural feeling cork and allow them to use the development rights within a reasonable manner. Thank you for your time lockdown unraveled. >> Okay, thank you very much. And I have a copy if anyone wanted and there are also additionals if you wanted to um have that. Uh but because it's been said, it's entered into the record um uh for the meeting minutes and um as well. So at this point in time, what we will do is begin um and last I mean you're always welcome to make a motion at any point in time, but if there is commission discussion and questions that would like to take place uh first, then >> can you just I know that well it's like a basketball range and I just really want to make sure they hear you. Yeah, I I have quite a few questions because it seems like it's very difficult to go forward with the site plan with the wetlands where they are with the high bluff lane coming in and then the connector road to the south of Oakdale Drive and having to line up with the new public road on your property because if you're going to have a public road crossing Oakdale Drive, they have to line up. You don't want one over way to the west and one a little further east. So looking at looking at the site plan that you show the road connecting from High Bluff and then coming up and connecting the public road through your property. If if they used the layout that's on here, your whole site plan would have to be revised because >> you're I think you're looking at the map on page six, right? Page six of 13. The one that indicates 13. Is that possible for you to pull it up? >> Yeah, if you can just switch over. I got it on the slide. Thank you. >> Are you referring to this one, Commissioner Gaziki? >> Yes. Yes, >> because I'm just not clear how the proposed public road would fit with his site plan because his private drive is way over on the west side of the property. So, the road, the public road to the south would have to come over and align with that. Um, I guess if that's a possibility and there are no development like I guess there would be one development right on the property to the west because somebody could build a home on that. Correct. No, nothing. >> If they used all their development rights and they have one large chunk of land left, they it is possible that there is a lot that has no development right. >> So it's like an >> out. when we go through the planning process, we our current policy is to not allow for undevelopable lots outlaw or lot or otherwise. Um so when this was when that property to the west was platted, I'm not sure when it was platted. Um that wasn't what the city's policy was. So it was platted without any development rights. So right now it doesn't have any. That doesn't mean that it can't have some transfer to it from an adjacent parcel. There's uh properties to the north, the properties to the north and uh west of that property have uh development rights right now and we've seen properties consolidate them and kind of distribute them. >> But but that's still a hypothetical. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean there's a lot of hypotheticals in development. That's the exercise of planning. So the reality is yes there's development rights and we've in the last five years we've processed five flats where a lot that was previously did not have any development rights gain a development right through that >> who what's going to prompt anybody to join that road that comes in to the the north and west of their property who's going to join join that road who's going to connect to it >> so the our engineering team they as we have been looking at internal connections. Oakdale Oakdale Drive is a a fairly busy road and it's more not while it has good service level, it is the curbs in it can make it a challenging road and there have been unsafe situations that have. So the goal is we don't want any more driveways onto Oakdale Drive. We want an internal road connection that ultimately um can even alleviate some of the traffic onto Oakdale Drive, especially as this area continues to grow. So as the properties to the west and the north continue to develop. That is where the road will continue to extend. >> Will there have to be turn lanes? >> Not at this not for this and there won't have to be an easement for future turn lanes. >> That is not part of the current proposal and that was not part of the engineering review as far as the location of the road. to answer that though. So, what you're seeing right now is a concept um location and in the staff report from >> from 2013. Yeah, this was an exhibit from the 2013 staff report from Schmid Valley second edition. Um engineering took a look at this with an infrastructure study back in 2024. uh and they actually found that the alignment along the western part of the site which is aligning with what the applicants are showing for the private drive is the ideal location for that um intersection on Oakdale Drive just due to the sight lines. Um so this this exhibit is subject to shift >> slightly. So, um it it's likely that this whoever's the owner of the southern parcel um would have to work the right way through their site to align with hive left lane to the south and then the future road to the west of the property. >> Doesn't that road go right through wetland three on page eight? >> That one does. >> The other one that that concept though is 11 years