This transcript reflects the Cottage Grove Planning Commission meeting held on August 26, 2024. Based on the context provided and the phonetic clues in the text, the speakers have been identified as follows: * **Chair Fraser:** Planning Commission Chairperson * **Tammy Anderson:** City Clerk (conducting roll call) * **Riley Rooney:** Planning Staff * **Todd Olin:** Applicant representative (Land and Resource Consulting) * **Chris Meyer:** Resident/Neighbor * **Ryan Burfeind:** Public Works Director * **Zac Dockter:** Parks and Recreation Director * **Emily Schmitz:** Community Development Director * **Councilmember David Clausen:** City Council Liaison (identified phonetically as "Mr. Kada/Clausen") *** [00:00] **Chair Fraser:** Good evening and welcome to the planning commission's regular meeting for August 26, 2024. At this time we'll move to roll call. [00:08] **Tammy Anderson:** Commissioner Rasmason? **Commissioner Rasmason:** Yes. **Tammy Anderson:** Commissioner Boutouta? **Commissioner Boutouta:** Here. **Tammy Anderson:** Commissioner Brittain? **Commissioner Brittain:** Here. **Tammy Anderson:** Commissioner Fischer? **Commissioner Fischer:** Here. **Tammy Anderson:** Chair Fraser? **Chair Fraser:** Here. **Tammy Anderson:** Commissioner Kanable? **Commissioner Kanable:** Here. **Tammy Anderson:** Commissioner Rasmason? **Commissioner Rasmason:** Here. **Tammy Anderson:** Commissioner Stevens? Not here tonight. Thank you. [00:18] **Chair Fraser:** All right, thank you. At this time we'll move on to approval of the agenda unless there's a motion to amend. I'd look for a motion to approve. [00:22] **Commissioner Kanable:** Motion to approve. **Chair Fraser:** Motion to approve from Commissioner Kanable. Do I have a second? **Commissioner Fischer:** Second. **Chair Fraser:** Second from Commissioner Fischer. All those in favor say Aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair Fraser:** Opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. [00:27] **Chair Fraser:** Item number four tonight is Open Forum. This is a chance for anyone who's in the audience tonight to speak on something that is not on tonight's agenda. So if you're here for one of the agenda items, you'll have a chance later. If you have something you want to address the commission that's not on the agenda, at this time I'll open Open Forum. All right, seeing none, I will close Open Forum. [00:40] **Chair Fraser:** 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 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 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 comments. 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 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 the items on tonight's agenda at their meeting on Wednesday, September 4th, 2024, which starts at 7 p.m. With that, we'll move to item six, public hearings and applications. A is lot split 9016 Kimbro, cases MS2024-16 and V2024-016 with Riley Rooney presenting. [01:37] **Riley Rooney:** All right, good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Before you this evening is a proposal for a minor subdivision and lots and variance at 9016 Kimbro Avenue South. So the lot is located on 6.45 Acres just east of Cottage Grove Ravine Regional Park and north of 100th Street South. It is currently zoned R1 rural residential and is guided as rural residential in the 2040 comprehensive plan. The parcel currently contains a single residence with two accessory structures and then has two accesses—I know one is a little bit hard to see—off of Kimbro Avenue. So there are two there. I will touch on that on a later slide. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the 6.45 acre parcel into two different lots. He's proposing to retain 3.1 acres for the existing R1 rural residential property that's highlighted in yellow and identified as parcel B, and also to create a 3.5 acre parcel to establish a buildable lot for the future construction of a residence that is highlighted in orange and is identified as parcel A. Then just to note, it's a little hard to see I think on our screens, but there are three rectangles on parcel A. The top rectangle is the location of the proposed house for that lot. The bottom two rectangles are existing or proposed sites for the drain fields that would support the construction of a septic system for that parcel. It's also important to note that the applicant is requesting a variance for the city's minimum lot width. The proposed survey creates a new parcel with a frontage of 60 ft in width, while the minimum width required is 180 for the R1 rural residential district. Since the septic tank sites on parcel B are located central to the existing lot here, locating the frontage north of the parcel would alleviate any impedance to the existing and established septic systems on that site. In addition, by using the frontage at the north of the lot, the separation of the existing accessory structures here from the home would be alleviated for parcel B. I'd also like to note that the proposal is consistent with other minor subdivision applications along Kimbro that we've reviewed in the past and that the required development standards that are set for the R1 rural residential district would be met with the intent to maintain low density residential areas. And then again, I'd just like to touch back on that access note that I'd mentioned previously. So the existing parcel does have two accesses here and here. However, no