e e e e e e e e e e good evening and welcome to the planning commission's regular meeting for January 27th 2025 this time we'll move to roll call commissioner asmon commissioner bot here commissioner Britain here commissioner fiser here chair Fraser here commissioner canable here commissioner rasmason here commissioner Stevens here thank you thank you item three is approval of the agenda do I have a motion to approve motion to approve I have a motion to approve from commissioner Britton do I have a second second second from commissioner Stevens all those in favor say I I I those say no motion carries 70 item four tonight is open Forum this is a chance for anyone who's here in the audience tonight to speak to the coun or speak to the commission on something that is not on tonight's agenda so we will have separate sessions on the mining permit as well as lock rge but if there's something that is not one of those two things that you'd like to address the commission on now is your chance to do so so I will open open Forum if anyone would like to step to the podium all right seeing none we will close open Forum item five is chair's explanation of the hearing process the Planning Commission is a volunteer Advisory Group to the city council one of the one of the commission's functions is to hold public hearings and make recommendations on land use and Zoning matters the purpose of these public hearings is to Pro provide an opportunity for each applicant and citizens to present information ask questions and express opinions since these proceedings are televised and recorded for the public record anyone wishing to speak must step up to the podium and give their name and address before addressing the commission staff reports are prepared and provided to the applicant and Planning Commission in advance of the meeting the first step in the hearing will be for staff to present a summary of the report the applicant will then have the opportunity to briefly explain the proposal and provide additional information or comment anyone wanting to speak in favor or against the proposal will then be heard upon completion of the testimony the hearing will be closed to public comment the planning Planning Commission will then discuss and act on the matter two complete agenda packets are available for viewing on the back table please do not remove those items the city council will act on these items at their meeting on Wednesday February 19th 2025 which starts at 7 p.m. with that we'll move to item six 6A is the hul mining permit mp225 d001 with Riley Rooney presenting all right good evening Mr chair and members of the commission before you this evening is the application for the annual mining permit uh for wholesome MWR um so I just want to note before we get into everything this application is separate from the ongoing Eis that's happening for wholesome on Lower gray cloud Island um as you can see before you the facility is located at250 gay cloud trail and is highlighted in red on the screen before you um so in 2024 holum mined approximately 510,000 tons of aggregate materials um on the island um once mined the facility processes washes uh screens and loads those materials onto barges and trucks to be transferred out to the community I should note that most of these materials are being loaded onto barges rather than the trucks less than 10,000 uh tons were hauled via truck the rest were taken up to St Paul via barge and then distributed from there um our Public Safety department did not report any uh noise complaints in this P previous year um and then with that I'll bring you to the 2025 proposed operations um so they're could they're proposing to continue operations for another 3 to four years um The Mining and processing is supposed to it's estimated total between uh 700 and 725,000 tons this year um the facility is also working towards Reclamation efforts excuse me um this facility uh has previously done work to reestablish uh the previously mined areas this year they are planning to continue to reestablish the oak Savannah and Prairie areas in the Northwestern portion of the site um this is also uh this also includes uh removal of uh non-native plant species and trees as well as some maintenance Burns um with that the recommendation is before you I'm here to answer any questions that you may have um as well as as uh someone on behalf of whome thank you all right thank you any questions for staff all right thank you this time if the applicant would like to add anything uh good evening chairman Frasier and members of the Planning Commission I'm Patty Bessler with wholesome MWR 2815 do Road Egan Minnesota um Riley summed up our application very well it's status quo operating as we have for the last um many many years um in 2023 we implemented a um suction dredge it's fully electric where we're trying to get overburden off a previously mined area that was mined like in the 50s 60s and we didn't have the capabilities at that time with the suction Dred with the clamshell dredge that we have now so we're trying to go back get that overburden and excess sand off um we're pushing it to other parts of the previously mined areas that we'll never go back to um our recl plan is you know we are meeting the land owners uh grades that they want for the final for when they someday go to develop that Pro property um the work that we're doing with Great River Greening where we're reestablishing Oak Savannah areas um and taking out invasive Buckthorn and putting in Old plantings that is actually part of um the city agreed to that back in 2010 in Li of us planting many many trees down there that were not surviving because of dry conditions when we go through droughts and whatnot so in Li of um planting trees every single year we are reestablishing Big Oak savanas right now there's some on the Eastern side that we're working on and then along the Water Area um in the area where we cannot ever mine because of historical significance there is beautiful area down there but it's being overgrown taken by Buckthorn so we're working in there this year um to get some of that Buckthorn out again we done work in there previously but we're going back to that area now too so um I'm here to answer any questions I also have our operations manager Michael Murphy if you have any operation questions but pretty much we're what we've been doing for many years now I'm trying to eek every piece of sand and gravel out of that site which is the purpose of the suction drudge all right thank you any questions for the applicant all right thank you thank you Emily is this a public hearing I remember in the past and I don't know if I'm remembering correctly if the mining permit is a public hearing or not Mr chair members of the commission it's technically not a public hearing however the commission does need to take a vote all right excellent um all right with the uh the presentation by staff as well as the applicant is there any further discussion by Commission on the motion on the proposal commissioner aspon just glad to see uh your operation is going as planned it looks like you're increasing production and uh the recomendation is appreciated so thank you for your partnership it's always nice to see uh things going well down there Comm fish I was just going to say on the same lines of that sounds like everything's going well the same status quo for the several of these renewals I've seen um I like that you're working on the invasive species and trying to really protect the the um the nature that's down there too so any further comment discussion I look for a motion I will make a motion to approve the mining permit um subject to stipulations are there stipulations in here yes stipulations in the staff report all right I have a motion to approve the uh permit subject to the stipulations in the staff report from commissioner fiser do have a second I'll second it second from commissioner Canal H any further discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor say I I Poe say no motion carry 70 this time we'll move on to item 6B Lockridge cases C za20 25-4 and PP 20254 with I'm gonna butcher your last name I apologize to give it a try Sam p uh it is Samantha perit pit Sam Pur is fine all right Sam P presenting thank you uh yes Sam Sam smantha up P at uh new senior planner here uh good evening Mr chair members of the commission um let's see here there we go uh py homes of Minnesota has applied for a preliminary plant and Zoning Amendment for their proposed lockeridge subdivision uh the request is to change the zoning from egg2 agriculture to R4 transitional residential and three Parcels uh totaling 55 acres and also a preliminary plant for a residential subdivision to be called the Lockridge subdivision consisting of 99 single family homes and 84 town home lots those Town Homes would be constructed in groups of four and six uh units that would be side by side the prop the 52 acres of land located is located south of the city of Woodburry Border West of Jamaica Avenue and north of The Waters at Michaels Point development um you will not in your packet that outlots A and B of The Waters at Michael's Point are included on preliminary plat documents um that is because there is a proposed recreational trail going around Lake Robert um that Wetland down in the southern part of the property um Outlaw a of The Waters at Michael's point was always intended to be dedicated to the city when the uh Waters was ploted back in 2011 in anticipation of further development on these parcels to the north that we're talking about tonight um multiple development and plant proposals have been brought forward to this commission and the council in the past for development on these on this land um challenges have included the presence of bedrock and the lake Robert Wetland all of which are restricting the buildable area here right the rezoning of the land from egg2 to R4 is consistent with the city's uh comprehensive plan uh the proposed you land use in the comprehensive plan is low density residential and parks and open space um low density residential allows for 2 to four units per acre of density and the applicant is proposing 2.92 units per acre uh the green areas on the land use plan in front of you are considered are are areas for parks and open space and that it will be achieved using that trail that goes around Lake Robert uh the two outlots in The Waters at Michaels Point development that I've discussed are currently zoned R3 single family residential however these two Parcels are not proposed to be rezoned as part of this