old. So, what he was just indicating is that um >> if you went to the west that would be different than what is shown in that visual. >> And sometimes wetlands are impacted for roads if there if there's reasoning for it. And the reasoning for the current location as proposed by the applicant when he went through the usability process um but that it does allow for better viewings and it's safer. So if he if he is allowed to do a private drive that would line up on the west side and also with the south, you know, going south, couldn't there be some type of an escrow account and an easement to allow for a public road if the properties developed and then the escrow account would >> No, we wouldn't be able to hold an escrow account indefinitely for the cost of the road improvements. Um, so that was part of part of the staff analysis is it is challen essentially what we're trying to prevent from the staff level is a funding gap to eventually bring it up to city street standards because there really is not a great way for us to ensure that there won't be a funding gap and any funding gap would be borne by the taxpayers. Uh and then additionally uh what we are able to assess to the property owners along the private drive that um it would be formed by them and typically it's the subdividers. I mean not typically that has been our practice as a city is the subdividers the developers that are requesting the subdivisions are the ones that put in the infrastructure to service it. >> Not the future purchas especially if we're talking 30 40 years down the road. I don't think it's going to necessarily be that long, but particularly if it were, um, that could be a very unexpected cost for someone who was not a part of the original purchase. For for my learning, if I'm a prospective possible buyer of land for my own property or for development and investment, whatever it might be, by looking at this, it doesn't indicate anything. How would someone exercise diligence to foresee something like this? Is there a map that shows the proposed network on a streets? >> Well, and part of my question well it's also should should it somehow be indicated on this 2040 comprehensive plan about >> so local streets are not shown on the 24D plan. It'd be very difficult to do that in an effective way. Uh so we are major in um roadways including minor collectors and that's the lowest level of road that we show for proposed roads network. Uh but this was um anytime we received a call for this particular property with this road alignment shown. Anytime we received a call on the staff level, anytime we sat down with someone to discuss this property, we make it very clear that this road alignment was this road construction was a condition of approval of the previous flat. the property owner that originally had this um and sold it to them was also very aware of that condition. Um so I we did everything we could from this available to make it clear that this would be a requirement of replatting the law. >> And does that have to be disclosed from the previous owner to the new owners? >> I don't know that they did. I certainly know that I had conversations, Kendra had conversations with the previous property owners. Um, and I had conversations with anyone who called in about it. And that was that would be the first thing that we did is you email out the the staff report that showed this road alignment and showed the condition. >> And I think if you pull up, are you able to get up the map that's on page four of 13? It's like two pages back. But, you know, with the idea of putting everything onto Oakdale or Becktel just to address, you know, your hypothetical, the reality is is that every neighborhood has those roads that go through the neighborhood. And you can see it in the southwestern corner of the map that's on page four of the >> staff report. You can't have everything end in a culde-sac. um it it it will eventually have like to drive through as you plan for those neighborhoods to be there. So, I understand the frustration of the predicament. Um but being that there's documentation at the city level of it being addressed in both 2013 and 1994, I am inclined to believe that this is does not meet that see in the southwestern corner. you see those small roads like that's what we're talking about here is is a road that is driving through not having everything um you know exit onto Oakdale Drive or back to so it's the precursor to one of those roads then being a way to drive through the neighborhood so that you don't have to get on one of those um major roads so I I I I feel the frustration I understand the um the like how is this even going to be economically feasible? But the fact that the documentation is there um indicates that it doesn't meet that requirement of being able to have a private drive. And we have to have some of those legis slate of things in order to guide decisions whether they make us a little bit uncomfortable because we understand that it's it does make it financially difficult to develop the site in a um in a way that can cover that cost. Um, I'm not sure that I foresee any other way um through, but is is there any This is wild, right? But is there any possible way that the road could be a phased investment in a phased approach by the owner that makes it more palatable or feasible over time given that it's not an urgent need at all like anytime