additional access points are permitted off of Kimbro Avenue. So the property owner has proposed moving the northmost access, which is highlighted in red on the screen, to parcel A—to the newly created parcel—to allow that parcel to have frontage off of Kimbro Avenue. For the time being, the applicant plans to maintain both accesses and use them as they are intended for right now until a building permit is requested for the new home on parcel A. At that time, the construction of the driveway will occur, which will allow parcel A to have that frontage. So this one will not exist any longer and will come up here to allow the house to have access. With that, the recommendation is before you. A representative of the applicant is here to answer any questions, as am I. Thank you. [04:45] **Chair Fraser:** All right, thank you. Any questions for staff? [04:48] **Commissioner Brittain:** This looks familiar. Have we seen this application before? [04:52] **Riley Rooney:** No, but in the spring we did see a separate minor subdivision for an almost identical parcel just further south on Kimbro, but it has a similar layout, so it will look very familiar. [05:01] **Commissioner Brittain:** Okay, thank you. [05:03] **Commissioner Fischer:** I have a question. So when construction starts on the new parcel, will there be a required easement for that driveway since it will service both parcels? [05:13] **Riley Rooney:** Yeah, so the right of way is already taken along the road so there shouldn't—they'll have a right of way easement that'll happen, but they already have the requested along Kimbro Avenue. [05:22] **Commissioner Fischer:** But for parcel B? Because they're going to still be—they'll have to drive on parcel A to get to parcel B from that particular access? [05:25] **Riley Rooney:** Nope, so they'll still have their existing access down here. So each of the parcels will have their own. [05:27] **Commissioner Fischer:** Right, but will parcel B be able to access their parcel through parcel A still, or will it be completely separated? [05:29] **Riley Rooney:** Completely separated. Thank you. [05:30] **Commissioner Brittain:** The drawing does appear to show a connection point from that barn area to parcel A's driveway. Is that not going to be there? [05:36] **Riley Rooney:** I don't believe so, but perhaps the person on behalf of the applicant can answer more specifically. [05:42] **Commissioner Boutouta:** So why is that requirement there, the 180 ft minimum width requirement for the approach? [05:45] **Riley Rooney:** It's essentially there to ensure that the lots are buildable for future subdivision once utilities are built in that area. So we just want to make sure that we're keeping with the intent of the district to provide low density areas. By having a wider frontage, usually you're just going to have a wider lot in general. Sometimes when there's subdivisions to divide the land, we will go shorter if it makes sense within our code, but typically we do want them larger so that the lot is lower in density general. Thank you. [06:03] **Chair Fraser:** All right. Any further questions for staff? All right, thank you. At this time if the applicant would like to approach the podium, add anything additional, and sir, please say your name and address as well. [06:12] **Todd Olin:** Thank you, Mr. Chair and Commission. My name is Todd Olin and I'm with Land and Resource Consulting. I'm here on behalf of Al Stewart. Just a couple of additional details—Riley did a really comprehensive job of reviewing all these. To answer the question if there is a connection there: there will have to be an easement over both the entrance on parcel A and then a portion of parcel B. But she's correct in that if there's no connection, no easements, and they will both have their independent accesses at the end of the day. What we were requesting is that both accesses on the parcel B may be allowed to be maintained until the driveway is necessary on parcel A, then we'd close the other one. So at the end of the day, it would remain with one access per lot. So one of the items I just wanted to point out—and I don't know if you're making two different things on the agenda to discuss, the plan itself and maybe the variance—but on the variance, what we're trying to do is save some character here. There's a couple of outbuildings or farm-type buildings, and they're—I wouldn't say a staple of Cottage Grove—but they're there and they've been there for a long, long time. What we'd like to do is be able to conform to all of the bulk area standards with the exception of the frontage and be able to save those barns and the existing house and the septic that goes with the existing home. The configuration that you have on parcel A is really a rendition that could be, but really is dependent on when a building permit is requested. There will be an architect that would design that to fit into that lot. We went out and did some soil borings to make sure that those areas do work and do perk, so we're not creating a situation where we're going through all the steps to do a split that doesn't work at the end of the day anyway. And then the last thing I wanted to point out was—I mentioned a little bit—but under all other bulk area standards, the intent is followed with the exception of that frontage, because we have 6.6 acres in change and your minimum lot standard size is three acres. Of course, there's setbacks and everything else that applies, but