request um the these are just included as noted this is where the proposed Trail will be going around the lake the R4 district is intended to provide areas that allow diverse housing products such as the town homes and single family dwellings that we're seeing here in this proposal all right so the preliminary plant that was submitted uh as mentioned is for 99 single family lots and 84 town home lots the applicant has not requested a planned unit development they will follow all our four zoning standards and py homes of Minnesota is proposing to construct the homes north of the Ravine Parkway extension which would be oops up here and then Rachel development will be retaining the Lots that would be on the south side of Ravine Parkway here with a builder yet to be determined for those lots um three storm water ponds have been proposed within this development um additional storm water ponding has been proposed behind Lots 22 and 23 of block 4 as well as in the northwest corner of the property uh staff has requested that those uh areas also be named as outlots and also deed to the city for storm water purposes all right getting into Transportation here uh the property will or the site will be accessed from Jamaica Avenue uh to the east onto the new segment of Ravine Parkway Jamaica Avenue was designed for approximately 15,000 vehicles per day currently there are approximately 4,100 trips taken on Jamaica Avenue daily with the addition of the lockage development uh it would be anticipated an additional about 1,500 trips would be seen per day adding the 4,100 plus500 trips per day um would results in traffic levels still well under that 15,000 number that the road was designed to accommodate you will also see on the screen before you a very preliminary conceptual design of a roundabout at the intersection of Jamaica and Military Road in the northeast corner of the project um this is the reason why there was quite a bit of area left in that northeast corner of the project um is to accommodate this proposed roundabout these uh intersection changes um the county has been working on this roundabout concept and construction of a redo of Jamaica Avenue is anticipated around 2028 um the applicant is also proposing an 8 foot wide Trail both on both sides of Ravine Parkway that would connect to existing Trail stubs um at the Waters of Michael Michaels point and a sidewalk will be established throughout the neighborhood so getting more into the trail that is proposed around Lake Robert uh the lake Robert Wetland um the city of cottage Groves 2040 comprehensive plan does show a recreational trail along Lake Robert and those Transportation Trails connecting along Ravine Parkway uh the trail around the lake is located on multiple outlots of the lock of the lockage and Waters at Michaels Point developments that will be dedicated to the city for open space and the developer will be responsible for trail construction this Trail will definitely be a unique feature in the community that goes around the existing Lake here so very exciting to see that all right Landscaping here um the proposed Landscaping meets the code requirements and it's just of note that a buffer has been proposed along the west side of Jamaica Avenue behind those town home lots there um along the pond and Outlaw be there a neighborhood meeting was held on November 13th 2024 with three property owners in attendance from The Preserve at Cottage Grove neighborhood which is down here south of the site and one email was received by the developer after that meeting was held um concerns were related to the uh Park amenities in the new park that is proposed on Outlaw G of the preliminary plant uh the proposed Trail around Lake Robert and the additional traffic on Jamaica Avenue um so the park will be containing some active Park amenities and the trail around Lake Robert as noted prior uh was proposed in the 2040 comprehensive plan previous development approvals for The Waters at Michael's Point uh did not restrict the development of this Trail around the lake uh and then also as noted before access into the development will be from Jamaica Avenue um with the with some turn lanes that need to be constructed on Ravine Parkway and Jamaica Avenue in order to accommodate some additional traffic all right with all of that said the planning is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the city council approval of the two applications for a rezoning and preliminary plant subject to the conditions of approval and representatives from py homes are also here tonight for any questions all right thank you any questions for staff M raspon it if I'm reading this right it appears that Ravine Parkway needs to be extended through this development that portion is not there yet is that correct correct is that something the city is handling or the developer handles that development how how does that how does that come together um Mr chair members of the commission I will invite um Crystal Ry with our engineering staff to come up and answer those questions being new to the team I don't know all the answers quite yet good evening Commissioners um the proposed Ravine Parkway would be cons designed and constructed by the development team um the city would cost share in that so the development team would be responsible for constructing our typical roadway section and then the city would cost share um for portions of the roadway above and beyond our standard section so um you know the extra width the medians Etc so would would this extension just be completed to the end of this development right now or is it that's correct and then in the future the Kamp properties to the west of this development and then as that develops Ravine would continue to be pushed through to the West all right thank you yep any other questions for St yeah um as of now the JAMA venue is actually single Lane on either side um on which is on the um uh east of this property are there any proposal to make that two lane going forward because of the increased traffic or anticipated increase in traffic the Jamaica Avenue I believe as is is designed for that 15,000 vehicle per day um I am not sure what the County's project that's coming in 2028 would entail as far as if you know extra lanes are proposed on Jamaica I think that's still to be determined with their upcoming project okay thank you commission BR uh if I recall correctly Jamaica Avenue from 70th to military was traditionally a four-lane two lanes in both directions because this property wasn't developable at the time um the curve of the road into the roundabout area that it was desired couldn't take place yet and instead of reconstructing Jamaica when we needed to it went down to a single Lane both ways with the intent as far as I'm understanding it will be two lanes both ways in the future when it becomes appropriate to redo that road which is not part of this development but with respect to its history and its future is it it's intended to be two lanes both ways eventually as well fer fer um can you explain so we were talking a little bit about this um the 2040 comp plan says it's R1 low density residential correct but it's being rezoned to R4 transitional but it's still meeting low density requirements I guess I'm feeling like there's some different things being used interchangeably and I guess can you explain that a little bit better and help me understand why those two things are being used interchangeably sure I will do my best and I may have to that's okay I think I know what I think I know why you're doing it but I also want to hear why you're doing it sure all right uh Mr chair uh members of the commission um so the low density residential um classification on the slide that I just pul pulled up um it definitely has to do with that you know number of um dwellings per acre and everything it wasn't to give a specific zoning designation to the Lots um it was just to say you know this area should have that specific number of dwellings per acre so the low density residential that are for like I mentioned um with the 2.5 or n units per acre still fits into to the definition of low density residential as it's defined in the comprehensive plan okay so when you're counting townhouse units are those considered like if it's a four side by side are those considered four units or is that considered one unit those are considered four individual dwelling units separate units I I don't know if my math is just not mathing but it just doesn't seem to fit the low density number I don't know I just maybe it's just the way that it's draw like the drawing is and how it looks like it feels really packed and dense to me and I'm not sure why that is Mr chair commissioner fiser so when we calculate density um we use uh net density right so we um take out all areas of right away areas below high water levels um and so in our comprehensive plan when we think about low density it's 2 to four units per acre so when we have a a project that's proposed at 2.9 that fits right into that density that's outlined in our comprehensive plan this particular zoning District was created for the purpose of having that transition and that ability to have um a variety of product types um on perhaps a a site that might have some unique challenges um so that we could find that flexibility uh to allow for development um but also still meet that density stand standard thank you any further questions for staff I do so it's uh proposed to be zoned as R4 because of the town home units otherwise it would have been an R3 if it were if there were just single family homes in that uh Zone yeah uh Mr chair commissioner bot uh that is correct with those town home units um that pushes it into the r for transitional district with those differing densities of of of dwellings okay thank you M Stevens so I'll try to keep this as far out of engineering as possible I'm just wondering if you could talk about that storm water that's coming underneath there's there's always seemed to be just a pretty significant Swale through that property and um I don't think the covert's all that big but is there plans to just reroute I mean is it going to be piped or is it going to be Overland rerouted down has that been discussed at all it Mr shair um commissioner Stevens that has been disc I'm assuming are you talking about the drainage coming from the west side of the property from the north side so there's a cul under military okay so um it will come into that Basin in the northwest corner and from there it would be piped down through the subdivision into um the big