soon needed to serve the lot though that I believe his his mother wants to live on because that's the the 21 acre lot. That's the one that I believe they're keeping. So the the private drive, the road, whatever you want to call it, would need to be constructed to serve those lots. I don't think having part of it be a private drive and and then gradually phasing. I don't think that actually ultimately helps with the cost. Um, so I think the the one little bit of a compromise that I was able to, you know, talk through with uh, well, me and Dwight were able to talk through with our engineering team was we do have a standard uh, the staff report was written on the assumption of a 32 foot wide um, pavement. Uh, one way to get it down a little bit closer to the private drive standard of 20 foot 21 feet wide, uh, would be to only allow parking on one side and that would reduce the pavement needed to 28 ft. Uh, but still would meet a city standard. And then if we do ever, the downside of that being if you know there really shouldn't be any parking on Oakdale, so parking that may be that there may be uh, not enough parking, but they're also very long driveways to serve the three lots. So it could be that we reserve that just that portion as a future problem rather than the whole road as a future problem. So >> I would think a narrower road would be feasible. Who needs parking on two sides of the street like that? I mean that that seems kind of silly to me. I think we get carried away with our road width sometimes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And I'm assuming that compromise is not the way it's drafted at all. Uh, I believe it just said it needs to be built to city street standards and city and that is one of our city street standards. It's just the way the staff analysis was written, it was assuming the difference between it was 32 feet and versus 21 ft. >> Um, and when I was looking at the standards a bit more, I was like, "Oh, well, if we do we just say no parking on one side, if we're comfortable with that, then that could get us down to 28." Would they have a variance or >> No. No. Because that would just be again working through the engineering standards. So, That seems like a one possible option. I mean these sites around it, they could combine, you know, the eight the sites with eight development rights with this and they could do the uh open space for green space and >> double their rights and >> just across the farms farms was consolidation of about I believe 12 rights. >> Yeah. And they had to build a so if you combine with that you'd have 16 rights. >> Correct. And there's even going to be one remaining right on here. And it's not very clear how that >> was going to be my only other question for staff, which was why does that need to be provided? >> It just needs we just need to know where it gets assigned to, but we have they have one, right? Uh, and so they could use they could sell that off, but we don't have there's really not a clear way that they would be able to get another compliant lot with how they >> Yeah. >> I was just wondering why because that was a condition of approval was that they provide why like the ghost plat for that. And I was just >> Well, just because we could be wrong because we like to see their idea. If they don't have an idea, ultimately what we need is to know where that development rate's going to be assigned. That's ultimately what we need from the exercise. Um, if you and they might have they might this is how we're imagining a fourth rate but um and we'd like to kind of work through that now so that there's no expect there's no unclear expectations later on that they could use the fourth development right when there really wasn't a way to do that. Um so >> I see. So you would like to along with sort of the site plan approval indicate that yes what you're thinking is possible versus no it's not possible in the future but you're still >> either way they have the right but all that to say >> it could be sold to a neighbor if it can't be used on the property. Okay. >> All right. So does anyone else have any otherwise? >> Yeah I do. if if they decided to go the narrower road, um the one that currently has the culde-sac and on the end, would that still have to would that have to connect to that future road or could it still be a culdeac? >> No, it needs to connect. The whole purpose of this is we want an internal road connection to alleviate driveways on both Beckold and Oakdale. So, it will eventually need to connect. So, I'm talking about the road that goes to the property has zero development rights. >> Yes. The the whole roadway network is supposed to connect. >> So, who who who provides for the network that's south of Oakdale? Who does that? >> The subdivider. So, >> is the applicant the subdivider? >> Not for the one south of Oakdale. No, >> but they will the subdivider whoever comes in for that lab to whether they what whatever that situation may be that'll be the same it'll be the same discussion same expectation. >> Okay. Okay. So they would have to align with his >> correct he gets the benefit of the landing point. Uh and so that'll be the whoever comes in is going to have to deal with the landing point that's established to the south and the landing point now to the north. But he couldn't currently move that road to the >> I I think at this point uh the