we can conform to all those things with the exception of that frontage and still follow the intent. I'm here for questions if you have any. [07:52] **Chair Fraser:** All right, thank you. Any questions for the applicant? [07:54] **Commissioner Rasmason:** Sounds like you guys did homework with your soil borings and all that investigation. I'm just looking at this drawing and there seems to be a lot of grade change. I can't really tell if it's going down or up. I think it's down, but the house fits on that hill and the septic without any concerns? Seems like it's kind of all built on a hill is what it looks like here. [08:16] **Todd Olin:** That's correct, Mr. Commissioner. The grade falls somewhat gently away from the road, but then once it gets behind that existing septic and barn, then it kind of flattens out and then does rise towards the West. I picked a point where it tucks into the hill so they'd have a view out over the lower area. But again, the septics would work based on the grades. And of course, when we do septics, they have to remain native soils. What we do as the first step is we go out and we would, in this case, remove some trees but then fence them so nobody would drive over them and compact them and they would stay the way they are. So we picked spots where we knew the grades would work. If there's a different configuration, they'll have to go through that again, and I suspect they will when the building permit is applied for. [08:52] **Commissioner Rasmason:** Yeah, I couldn't tell looking at this if it was sloped down or upwards, but hearing that it goes up makes a little more sense. Thank you. [09:02] **Todd Olin:** My pleasure. [09:03] **Chair Fraser:** Any further questions for the applicants? 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 step to the podium, state your name and address for the record. [09:12] **Chris Meyer:** Well, I just had a question. I'm Chris Meyer, I'm the next-door neighbor and I'm quite familiar with the lay of the land because I used to own that also. It's quite a drainage easement pretty much where that new lot line is going to be and where that driveway would be. There would have to be some area where that water can come through, because in the spring when there's a big snow melt, it's like a river. I'm not too concerned about my property being affected, but I just had a question about how they would take care of that as far as the drainage goes. I thought of that when I was there; I did the split 3 acres off and the city came out and they told me if I ever had a problem with those two old outbuildings, I couldn't replace them because of the easement. So that driveway is going to be in part of the drainage easement, so I'm just wondering how it will be addressed. [09:43] **Chair Fraser:** All right, thank you. Any further comment? All right, at this time I will close public hearing. Riley, I don't know if you want to handle or hand off to answer the question about drainage easement and what's going on on that side of the property. [09:51] **Riley Rooney:** I am no engineering expert. However, from my perspective as a planner, the driveway meets all setbacks proposed for the district, so we don't have any concern at least for setbacks on our end. For drainage, I would probably typically defer to a drainage expert. Perhaps Todd can answer some questions, otherwise we can always ask. [10:05] **Ryan Burfeind:** Mr. Chair, members of the commission, so drainage we would certainly look at with a driveway permit within the right of way. We certainly wouldn't allow for construction of a driveway or any infrastructure that would impact drainage into an adjacent property. We'll have to do some looking into the easement that I'm not familiar with, so we'll need to dig into that to be sure that anything that's proposed isn't impacting a condition of an easement that exists. [10:35] **Chair Fraser:** Okay. And I guess my concern is we're just at this point—there's no proposal to actually build on this property. So what we're looking for is just making sure that this split that we're making is making two buildable lots. And so I guess the concern at this point is, do we believe that this drainage issue may cause an issue with buildability on the property, or are we confident that this is not going to be an issue as far as getting to the point where now we're talking about a driveway that can't be there? [11:00] **Ryan Burfeind:** Mr. Chair, members of the commission, no, I'm certain there's a way that we would work through if there was a challenge as it relates to drainage. [11:04] **Chair Fraser:** All right, thank you. Any further questions? [11:05] **Commissioner Fischer:** I didn't have a question, but I just wanted to speak on the variance. Variances are typically granted when there's some sort of hardship that isn't made by the person who owns the property, and considering where the septic line is—and you had mentioned it specifically—I see what you did with the variance and you're asking for it and it makes sense to me. My only concern is going back to the easements because everything's fine and dandy until someone drives on someone else's property and makes somebody angry. So I would just be aware of that as they go through their approval process. If that is going to stay connected like it looks like it is in the plan, that those agreements are clear, because we don't want people fighting. [11:21] **Chair Fraser:** Oh yeah. Like, we would want to