pond three that you're seeing there up on the screen from where then it would discharge into Lake Robert okay so it's going to go Overland behind the town homes into Pon 2 is that right I believe it's going to be piped stor it's very high Bedrock up there so we'll be in storm sewer in the streets to either Pond one or Pond two maybe you know off hand not that pipe is not as large in the Northwest is much okay just curious about that that's all thank [Applause] you any further questions for staff all right thank you if this time the applicant would like to approach the podium and add anything additional good evening Mr chair and Commissioners my name is Haley Daly with py homes of Minnesota um we're at 1650 West 82nd Street suet 300 Bloomington Minnesota um with me tonight is Dean Lauder our director of land planning and entitlement as well as Mark Rous with Alliant for any of the specific engineering questions as well as representative for r development um I'm here to just answer any questions you may or may not have and we're just excited to be in the city of Cottage Grove again so all right thank you any questions for the applicant okay I don't see any but I am going to ask I think it was Mark you said was your engineering yes Mark R took the line sure if you would come up sorry you you had just given an answer from the back I wanted to make sure we had you up here so that people at home can here and we have it on the record so if you just give your name Mark R with Alliant engineering all right thank you and then so there was a question from commissioner Stevens about specifically where this the storm water ponding or where the storm water was going whether it was going over land or whether it was being piped through um if you could just provide your kind of update on what that was so there is a pipe is correct that picks up a north side of military that dumps out here there's a it's it's you can see it there's a lot of rip wrap there it's actually where Bedrock is actually physically exposed there that's I think that's only 21 it's not as big a pipe this side is what takes a significant amount of flow from Woodberry and more for to the west of the site Northwest so that is being captured in this Basin and there's a larger trunk pipe that line pipe that will follow through to this Pond here so we will be collecting this but right now it's just coming down the hill we have multiple catch Bas and inlets back here to make sure we capture that with the Swale easement um all this common area of the of the Town Mar is in D in utility ement so it's and it's a managed property so I don't know if that answers the question hopefully yeah it does thank you all right any further questions for the applicant all right thank you very much at this time we'll open public hearing on the application anyone wishing to speak for or against the application can approach or can approach the podium State their name and address for the record hi good evening Mr chair committee my name is AJ eer I live at 8852 67th Street Bay South um we're in the uh Waters at Michaels Point development and we're we're excited about this new plan and getting some some more neighbors um we do have a concern um some of us that live at the Waters of Michaels point along Lake Robert there that when we um kind of went through this process back in in 2011 to develop The Waters at Michael's point when we're working with the city we were assured that a walking path was not going to go around the south side of the lake and um so a lot of us that that built there and bought there were under that premise that the The Walking path would not go around that side of the lake and um you know in addition to just you know the commitment we had from the city you know knowing um how the the Lake floods and I know we've put in different drainage there um to help that but sometimes we've got water halfway up our backyards you know we've got neighbors now that have fences there um some of our biggest most mature trees are there there's not a lot of space between the the property line of their backyards and the the Wetland and so to I know you talked about maybe an8 foot wide Trail going through that space um in in some of the backyards I don't even know how that's possible to get 8 feet of a managed Trail through there um without you know not cutting down some of the most beautiful mature trees around that around that lake so I I just uh wanted to voice Our concern uh for those of us living on the lake now um that we we would really uh like the city to uphold their agreement with us to to not put the walking trail around that Lake thank you all right thank you Mr reer can I just ask you and you don't have to answer it if you don't want to but um other than the conversations you had with the city back in 2011 about this path is there a specific reason why you think that a walking path on the south side of the lake would not be appropriate well um I mean back when we you know were you know in negotiations with John and Jennifer and the in the city we just thought that privacy is one issue um but now after living there for the last 10 years or however long we've been there um it it doesn't seem like the the the the the space is there from the from the Wetland buffer to the to our um property line I there's just not that much space there for an 8 foot path to go through there and um you know some of the neighbors fences I I believe are are rightfully in their spot but it's it can't be more than 15 ft from the water you know and then there's supposed to be the the the natural Wetland buffer in there and then we've got these big beautiful trees you know somebody came out and just staked these Stakes go right through our our yards and you know some of these huge trees are right in the middle of that so I would just I would hate to see I mean it's such a beautiful nature preserve back there to see some of these really longstanding trees get cut down and um and and and you know I think it's a beautiful place back there and we're excited about the development um there's going to be you know areas to walk around and park dedications all over there you can still enjoy the lake without having um and I and I don't believe the the the trail can connect all the way around anyways because of the um somebody on the the other side of the the east side but but those are some of my thoughts okay Mr chair all right thank you okay thank you good evening I'm Crystal Rogers I'm um neighbor of AJ's a couple doors down 8844 67th Street Bay South our home is um on the end of the culde saac and our backyard would butt up right to where this walking path is proposed to be literally literally within a few feet of the fence that we just put in around our swimming pool that we invested in um the summer after we moved in in 2021 so my husband and I have been residents of Cottage Grove since 2011 lived in a different neighborhood and then moved to this neighborhood largely due to the privacy of the backyard and um we were planning to do a swimming pool in our previous location which was also fairly private but but had a huge um Hill which was a which was a problem for for that so when we found this um place we fell in love and we said you know what this is a really private area which is kind of why we decided to move there um doing some research at the time we did actually notice that there was this proposed plan um for a walking path and we had called the city at the time to confirm if that was or wasn't going to happen and we were told although on the phone so I don't have it in writing but it was um on on the phone I was I was told that that land was not conducive to a walking path and it wouldn't be happening so um we made the investment to move and we've been very happy where we're at and we're quite concerned about the potential walking path that would be literally within a few feet of our private Oasis we don't have another place that we go in the summer like many motans do to Lake Holmes this is this is our place um and being a business owner in Cottage Grove for 10 years and uh a practitioner in the area for 10 years we've we've made Cottage Grove our home and we really do like it here and um we're pretty disappointed that this is potentially going to going to come into our backyard so I'm hoping I can speak on behalf of my other neighbors that we really would not like to have a walking path right in our backyard I'm fine with The Walking path to the west of our house along our driveway that has already started and going around the west side of the lake but it really seems to be you know encroaching a lot of homes in privacy to be literally within feet of of a backyard that's been private for for that long for many so thank you thank you how's it going Jason Johnson I live at 8714 67 Street Court cth just a few doors down from these guys especially through the woods there you know we start we moved into the neighborhood in 2017 we heard that there was a potential of a trail that would go through there as well uh we looked into it called the city they said it probably won't happen because the H the house across the um Lake there is um Bedrock it will never really ever be developed uh a trail would probably never never happen more than like never was the big word that was used so we decided to move in there uh backyard we don't actually look at the lake very often I mean we can't see it we got some trees back there uh so it's not so much the obstruction of the lake it's people in the backyard if you've ever spent any time looking at this Lake do some aerial go back in time look at some aerial photos of this Lake it's not really even a lake it's mostly just covered in seaweed it's got geese on it uh it's it's not super beautiful in front of their homes you know they got a nice little spot there they can see you know the weeds kind of come back into the west southwest corner of there but uh it's not a I I just don't think it's a good investment for the city to even have around a lake that isn't a lake when I came to the meeting the original meeting with with py and stuff they I was told by one of the city people that were there I hate to say this but we kind of want to be like Woodbury like Kobe Lake well my first thought is there let's have a Kobe Lake first we don't have that there so also the water there have we ever has that water been tested of any sort I only ask cuz our dog has gone back in there couple times come back he's been loopy after he gets out of there it's and it's also it's it's just not a it's not super awesome so it