argument that was made by the applicant that it was safer has been vetted by engineering and they agree. So this is now where we would recommend the location of this road. >> Um what's shown on that one map? I thought I thought >> what is shown right here to the far west. This has now been fully vetted by engineering whereas the previous map from 2013 was a concept very high level concept. >> Is it possible to subdivide it into the four lots and that way you know you can definitely make more money selling three additional lots? We tried to but with the two wetlands there, it's hard to and where the drainage ponds have to go or ma storm management ponds would have it would be tough. >> And is that because of the minimum width of the lots? >> Well, we we had a concept plan that did have it, but I I I defer to he's been working with his engineer, so I I defer to reasoning. Um, but we did have a concept plan that did show that they could compile the minimum requirements in theory. So, >> to get four lots >> to get four lots >> because that might make it more financially feasible. It It's a difficult site, but it's a beautiful site. I've been out there. >> Yeah, we already got two deer out there. So, >> nice. >> Yeah. And having that property where it goes around into that by the creek and everything, it's very nice. >> It's fun. I did want to just say, you know, it's tough and it it all is hypotheticals and it's hard to envision development. We all live on streets that we're probably glad that planning happened a long time before we were there to make it all look and flow together. Um, I think that that's a good opportunity for compromise. Um, and I did want to say, Dwight, I thought this analysis providing the context of other situations and historical of the city was really helpful. So, thanks for including that. Uh, at this point in time, I will make a motion to recommend approval of both of the draft resolutions. So um that would be to if I go back just for it is it means it recommends approval of the preliminary plat but the recommendation for um approval of the draft denies the zoning ordinance amendment. Um so by approving both you're denying the private drive. Correct. Which is the staff recommendation. Correct. But that gives them the opportunity to go back and possibly try to rework it or put it. >> Well, there is a motion. So, when there is a motion, we either have to have a second or let it die. But the discussion ceases until there's a second or a dead resolution. And then if there's more discussion that needs to be had, then we can have more discussion. >> Yeah, I I agree this. It's pretty hard to to do anything else with it at this point. I'll second. >> Okay. And is there any additional discussion that needs to take place? Because we do have a motion and a second. >> Just to answer your question, yes, we can work with the applicant to go through the options for industry standards. >> If there's no additional discussion, then >> she said that she will go through with applicant because it doesn't specifically list out the standards. It just says that the road would need to be uh engineered to city standards and so she would work out with the applicant those uh city standards >> for the road >> west city standard. >> Okay. And so then we have a motion and a second. So all those in favor say I. >> I. And anyone opposed? >> Okay. So then at this point then the recommendation would go before council. And I'm not sure uh staff would be happy to give you an idea of when that would be on their agenda. >> November 25th. >> Sorry. >> So then November 22nd theth >> 25th, excuse me. But no, that's >> Thanksgiving. So that's that week is a Tuesday. >> November 27th is Thanksgiving. >> November 25th. >> Oh, thank you. >> I like what year am I in? So usually council meetings are on Thursdays like commission but that is the week of Thanksgiving. So that council meeting will be on same time but at on Tuesday. >> Oh Tuesday I thought it was Monday. Okay perfect. >> It it was Monday. There was a conflict. >> Perfect. Because I had conflict too but I was going to be this is more important. So awesome. >> Well thank you for your time. >> Thank you for your dad service. We do uh appreciate that as well and for your time and coming tonight. Thank you for the questions. >> Okay, so we have one final um item of business before us tonight and this is the Brandstead garage conditional use permit and we will begin this with a staff report. Dwight, >> I'll uh yeah, I'll end. >> Is your voice hurting yet or? >> I'm not used to this many reports. You guys are going to get sick with me pretty soon. Uh yeah, item 6D is uh the Brandstick garage conditional use permit. Uh, this is a request from Josh and Kelsey Brandstead. They're requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an accessory building that would that would exceed the allowed accessory structure footprint of 3,969 square ft as well as well as exceeding the height limit of 10 ft in the sideyard. So, the site is located at 7121 Old Settller's Road. This is a 19.75 acre site. It is zoned rural residential and guided rural egg residential and the same is true with surrounding properties. They are also zoned rural residential and guided rural egg residential. There are no uh ecologically significant natural areas identified on the site within the 2040 comprehensive plan. Uh