ensure that those are taken into hand before a building permit is addressed on that parcel, and I would imagine if someone's going to build a driveway back there, they would build it so it wouldn't wash out every year. So hopefully those things can be addressed as they go. Any further comments, discussion from commission? All right, at this time I would look for a motion. [11:42] **Commissioner Fischer:** I'll make the motion to approve both applications subject to the stipulations in the staff report. **Chair Fraser:** I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Fischer. Do I have a second? **Commissioner Rasmason:** Second. **Chair Fraser:** Second from Commissioner Rasmason. Any further discussion on the motions? Seeing none, all those in favor say Aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair Fraser:** Opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. [12:02] **Chair Fraser:** Item seven tonight is a presentation from Zac Dockter, the Park Director for the city. [12:08] **Zac Dockter:** Good evening Chair, members of the Planning Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you tonight about "The Preserve Play Prosper" plan, which is basically an opportunity for our residents to vote on reinvesting into parks and outdoor spaces in Cottage Grove. Parks and Recreation is a point of pride in Cottage Grove and we see that in how our facilities are being used and how the growth of those facilities is being used. I'm sure you as Commissioners see it—that every time we build a neighborhood, people are pretty excited to get their new neighborhood park and use the facilities whether it's trails or park facilities or programs or events or whatever it is. But we're seeing that growth in Cottage Grove with the growth of the community and just with the excitement of the investments we've made. But it's getting harder and harder to make those capital investments. We always take a lot of pride that our oldest and smallest parks are just as well maintained as our largest and newest parks—something we've always taken a lot of pride in—but it's those capital investments that kind of catch up to you. You know, those multi-million dollar investments that are just hard to keep up with. And we haven't had a capital park referendum in over 40 years. 1984 was the last time we've had a parks capital referendum. So we've been doing a lot of studying trying to figure out what residents want in our park and recreation system. If you go on the website there's like five or so different surveys. The most recent was the 2022 survey, which was called the "Reimagine Recreation" survey, but we kind of compiled all those different surveys and all that different data and we came up with a list of what we thought the community wanted in their parks and recreation system for today and then also into the future. And then we tried to put those into three distinct projects. Really what I want to make sure the Commissioners know and what the community knows is that this wasn't a knee-jerk reaction; this is 5-10 years in the making. These studies go back 10 years, so it's taken a lot of work and a lot of listening to the community to try to get to a point where we think we're asking the community to vote on something that we think they want. Introducing "The Preserve Play Prosper" plan. Based on that feedback, we have three projects at $36 million that we're asking the community to consider. The three projects are at Hamlet Park (upgrade and enhancement); creating a new 33.3-acre nature-based park at Mississippi Dunes Park; and then transformation of River Oaks Golf Course Events Center into a year-round recreation destination for all ages. Hamlet Park is our oldest and largest park in Cottage Grove. The proposed $17 million plan for that project specifically would upgrade the playground equipment, build a new four-season recreational building, install a small splash pad, create a new skateboard park, build an amphitheater, create an art walk sculpture garden with benches and informational kiosks, add a synthetic turf sports field with lighting in the existing location of the current soccer/football complex there, and then finish the South baseball park complex by constructing those last two baseball fields and the additional parking lot, and then finishing off the roads and trails and landscaping that go with all of that. The second project is a first-of-its-kind opportunity to create recreational access to the Mississippi River in Cottage Grove, and that would be at Mississippi Dunes Park, which I know the commission is very familiar with. We just recently acquired 33.3 acres through some grants and different funding mechanisms there. So a $13 million investment would restore and preserve natural habitat—which is probably over 80% of the property—preserving and restoring natural habitat on the shoreline and up into the land. We would build up the shoreline, the river, provide recreational river access for canoes, kayaks, small boats, and fishing. It is a shallow area down there. One of the questions I get a lot is, "You know, most of the water is only 2 to 3 feet deep down there," but there is a channel that goes from Mississippi Dunes out to the main channel that's about 6-7 feet. We have a bathometer report, but there is a channel that goes from this parkland out to the main channel so we can get smaller vessels out there. We won't be getting yachts out there or anything like that, but certainly fishing