just I don't know it just seems like not a real good use of money and privacy you know we we paid to have that back there now we got people coming in from the other side if there is a park across the way coming into our backyards our neighborhood is it's you know it's a diamond in the rough we have a lot of spots there's not a lot of neighborhoods like ours and a lot of us move there and love it the way it is I get that there is change I support the build across there uh Jamaica is is pretty busy but I'm sure that the county and the the city will work together to make the lanes a little bit bigger but uh basically comes down to I would like to see the trail itself not constructed due to what we've put into you know purchasing this home and the rest of the neighbors especially on the south side of 67 Street and then the 67 Street Bay so that's all I have all right thank you yeah Mike Miller 8860 67 Street Bay South um I live right on the south side of the lake next to AJ and all these guys uh our little neighborhood is like people said it's it's a gem here in kage Grove it's very private it's very small we all know each other uh and we bought there for the Privacy um so as far as the concern about you know how does it impact our community so there's probably what 45 houses in there or whatever it impacts our privacy uh we paid premium prices for our lots for that privacy um it's also where the trail goes through um that is a wetland um so I don't know if the study has been done if permissions been allowed I mean that has to be approved with the Watershed District uh it is very low line when it rains even though the drain has been put in uh our backyard still floods over um so I'm most concerned about the Privacy that we pay a premium for uh we chose to live in cage Grove not to live in Woodbury right we have tons of walking paths already um I would prefer not to have a walking path pretty much right through my back yard we can go around the other side we can walk out I mean our whole neighborhood walks um see these guys all the time out walking dogs and we walk out the the beautiful path across Jamaica is awesome we walk the parkway so there's lots of Woodberry like amenities in our neighborhood already uh we would strong our whole neighborhood would prefer that the path doesn't go behind our houses it goes it can go on the North side um they they haven't bought into the community already that we've lived there for you know 12 years um living in the privacy and the beauty of nature even though like they said the lake really isn't that beautiful cuz it's covered with lily pads uh like now is the most beautiful time and then in the spring before the lily pads show up so um that's all I have thank you thank you chairman members of the commission Kevin Summerland I'm at 8710 67th Street Court South um also my property of buts the the south side of uh Lake Robert if in fact you want to call it a lake um as it's been mentioned it's more of a a swamp um you know we bought in in that neighborhood in 2013 uh from PTY um the representative uh that convinced us to buy there um was uh really selling the Privacy aspect of that development um back then we were pre emerald ashbo in infestation and that area was is uh certainly I mean you couldn't even see the lake uh in initially from from where we were our Lots um since then we've had to remove a lot of trees which has opened that area up a lot um Dodge Nature Center recently is gone in and done a fair amount of clearing um and so our level of privacy has diminish considerably just over the past in the last 10 years and uh yeah to to now be uh subject to an 8ot trail that uh is going to potentially um bring people in there at all hours of the night right in our backyard um certainly there's some safety security concerns that I would have um I think as a compromise you know if py wants to have a a trail on that north side of the lake and maybe circle around on the the East and West with little roundabouts there um and just avoiding that southern side of the lake I I I I would have no problem with that but uh I think you know just recognizing as been mentioned our our Lots we paid a premium for those lots for that privacy aspect and um now a decade or more after we after we closed on those deals were uh being asked to give up that privacy um I I think is just unreasonable so thank you thank you any other public comment hi there uh Commissioners my name is Nathan Dean I'm at 8715 67th Street Court South conage Grove one of the things I guess I'm I'm challenged by as I as I take a look at the the plans is and I think some of the the Commissioners raised it up is even the the density that is being proposed this is coming from a an area that is very much uh single family homes um and a a very tight area of which you know I'm I'm raising four girls and I I can't express to you how much I appreciate the the safety of of being able to raise my my four girls in that culde saac and I don't have to worry because it is a very private and protected area and py did a phenomenal job in building that that area at the time and and we are grateful for the the privacy and the area that was created but I'm a little shocked as as as we saw these uh proposals being put together at just how much density is being proposed and I have to ask the question why like is this the Cottage Grove that we understood that I mean that was trying to develop all these single family homes I mean the the the the development that was just across um Jamaica there as it was being built out and had the the single family homes being built into it that seemed reasonable I mean they they they did that in way that seemed very much uh designed around the the single family home and I guess I'm I'm challenged as to well above the you know the The Walking path and and the walking path is a big issue in our neighborhood but I'm more concerned about just the fact that this is being zoned at R4 versus R2 that was part of that 20 240 plan I would respectfully uh request that that be reconsidered even though I understand there are special circumstances of that land and that the challenges to develop it I think still having a lower density single family home mix would not only protect my my home values but it would also protect my neighborhood and keep it the private safe neighborhood that I currently reside in thank you thank you anyone else wishing to speak for or against the proposal good evening Commissioners my name is Michael gell I live at 87176 7th Street Court South and first I I'll say I definitely empathize with my neighbors and the concerns with the trail it's not my scenario uh or my situation but um absolutely understand the situation with that I think um the reason I'm here is I just want to um call out the concerns with the traffic that's on uh Jamaica going Southbound especially southbound so as noted um probably five a little bit more years ago Jamaica was a a two-lane in each Direction and that was reconstructed when the roundabout on Jamaica and 70th was put in um to the most part single Lane in each Direction some accommodations for the new Ravine Parkway going eastbound as well as the development uh to the east of Jamaica uh what that accounted for was some extra turn lanes and things of that sort but um where my concern comes in is ensuring that there's some sort of Road reconstruction on Jamaica at least in between military and I'd say 67th Street uh Court that's the area these what I experience to number is coming southbound from J uh from military 267th on Jamaica is there is not a turn lane for folks to go right into 67 Street Court South and that traffic comes up behind you quite quickly and where my concern comes in is as there's more traffic in additional houses naturally there come you know more cars and things of that sort so I'd be looking for um additional at least some Road enhancements and things of that sort uh so I don't get rear ended you know as I'm trying to slow down and take a right into 67 Street or I start turning my blinker on up on Military just make sure everybody knows I'm turning right a half mile down the road so um just Awareness on that with the um the way the road is currently constructed all right thank you thank you any anyone else wishing to speak for Against The Proposal all right seeing none we will close uh public comment then at this time I will ask staff to kind of respond to some of the concerns and some of the things that um I know they've had on their radar since the neighborhood meeting where the specifically the trail has been brought up but Samantha you have let's see here all right thank you Mr chair and members of the commission um so yes uh staff has definitely heard and you know understands the Public's concerns regarding the Privacy the trail and everything um you know it was in the 2040 comprehensive plan as I know um and also kind of speaking to those discussions uh packets approvals things like that that went on uh around 2011 2007 is when these other developments to the South were put in um as was you know nothing was put on the record as far as like conditions or things like that that would hold the city into um saying that no Trail would be put here um staff did considerable amounts of research on on that front as far as verifying that that would would or would not be the case um let's see here as far as you know mitigating any Wetland impacts things like that um of course permits appropriate permits um minimizing impacts to Wetlands um are going to be required very important things um permits through things like the DNR um things like that for trail construction and staff is looking at you know varying ways of Trail construction and things like that uh with the applicants Engineers as far as you know best um best practices minim minimal impacts to those areas um let's see here uh concerns regarding the density um kind of getting to commissioner Fisher question earlier um about the net density of the area you know these the the area as I mentioned was uh it was not said that this area would be Zone R2 it's a it's a density it's an overall net density that the area is planned for and this proposal does meet that request using the town home density and the single family density on these um acreage when we subtract the acreage of public rights of way and Wetland the Wetland Lake um let's see here kind of going into the traffic concerns and everything that was also kind of mentioned during the presentation as well about the proposed hopeful reconstru 2028 um it was also noted in the packet that um