a wetland delineation was conducted earlier this year and identified a wetland complex along the western portion of the property as well as two smaller wetlands located on the eastern arm uh north of the driveway. Uh the proposed structure is not located near uh any of these deline delineated areas. Uh the site is also located outside of the musa. The minimum setbacks for accessory structures in the rural residential are 50 feet from the front property line, 20 feet from the side property line, and 15 feet from the rear property line. Uh the proposed structure complies with all of these setback requirements. Uh properties that are 10 acres or larger are allowed to have a cumulative accessory structure footprint of 3,969 square feet excluding the first thousand square feet of attached accessory structure space. Um, however, property owners can exceed this limit through a conditional use permit. Uh, based on the survey provided by the applicant, staff estimates that the current accessory structure footprint is, uh, 3,392 square feet and well, that looks like it's a typo, but the proposed structure would result in a cumulative accessory structure footprint of around 7,205 square feet. Uh the applicant survey didn't identify the exact footprint of the existing structures on the property. And so as a condition of approval just so that we can have it be clearly stated within the resolution. Uh the survey would need to be uh updated to clearly label the uh footprint of the existing structures on the property including the attached garage uh on the property. Uh the building height itself is uh going to be consisting of sidewalls that are up to 20 feet where a maximum sidewall height uh of 10 ft is allowed. Property owners can exceed that limit through a conditional use permit. Um and that's what the applicants are also applying for here tonight. Uh and then the overall height of the structure is 25 ft and does not exceed the 35 foot height limit of the rural residential district. Uh the proposed structure would be constructed with high ribb steel siding and roofing. Metal siding and roofing is an is allowed use within the zoning ordinance provided that it meets the Minnesota state building code and has been treated with a factory applied color coding system that would protect against any fading or degragation. The applicant has provided documentation on the uh materials that are to be used with this uh project and it does uh comply with these requirements. The the proposed eaves and overhangs of this uh of this building exceed the minimum length requirement of 12 in. Um and while there are no architectural interest requirements for accessory structures within the city code, uh the the commission has uh the option to impose additional architectural treatments or design enhancements if the scale or size of the wall does not meet uh the the conditional use permit criterion of uh the use will not be injur uh injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity. Additionally, uh there are no landscaping requirements for accessory structures listed within the code. However, um you know, previous approvals of larger accessory structures have included landscaping requirements as a mitigation measure from the visual impact onto adjacent properties. So again, the commission can impose landscaping standards if they find that the size of the accessory structure uh is uh injurious or um to the use and enjoyment of other in the immediate vicinity. Uh and the proposed plan appears to show that water is draining away from the proposed structure. However, the final grading plan will need to be reviewed uh and approved with the building permit application. So, going into the conditional use permit for the footprint, the maximum accessory structure footprint allowed for a property of this size is 3,969 square feet. Uh currently the site has an approximate accessory structure footprint of 3,84 square feet. That was a typo earlier on in my report. So staff's estimate is 3,84. Uh but the survey is going to need to be updated to confirm this measurement. uh staff or the applicants uh plan to construct a new 3,813 square foot structure which would increase the accessory structure footprint to around 7,205 square feet on a 19 and a half acre parcel. This can be allowed through a conditional use permit and uh you know without going through all the conditional use permit standards staff finds that the additional accessory structure footprint meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in section 1070.020 020 subdivision 3. Uh as for the conditional use permit for the height, the proposed structure would be constructed with sidewalls that were up to looks like that's table uh 20 ft where 13 and 1/2 ft is allowed. Uh accessory structures may exceed this limit if they comply with uh the specific standards of section 1030.020 subdivision 5D uh which are listed on the screen. Um staff finds that these conditions uh for the sidewall comply with the standards outlined above. Uh and there is a added condition that the site survey be updated to clearly measure all existing structures and accessory space on the site. So at this point, staff recommends opening the public hearing and taking testimony. And staff also recommends approval of the draft resolution approving the conditional use permit for the building size and the building height. Thank you, Dwight. All right, so at this point in time, we will open up the public hearing. If there's anyone here who would like to make public comment, I know the applicant is here, so there's two other gentlemen. If either one of you would like to approach the podium and speak regarding this issue, let us know. Otherwise, we will uh make a motion to close the public hearing. Someone want to make that motion? >> I can make a motion. >> Excellent. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Anyone opposed? Okay. So then I'd like to invite the applicant up to uh if you could try to stand for five minutes. Um but uh I don't want to cut you off and then you're welcome to address anything that was um raised or just uh give us your narrative. >> Yeah. Uh Josh Brandstead at 7121 Old Sliders Road uh here in Corkran. Uh we've lived at the site here now. We're going on our fifth year. So excited to be here. Um I don't have anything really earthshattering to share. I think Dwight did a nice job. Um, more than happy to answer questions. I don't think any of the conditions were problematic. So, >> perfect. Um, is it possible to just pull up the green the it's the picture that's right on just page one only out of curiosity because we're talking about those like additional impositions of landscaping standards which I feel like based on the site like are not necessary because your closest neighbor there's like a total amount of trees between your property but could you just point out where for our sake so we know whereabouts it doesn't have to be perfect but where you're pling on building the additional accessory structure. >> Yeah. So I think um with my finger I'll go up here. >> Sorry. Thanks. I should give you a pointer but I don't have one. >> So the edge of it we got stage right now. Actually it starts right here where that truck trailer right there is and it goes north and just ends of this gravel right here. So >> it's basically behind the existing >> these are you know these trees back here about 40t tall. They step down to about 25ish. So really if you if you drive down old settlers, you'll be able to see it from this corner and then probably through this area. Once you get to this area, >> you think you could see it from that house up there. >> Uh this house you might be through the uh they have a couple windows over here through the trees here, but these are again >> 35. Yeah. So, >> perfect. Thank you so much. Does anyone else have any additional questions for the applicant otherwise we can >> So, it's basically screened. I mean, 40 foot tree if you know you've got a high canopy, you can still see through it, but it's pretty much screened with undergrowth or whatever else. >> Right. Exactly. We have a lot of Yeah. underlings grow. >> Neighbors are >> neighbors aren't put out by >> I don't believe so. We're out there about every day riding horses, roping steers, and doing all that stuff. So, uh, >> think you got a basketball court in there. >> Yeah, half of it for is for the kids, the others just stuff all of our stuff inside. So, >> maybe an RV storage. >> Yeah, we have an RV that we'll put in there and then a couple horse trailers and a bobcat and a tractor. >> Yeah, I feel like we've seen accessories structured, but all because of campers. >> Yeah. Right. And so that's the only thing I want to highlight is that I know it's not the only thing on the cup, but uh and so both of the items tonight that were requesting sidewall heights had additional reasons to apply for the cup, but I just really want to emphasize that um I'd love to alleviate that for our residents. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it does uh so this at 25 is about seven feet shorter than the existing barn too. And then that al obviously also has its uh the corners on top too. I'll make a motion to approve. >> Yeah. Does anyone have anything else? Okay. I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> And all those in favor say I. >> I. Anyone opposed? >> Okay. And so then this will a recommendation will go on to council. Um and so they'll review it at an upcoming meeting, the one at the end of November 22nd. >> Okay. >> You're the quickest one and you had to wait all night. I don't know. I got to hear everything that's going on. Thank you. I appreciate it. >> Have a good night. >> You too. >> Uh at this point in time, um there is no one from council here tonight um to give us an update, but I am sure that I'm not speaking um incorrectly when I say if you have any questions, feel free to reach out to anybody from council um for an update specifically. And then planning project update. I just had one question um for staff and that is is I was reading through the update and just noticed that again we're as a city putting restrictions on hours of operations for the M and J Creek Side and that's an aggra business and that's just I know I saw it on Quick Trip and we see it here and I'm just a little wondering sort of what does that look like? >> I think the computer correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the the >> hours of operation. >> Yes, the hours of operation that maybe were identified by council more related to town. >> Um, so I believe the act the the window of operation is going to be well within what they were proposing, but there are additional stipulations regard. Yeah, during the meeting the council