the county this is a county road and it was reconstructed as the neighbors had mentioned um and it was reconstructed in a way that the county knew that they would need to be coming back here for reconstruction sooner rather than later as far as when new development came in things like that so those will definitely be considerations as the county continues to go forward in their planning processes um kind of send it back to you if L there's any other questions sure commissioner fer I have a question so um I'm I'm empathizing with everybody on the trail and something that was said really kind of struck me like it doesn't seem like a very good use of money or space um another thing that was talked about was lots of big trees that were going to need to be mitigated can you talk about how many trees you would have to take down and what that would look like back there because that it doesn't seem to me that makes sense that doesn't seem to be a great like use of money and space you know if you're taking down a bunch of big mature trees and putting a path somewhere that floods all the time anyway sure um that made sense to me so yes um chair and commissioner Fisher I can speak to that um some of the neighbors expressed concerns about the amount of space between the rear yards and the water's edge um staff the developer um went together out there the developers engineer to take a peek at those backyards and possible Trail locations within that Corridor um backyard lot Corners were staked um and in the narrowest location there's approximately 50 ft between the back lot corner and the water's edge that will does allow some flexibility to avoid big backyard trees so um the anticipation is that the trail can avoid some of those large trees that are in people's rear yards now the trail does meander through the woods and then there are some larger trees in the woods that can't be avoided but um generally those bigger through backyards would be avoided there no go ahead I was just going to say like I I feel like I feel like there should be some sort of compromise here with the trail like I understand I I don't know I'm not I'm not one to like be swayed but I feel like there's there's got to be some sort of it sounds like consistently all of these people were told in the past by people that there was never going to be a trail there which I know it's not in writing but it I mean it's consistent that every single person has said that um the fact that you know just environmental the fact that it floods like I just I don't see this being a hill to die on there's got to be some way that we can make some sort of compromise on this piece of it because it doesn't really affect the homes going in it doesn't affect the density it doesn't affect you know the overall like construction of the development um so I I guess I would like to see some sort of compromise here sure understood I think the intention with this was to follow that comp plan that showed us having a trail all the way around like Robert um so that does generate that trail on the South Side there yeah so um the comp plan does though show that this parcel should be zoned R1 as well and we're going R4 because there's some similarities so I think the comp plan is is great but there's some movement that can happen with it and I think maybe we can consider that here too so so I guess and and maybe I can because I'm confused now too I think because so my understand the comp plan is we don't talk about zoning districts R1 AG I2 it's just in terms of density and so the comp plan right now in this area is saying it should be used as low density residential when it develops correct Mr chair members of the commission that's correct and low density residentials according to the comp plan definition is between two and four units per acre that's correct all right and so then we go separately to the zone in and Zoning can be R1 through our we have through R4 right now for residential R six okay so we have six different Zone residential zonings right now in the zoning code that's corre and some of those fall within two to four units per acre and some of them are higher than two to four units per acre Mr chair members of the commission that's correct and so when we're looking at the comp plan versus the zoning map those two things are different right and the low density residential guided use doesn't necessarily match up with R1 R2 it can fall within a couple different of those zoning districts Mr chair members of the commission that's correct those zoning districts will have uh standards that have to be met as it relates to product type that's permitted within those zoning districts okay so the R4 the R4 Zone I read it wrong okay FS I just want to make sure everyone's clear I just want to make sure everyone's clear because there was a there was a comment about you know the amount of density in this area and it's kind of it's greater than what it is in the surrounding but that's still the the R4 is still going to fall within the city's definition of this is low density residential right okay so no that's all right I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here yep um so Crystal I was going to ask you then if I can go back to um because I was going to have a similar question to commissioner fiser about where the uh Trail was going to be in relation to the property lines for these homes that are on the south side because I understand that there's been no development to the north of these homes since these hous were put in in 2011 and so people may not know exactly where their property line is they may think it goes all the way up to close to the water edge um but it's sounds like that's not necessarily case and it's between the back property line and the water is about 50 fet um commissioner or um yes that that's correct there is approximately 50 ft but behind the actual lot Corner um to the water at at the skinniest point I mean that's the that's the narrowest area um we did find that you know M Lawns and maintain Lawns are happening past property lines back there um but the actual property that this out LW a would be has approximately 50 ft at its narrowest point between those back corners and the water okay and this may not be a question for you it may be a question for one of the planners but do we have a setback requirement for uh Trail when it's budding up to a residential property no doesn't matter I'm I'm sorry I'm not trying to play stump the planner because I know I'm not supposed to to do that good question Mr chair uh we do not have any sort of setback from you know property lines for a trail of that all right do we know what the setback is that this plan is is kind of setting to right now how far away are we from the property line just kind of an average it's still generally um I would say that it's 15 ft at the closest from I'm just judging on some of these um schematics that I've seen in the plan tonight I don't have a scale with me to measure off my plan sheet but I would say there's you know 15t where we're the closest but again um if we dug into the packet and pulled out a scale we could get that a little more exact okay and and I'm not I'm not looking for you to be exact my my concern is this these people have come tonight and they're concerned about their privacy um you know in the in these backyards and as I said I don't think it's uncom in or would be unexpected for these people to believe that their property lines maybe went further back than they actually do um and the city's gone out there and stake them and said here's where the actual property line is um and so we are building proposing to build this Trail on what will be city property um and so the city kind of gets to decide what it wants to do with its property but we want to make sure we're not bothering the the neighboring you and that's why I'm just kind looking at okay how far away are we from the property is it going to you know injure their use to it within reason um because it is city property that we're going to put this on Fair yes Mr chair that's fair okay all right any further questions question um kind of tapping into what Jessica had talked about about kind of compromise I know there's buchal area there like for boardwalks would that be something the city and pte would be interested in like building a boardwalk through that area so it wouldn't go like around like Walter but just kind of on top of it yeah um Mr chair commissioner Canal yes that is something that is being entertained is a potential for boardwalks um as sections of this Trail uh that's still being talked about um with those design decisions would it be conversation have the whole path like that I mean there can always be conversation of that um the a costs associated with boardwalks over water like that are typically pretty pretty high in comparison to an asphalt Trail um but that's not to say that it can't be done um but I yeah those types of design decisions are still being considered thank so the proposed Trail is actually extending out of that outla a right I mean if you look at the map of the proposed Trail extending out of the outlaw a or water set M that's correct so the area between Outlaw a and the the property line of the 67 Street Court area is that city property or what is that or is it Dodge Nature Center there um members of the commission commissioner bot um that area that is proposed as out lot is currently owned by the Walters dorfs um but as when it becomes out lot a then it would then be owned by the city is that my question is the the south of outlot a and the back of the property line there the black line there that small rectangular section Mr chair commissioner bot uh so that sliver of property is already owned by the city it was deed as a part of previous development thank you thank you commissioner brenon is there any efforts going into you know I'm assuming this is the preliminary plat and you talked about boardwalks may go here there different parts of the trail so it's not 100% plan that's finished um but in the event that this goes through here as your proposed in is there going to be any mitigation in the Landscaping plan for all of this between the trail and the homes that currently exist there Mr chair um commissioner Brittain the Landscaping plan again is something that is still under review and still being um considered I don't know and maybe Sam you know that if the trees are intended on both sides of the trail at this point through that area um not that I'm not that I can recall however um however like Crystal mentioned the plan is very much still in flux as far as landscape um is a big thing that um it of course does not show it so um I would I would say this Landscaping is something that is very much still under discussions with the city um and staff as far as what is going to be done and that's also something that could be of course subject to change subject to discussions between staff the developer all of that lovely stuff well I would I would hope that the homeowners that are there would be involved in that discussion as well uh because this is a pretty drastic change uh to that area and you know the way that it's been for a long time I know there's no guarantees when something's undeveloped at what's going to eventually happen there I know that I don't recall a plan in the past where they were putting a trail through there there was challenges but every time a new development comes through the entire plan changes so you really can't look at a plan by plan basis and say yes that was going to happen or no that wasn't um but I would hope that the homeowners would be involved in the placement of that trail how close it is coming to the property lines um and what type of mitigation that can happen there with respect to landscaping or their Aesthetics to to help minimize that impact any further questions for staff questioner Stevens yeah I don't know if it's a a question per se but just talking about the mitigation so I typically am a a proponent of trails and connections and connectivity um however I would say so just reviewing all of this and the early early plans storm water I know nobody here is probably that excited about the storm water but this is a really large tributary area to that Lake and everybody here has mentioned the quality of the lake um and it also was in the report that this development is bouncing that water level by half a foot in the lake and that that needs to be I think brought back down so that it's not an issue for the residents um I think just in terms of the trail around the lake it seems like they're it's kind of like maybe piling so you're you're increasing the water level of the lake you're adding in a trail you're adding all these homes I think it would be really nice if instead it was just sort of a consideration that you're actually enhancing the quality of the lake keeping that water level as it is um and if the trails are contributing negatively to that maybe that's something to consider as well if if there's a way around some of these other things that that were in the report that's all just not a question I guess it's just my notes for the record all right thank you do we have any other questions for staff or can I let them take their seats Comm your Bot so why did the The Proposal come with the town home I mean is what does it make this plan viable only if there are town homes in the pl in the plant in the in the development I mean my question is why not go with all single family homes why include Town Homes what what sense does it um what what value does it add to sure so I I'll speak to that just from kind of from this City's overall con planning idea and then I think um Miss Daly would be willing to come up and provide some imp or statement from the developer side of course because we're kind of two separate entities uh from the city's standpoint you know we do uh Cottage Grove is looking for and needs you know diverse housing types diverse housing um of differing you know costs and affordability um you know just the single family homes in every single neighborhood isn't you know it's a I could stand up here and talk for hours um about the you know the housing needs of the city of Cottage Grove and things like that um so the town homes are definitely providing a different type of product for a different home buyer or someone who is looking for something something different than just a traditional single family home um but I will invite Miss Dy up as well to speak to you about things from the other the other side of things thank you hi Mr chair and Commissioners um yes as Sam mentioned we as py put in a lot of thought into what could potentially work um on this site and as it's been mentioned we um are following the R4 codes but they also there's a need for this type of housing product we have a whole um market research team that um does a lot of analytics and to determine what exactly um we feel could the market could support and in this particular location um we determined that we feel that um Town Homes as well as a single family product that we have could meet different buyers at different stages in their life cycle within the Cottage Grove thank you all right any other questions for staff or the applicant all right uh any further discussion on uh the proposal no one else wants to start I can start you can start um okay so first off I want to thank everyone for coming tonight um I know most of you probably haven't been to one of these meetings before um so you haven't heard my spiel about how this is the most important form of government um because this is the one that's going to directly impact your lives and you all just talked about it um this is something that is potentially going to go right in your backyard these are going to be your new neighbors and so you um came out tonight to let us know your feelings about that and I want to thank you for doing that um after tonight please feel free to come back because every time we have people people from the community who are not involved in these projects come and give their advice and give their feedback we find something that all of us have missed and that's what makes this process better is if people are willing to come out help us look at things give their advice so first off I want to say thank you for that um second so I talked a little bit and a couple of my questions were about where the property line is whose property is this is this um Trail going to go on because that matters right if you bought a piece of property you can't tell your neighbor what to do with their property and that's kind of part of what's Happening Here the city under this proposal is going to own this part of the lake and so they get to kind of do what they want with their property within reason if you wanted to buy that property and do what you wanted to do with it you have the option to do that but you can't tell your neighbor what to do with it now I think we're all cognizant that this is the city doing it and so we want to make sure that it's fair to you um but I think the proposals of well we want just the Privacy that we bought back in 2011 nobody else gets that right somebody else buys a home in a vacant Farm lot and they don't buy all the properties next to them they can't control what's going to happen next to them and that's what's happening here so I think we do want to be cognizant of the fact that this is the city that's going to put in a piece of of Trail um because we should be held to a higher standard than just a normal property owner um but as you heard the planning or the uh comprehensive plan says that there's a trail there it's been planned at least for the past when did we do the 20 240 plan five years ago six years ago nine years ago 10 years ago that's so at least 10 years ago this this Trail has been in the in the guiding document that's been approved by all of the other surrounding communities has been approved by met Council this is the plan is what's going to happen with the city of Cottage Grove when this property gets developed um and we are bound by the the the the um uh comprehensive plan we can't deviate from the comprehensive plan because it would be a violation of the law to do so and so I think you know we have to honor that and what we've said this is what's going to be the plan but like I said at the same time we need to be cognizant of everyone who's here and saying can we change this can we alter this can we make sure it doesn't have a giant impact on our lives it's going to impact you but let's try to make it as best as we can so I guess that's where I'm coming from that's why I wanted to know how far away we are from the property line so that we're making sure we can give people who have um their homes there who haven't been planning on this going in there um so they don't have people just kind of Waltzing through their backyards I think that's kind of some of the the thoughts that commissioner Britain commissioner fiser were bringing up as well well as um you know let's look at the Landscaping plan to maybe put I don't know if you can put a BM in there or put some kind of extra Landscaping in there to kind of separate uh the trail from uh the the backyards and so that's I think kind of where I'm landing on this is I'd like to see more work from the city and and I think to the extent that P is involved in the trail at all um some kind of more work on that kind of front um to make this the least disruptive as possible knowing that we're required to do this by the comprehensive plan my turn commissioner fer uh first of all I'd like to apologize for misinterpreting the zoning codes I apologize did not mean to be snarky um I agree with you in that this is city-owned property and the city should be able to do what they want with it however uh this Trail does not impact the development of these homes this Trail does not impact the rerouting of Ravine Parkway this Trail does not impact the meet and potatoes of this this application like we have we're talking about a trail on the very Southern edge of a big fat development and it just is not to me it's not a hill to die on I think we need to find a compromise because it's not it's just not the meat of this application um I think there's been enough concern raised with um with what you said about the water level coming up because of where the development is and how the Watershed works and I don't understand all that cuz I am a realtor not an engineer but um there's real concern there and just hearing these these people say that they experience flooding all the time and that there are big you know trees back there it just doesn't seem like an efficient use of City dollars to make a trail somewhere where it there probably shouldn't be one so that's my opinion on it I just I think that the development's great I mean I feel like it's a little more dense than it should be but that's just me um I think it's great to have life cycle housing to have multiple options for people I I like that all of these people said that they are excited about new neighbors to me that says a lot about you know their community and that