had some concerns of I think there were some discussions of being at weddings uh that these types of venues that go on late in the night and they know that those weddings can get kind of rowdy and and such supposedly >> banned >> I don't know >> but isn't there an additional applica like okay >> so yeah so part of that is that they added a condition that any noise or sound ampla amplification after 800 p.m. would require uh approval of the sound waiver permit. Um and then they just they were hearing some of the concerns from the neighbors uh to the to the site and um they felt that a good compromise was that the uh operation would be you know ceasing operations by 9:00 p.m. And it sounded like that was within the um that was well within what the scope of what the applicants were looking to do anyways. >> Sure. I totally believe that the update said, and thank you, but the update does indicate the hours of operation be limited to 12 to 9 Thursday through Saturday and 12 to 6 on Sundays. And while that may be within what the applicant like finds desirable anyway, I guess I'm just concerned with constantly having hours of operations limited or set by uh council. >> Fair. I I I can see the concern. I would say especially in the rural residential uh for example a true event venue uh use permit. They would also have our hours of operation stimulation stipulation. I can't talk today. Uh this is what happens when Dwight does all the talking. I forget how to talk. Um but the so again those hours I think are until 10:00 in the residential. Uh but theoretically they council could curtail that even further depending on what the use. I think the idea is we're trying to find a way to balance the residential with the commercial and compromise of that is trying to get hours that can kind of work for everybody. Um, so the hours were set in discussion with the applicant. It wasn't a way to um really curtail the applicant's proposal because it was with what was proposed of the applicant. >> Totally fair. I just sometimes well I believe that there's a lot that can just be determined by wanting to to have a good business and be a good neighbor as well. Um so it's just to me it's something I I am paying attention to um because I think it's so anyway >> I'll thank you for the clarification. I'll also add I think that the benefit of the IUP um and the fact that that wasn't necessarily written in code, but that was the stipulation of the IUP. Once they have some data and the neighbors kind of see that it's not so bad, I think they could come back in a couple years and be like, "Okay, we have success. Haven't really been many complaints. We'd like to extend the hours by a couple hours." I think there's still room for that discussion later. I just would rather see that that permission is given in the beginning for a new business to thrive and then respond to any kind of um actual complaint rather than sort of not even being operable and um and having that sort of limitation because the data could definitely be impacted. Again, in this case, the applicant sounds like those were hours that and I remember them indicating they're not trying to be um and they're not even really going to be open potentially more than four months a year. Um so, it's just more of a statement on um I'd like to see us as a city giving people the opportunity to um ride. Um so, but thank you for the clarification and I know that that's just sort of a little bit of a soap box. um liaison calendar if anyone is uh going to attend. It is it was updated by um Seth and so it is on there and then just note that the second mine is so perhaps you can take a look at so it has Linda as next week if she wanted to participate and then Zachman as on the 25th um that is a Tuesday due to a holiday. I can show you the rest of my >> I'm also not seeing anything under the planning project update. >> Those were cover page that really doesn't have anything on it. >> We those were added just earlier this week. So, we'll take a look at the iPad afterwards and see if there's an update maybe that needs to be done. And that's why you don't have them. But I did receive them, but not until like Monday or Tuesday of this week. So, they were uploaded a little bit later. >> Yeah, I just updated it today, too. It says right here, update 115. I would reach out to Deb or the IT person who card. >> Yeah. >> Um just to see. >> I was going to ask is the process like email out the packet and then upload to Granicus? >> No, that was a mistake. >> No, >> that was a that was a fluke. >> Well, sometimes sometimes there's updates that happen. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, but typically we we want the entire packet in its entirety to you by Friday uploaded before we send out the email. every especially with the council packet sometimes there's information that comes in or something wasn't able to get done by the deadline there might be an update you should >> well and and there's the intention of having it posted like published to granicus before we even send you the email >> so it sounds like that was a mistake this month but typical practice will be that it's published before it even gets sent to you guys >> fair enough solid okay >> and if there is Nothing else then um I will make a motion to adjurnn tonight's meeting. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. And anyone opposed?