they're not against the development um which is really encouraging to me but this this Trail is not the hill to die on with this application okay bye thank you m Bon yeah I agree with I mean the to start with the density if you take a look to the West you've got quad homes um there's there's a lot of varying density out to the west of this and then it bleeds into the single family larger Lots out to the east so you know this is a natural transition you know from higher density to a little bit medium to low um so that particular point of it is is I see fitting within the comprehensive plan you know I know that you mentioned that the trail was in the comprehensive plan and it may have been in the I I I totally believe you that you say that that it's in there I don't recall it from previous comprehensive plans and I am concerned especially with the comments you know um from commissioner Stevens and your knowledge in the South Watershed South Washington County watershed that and the neighbors comments on the flood the the water levels Rising we would want to make sure that if we did put a trail in here that it wasn't affected by flooding or something that is going to compromise the trail over time because then it's just waste of money so if we could do our due diligence there as well I know you guys do a great job of digging into the details but to make sure that we're not putting um the trail right up next to the the property owner's yards just to get it away from the pond because we think it's going to flood um because you can exit into the neighborhood go through the street and back in there's already a planned Trail Excursion to get around those houses um so I really want to see that looked into too hard um that this would be a sustainable thing um from the city's perspective I'm sure there's some type of parks and wrecks component here that planning has gone into at whether they feel that we need a trail or something along those lines so I I don't think this is from a city's perspective just based on this development but from the the total perspective of our parks and Trail systems um but you know I from the past I know there was concerns about building something back there so we just need to be real careful that if we are going to build something that it's something sustainable uh it isn't going to cause problems and if it does get built that there should be some mitigation you know aesthetically wise you know don't put it up right next to the property owner's homes and I know we've done it on lots of applications in the past where there's screening extra screening that's done uh in order to mitigate things along those lines so that there's a balance between the overall public at large and the homeowners that are living there so all right thank you any further comments [Music] discussion okay seeing none guess I look for someone to make a motion then don't all talk at once how would we make a motion if we want to if we wanted to be contingent on them figuring out a compromise on the trail so like how do we so here's here's I guess my my thought on that is do you want to give are you asking to give the city and py more time to look at this before we decide on it or I guess I was going back and referring to the conditions of approval to see if there's one in particular we can strike or we can ask for that's all I'm just trying to read as fast as I can is there is somebody can somebody help me like find where that Trail is referenced in the conditions or so uh commissioner Fisher I do know the trail is referenced in uh under construction and great it's condition number 11 okay uh it says that the developer shall be responsible for constructing the trail segment around Lake Robert uh and continues on regarding the uh personal property encroachments on Outlaw a okay so I guess I don't know how to like word it with just striking that or I don't know does anybody can somebody help me so I don't look so stupid so are you you wanting to just get rid of the trail as far as well so there's pieces of the trail I think that are okay yeah around the north part and around the maybe the E side and then connecting to the sidewalk that's are I mean I don't know I guess I don't know how to word it I don't think that there should be a trail between the homes and the the pond whatever like so you could I just don't think it's officient you could change you could in your recommendation you can recommend changing that particular recommendation within the recommendations right that's what I'm trying to do to exclude the trail going behind those homes that is something that you can do as you are the one making the motion so you I understand that I'm just trying to figure out how that's worded appropriately well you could as simple as you said you could say approval subject to the conditions in the staff report excluding with the modification of item number 11 to exclude the trail going behind the homes on the what is that the north side of the property okay what what Ken said I will make a motion to approve the application for the it's not a planned unit development it's a preliminary plat and the zoning Amendment changing it from ag2 to R4 which is not R1 uh subject to the stipulations in the staff Report with the exception of number 11 modifying number 11 I want to modify number 11 to edit the trail so that there is no Trail between those residential homes on the south Edge and the lake okay I think that's good enough for for at least staff to be able to jot down what the other pieces of the trail I think are reasonable but that piece I do not think is reasonable okay so we have a motion from commissioner fiser to um approve the two uh PL or the zoning Amendment and the preim plat changing condition number 11 um to not allow the trail um to go behind the properties on the south side of 67th 67th Avenue street street Cove Street Lane South okay yeah so that's the motion is there a second to that motion one second all right I have a second from commissioner Brit Britain excuse me do I have any further discussion on the motion Mr raspon I guess I I just feel that this Trail would be a a pretty beneficial to the community including myself I don't live in the area but i' I'd love to take advantage of a a trail around a nice Lake uh maybe not so nice through the woods um ride my bike on it um you know if the trail is possible to be constructed there and it's not interfering with with with the water or the property lines I just feel it would be a shame to bring it two-thirds of the way around Lake and then maybe just dead end it there or are we routing people now in front of your houses is that a better scenario to to come take the uh you know the sidewalk in front of the house maybe but uh I I just if it's possible and it makes sense and it can be done I I feel it would be a nice amenity for everybody in town is my thought all right thank you any further discussion commissioner Stevens I would just say that I agree I think the trail is a great amenity and this is an opportunity for the city to install the trail without right because the developer installs it correct um I think that if it goes I mean it seems like a really good opportunity to just go in front of the homes and then connect back with the lake but I do think that anybody who likes to go for a walk or a jog you want a loop you want to go halfway and then turn around and go halfway again and keep bouncing back and forth until you hit your like 5K right um so I'm in favor of the connection just not it doesn't to me it's not like I don't know I don't think it should be removed I think it should be a full connected Loop um so that's just my two sense I guess okay thank you any further discussion on the motion wait Comm Canal so if we're doing that path I think it needs to be a full path as well um I don't think you can just have it stop and go a different direction I would just say you know with the city owning it I think Evan you said that but they will do a a better job working with I think the residents and what it looks like so okay thank you I just yeah just add that maybe we should explore the option of having a boardwalk or something along those lines so that we can have a complete uh um path or um but instead of being on a area where it is going to be flood prone maybe we should explore a boardwalk or something along those lines any further discussion on the motion stens could we consider like modifying the motion so that it doesn't just cut out that piece but it just looks at alternative so you can move to amend her motion okay and well hold the she can decide if she wants to agree to her or not I appreciate the thought of having a loop not being a runner myself I wouldn't care if it wasn't a loop I mean there are lots of places that you know you have a trail I think of one of my favorite spots in Hamlet Park that goes and there's a beautiful bench and it's a dead end and you sit at that beautiful bench and I have one of my favorite pictures of my kids sitting on that bench you know what I mean like I think that there's opportunity to use the space without it going in between those houses right there I don't know I don't I if you guys want to do the loop like fine I'll amend the motion then it needs to go in front of those houses but I don't I don't think I mean to me it doesn't it doesn't matter and I guess this is this was a point I was going to want to clarify anyways because my understanding of your motion was just that the P that the trail wasn't going to go the houses so technically that motion means the city could still build it up to the existing sidewalk and around right that doesn't that's not precluded by your motion no our motion was just that the trail would not go into the backyards of these houses correct so that is the motion right now is that basically the cities and the developer is not going to build the trail on the North edge of the property line of the 67 Street Bas South Street Bas South um property so they there are other opportunities that are not precluded precluded by commissioner Fischer's motion at least my understanding it's just that they would not go to the north side of those properties does everyone clear correct yes okay that solve your concern or you still want to make an amendment I think I'm good okay any further discussion on the motion no we had that clarification thank you for all of you for bearing with us while we do math at the table sorry I just didn't want to like you say it wrong yeah okay any further discussion on the motion okay seeing none I will call for a vote then all those in favor it for uh the motion as stated to approve the zoning Amendment PR preliminary plat amending condition number 11 to not allow the trail to be to run along the north side of the properties on 67 Bay Avenue Bay South Street Court Street Court um all those in favor say I I I okay all those opposeed say no no no no all right so I have NOS from um Canal Frasier rasmuson and Stevens and so that fails three include 67 Street [Music] sure I apologize it was all of the properties on that side yes so that that proposal fails okay this time any further discussion otherwise I look for another motion can we go with the I mean uh go with this uh motion but U the modification for item number 11 would be that the city would take a fresh look at it and then come to a compromise solution which would perhaps retain the trail but um it won't be right behind the property line of the 67 P out okay so I guess I'd be looking for kind of some more definite language then because ideally what's going to happen is this language is going to go to City Council they would take our recommendation and then City staff and the developer would have to put it into practice and so we have to have some definite language as to what we want this to look like I guess if your if your request is we just want you to go back to the drawing board then I think that's a different discussion we can have I don't know that staff loves that idea but Emily do you want to chime in Mr chair members of the commission I was just going to reference there's been some conversation about boardwalk and so we are entertaining Boardwalk options in several segments of the trail um to avoid impact where we can um for that paved trail I think it's very important to reference uh you know cost I think there was one idea about is that whole southerly section uh a boardwalk that pushes the the trail into the water I would just caution um that cost associated with that type of Trail um as an option any further discussion I just don't like the language of being stricken out completely okay well that's not it wasn't stricken out completely well I think I think the ask was that we the city doesn't do the trail at all or they do the connections in the front and take out that part but I think that part needs to stay in so would you like to see it pass just as as recommended as is and see the city stand up and do what they think is right with that okay piece so is that a motion then or you just discuss I I will I will put in a motion um to approve the zoning amendment to change ag2 to R4 and the preliminary plat okay subject to subject the staff report as written all right I have a motion from commissioner Canal um do I need a second at this point or second second from commissioner rasmon any further discussion on this motion okay seeing none at this time I'll call vote on this motion then all those in favor of commissioner Canal's motion say I I I post say no no okay I have NOS then from from bot Britain and fer okay so it passes four to three item seven tonight is approval of the minutes a is approval of Planning Commission minutes from December 16th of 2024 if there are any additions or corrections to those minutes otherwise I would look for a motion to approve motion to approve motion to approve from commissioner fiser do I have a second second second from commissioner Stevens all those in favor say I I I I post say no motion carries 70 item eight tonight is reports a is recap of January 8th and January 22nd City Council meetings Mr chair members of the commission heading all the way back to January 8th just after the new year uh first and foremost uh we did oath of office uh for our new council members or reelected council members uh Mr olon being one of those um uh we also um uh the council approved the interm conditional use permit that was before you in December for the continuation of the operations um at ideal Avenue for the storage of of uh uh tractor trailers out there so council did approve that um and then heading to the January 22nd meeting uh there were no items of note uh that I would or uh note for the council or excuse excuse me for the Planning Commission I was thinking about just passing it off uh to council member Olson here if he had anything to add for you this evening are you okay with that Mr chair go ahead perfect thank you uh first of all I'm very grateful to be here with you all tonight as you know uh each year when the city council is um rejourn in January the uh mayor makes recommendations on uh various Liaisons for various commissions and this year uh one of his recommendations was to have me work with the Planning Commission and I haven't had that opportunity in a few years so I'm very excited for that thanks for having me also I want to thank you all for your service I know that um for uh I think at least one maybe um we're getting to the end of a term is that right so who who are we losing anyone or are you all good till next year oh okay common I believe commissioner ason yeah February you know February is when uh terms kind of start and expire so there'll be a little bit of turnover on all of the various City commissions if you have a desire to continue serving and you've termed out um I think Ken's been through this about 12 times something like that um if you ter out you wait for a year and then you can reapply for any commission including the one that you current currently serve on so please give that some thought because as a council we put a lot of uh faith in what you bring to us as advice on all of the various issues that you deal with including challenging issues like the one that you had to deal with this evening uh we did just have our annual strategic planning session for those of you who don't know what that is uh each year in January the city council and staff get together for a full day Saturday it's usually about 7:30 to 5 give or take um where we look at our uh strategic objectives for the past and decide if we want to carry those forward into you know current time and then into the future we also look back at you know what have we accomplished tactically with respect to those objectives and um what do we want to do next and and how do we want to approach that so it's a really heavy uh mental lifting day but it's a fun day it's a really good day to um kind of Dream a Little Bit get some ideas out there and I think you'll find that uh we have some really neat things on tap this year that we are going to be working towards of course we're all very excited about uh access to the Mississippi River down at the the new park um that'll be something fun that we'll be working on we've got the Kingston Park Building and the electrical getting upgraded in the next couple of years electrical this year building next year uh we also have um you know all of our new water treatment plants coming online so the low Zone plant is about done uh and the high Zone plant will get started here this year um you know there's some things going on with wholesome that I'm sure you guys all know about and their desire to maybe expand their their operation and and do some things differently so we'll have to give that consideration so it's going to be a busy year it always seems to go by so stinking fast and of course it all comes down to the budget and it seems like we never stop talking about the budget we do budget every two years um but uh even at the strategic planning session you know everything has to TI back to is it in our Capital Improvement plan is it something that we've been saving for do we have funding what kind of third party funding can we find Etc so uh one of the things I like to do as the liaison to whatever commission I'm working with is I like to be very transparent I like to you know open up the floor for you to ask any questions you may have about anything that's going on in the city and provided I'm not you know limited by an NDA or something like that um you know I'm always happy to share and try to answer questions to the best of my ability keep in mind I'm a council member there's five of us and uh you know we act as a body so if there's something that you ask me uh and it's an opinion I'll tell you it's an opinion uh because I can't speak for the body but um you know I'm definitely very grateful to have been reelected this last year and I look forward to four more years of serving the citizens of Cottage Grove to the very best of my ability and with that I'll turn it back to you if you have any questions for me me all right thank you any questions for council member Olsen I don't see any thank you very much for being here thank you and I'm always available please feel free to reach out anytime all right B tonight was response to Planning Commission inquiries we didn't have any from last meeting C Planning Commission requests any requests for staff the next meeting cbat so uh during the discussions today we have had s questions on the Jamaica Avenue Improvement going from one lane to two lanes on either side um can we get some more information on that is that something that was discussed in some of those meetings or with the Mr chair commissioner B we can follow up with some more details of the County's plan for 2028 and where they're at in their planning process thank you in regards to that in regards to that is Jamaica going to be a city road are they turning that over to us I heard some Rumblings of yeah yeah the expectation is that once that road is fully reconstructed the city will take ownership so it's just a matter of time theoretically yes okay all right any other requests for staff all right seeing none before I ask for motion to adjourn I do just want to thank everyone staff and on commission tonight I know these meetings are not easy um and I think this is probably one of the only meetings in a while especially that we've had not unanimous decisions on of motion um so I want to thank everyone for being cordial about it and being um intentional about their discussion on it um like I told everyone who was here tonight it makes the decision better in the end if we all can have an honest opinion and respect what we're all saying so I want to thank everyone who's left in the room here tonight for working on this project and hopefully it will go very smoothly and everyone will be happy with it with that being said item nine is adjournment I'd look for a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn motion to adjourn from Comm rasos I have a second second for K Canal all those in favor say I iOS say no motion carries 70 we are journ e