boats and pontoons and things like that. We would construct new and enhanced existing walking and hiking trails—lots of walking and hiking opportunities in this plan—create a nature-based playground, provide space for outdoor classrooms, build an interpretive learning center, and then add facilities for nature activities and picnicking. Actually, the images on the right there, that's an image of the concept design of the building that we did for this park. And then the third project is to transform River Oaks Golf Course and Event Center. One of the things I want to make sure that's noted here is you're not going to hear a lot about golf. River Oaks is a golf course and event center, but we're trying to find different ways for the community to use it. We love River Oaks Golf Course—people use it in a myriad of ways—we want to make sure we get more people down there using it in different ways. Other than a Himalayan golf green—which is actually just kind of a fun, different way for putt-putt golf but it's also good for competitive golfers—we would add this Himalayan golf green, but then we'd be installing multi-sport simulators. You can see in the image on the right, whether that's kicking soccer balls or shooting zombies or hitting a baseball, whatever it is, it can be used different ways. We would add pickleball courts and event courts in the bocce ball area—the bocce ball wouldn't go away, that would be a complement to that. We would create a new winter mountain biking course—I think it's a 5-kilometer course through there that can also be used for running 5Ks and cross country—upgrading the building so we are connecting the two buildings so that we can seamlessly work between both buildings for food and beverage service. So if we have similar events going on, we can have food and beverage service on both sides, and then enhancing the patio and dining area which people love, overlooking the Mississippi River. So the plan is designed to invest in parks and recreation and deliver activities and offerings that our residents want, and we're trying to find a responsible way to do it with the taxpayer money. To fund the proposed investment, the city's asking the residents to consider a half-percent local option sales tax as part of the general election on November 5th. Each project needs to stand on its own merit. So Hamlet Park, as I said before, is $17 million, Mississippi Dunes is 13 million, and River Oaks is 6 million to get you that 36 million. And that's spread out over a 25-year period. Just because—if all the projects were to pass, it doesn't mean all these projects would get funded and would be done in year one. They would be done over the course of time depending on how that revenue comes into the city. One thing about the local option sales tax is it's a half-percent local sales tax and it's taxed just like any other product or service in the community. Over 31% of the contributions would come from outside of Cottage Grove, so non-residents would be contributing over 31% of the revenue. That's data from the University of Minnesota; that was an independent study done by them that basically just offers how much of non-resident generated revenue there would be. We think that number will grow over time as the community grows and as industry grows in Cottage Grove. Hopefully that number would grow. And then the average resident would be at about $23 per year in sales tax. And then just for reference, it's a half-cent for every dollar spent or 50 cents on a $100 bill. I think it's important to note that this isn't a "me too" movement, but it also is important to know that you probably are spending your money on other local option sales tax projects across the Metro. This is just a quick map of communities that either have a local option sales tax in place or are considering one in the coming elections. You can see it covers the Metro pretty well, just for reference. And then because the state does require that each project stands on its own merit, there are three questions. We do have to put on the ballot that way: Hamlet Park, Mississippi Dunes Park, and River Oaks will all have three separate questions. It's important to know that if the residents vote for just one of those three projects, it's a half-percent sales tax. If they vote for all three, it's still a half-percent sales tax. Let's just say Hamlet Park were to be approved and the other two projects were not to be approved. That revenue would allow us to build the Hamlet Park project faster, but then once you pay for that project, once you get to that cap of 17 million, that tax is over. It goes away, it comes off. If it takes seven years, it takes seven years. If it takes 20 years, it takes 20 years. And then obviously after 25 years, if you don't make it there, it still comes off. With that, I will stand for questions. [17:01] **Chair Fraser:** All right, thank you. Any questions? [17:03] **Commissioner Fischer:** So if they're all approved, is there a priority? Like, what's going to get funded first, second, and third? [17:09] **Zac Dockter:** Great question, Commissioner. Yeah, so we actually do have a three-tiered system or three-tiered plan. I don't have that with me unfortunately at the moment, but each park has three different tiers of how we would—the first bond would be about $16 million and we would fund $16 million of improvements across the three different projects. And then obviously if only one or two of the projects went, then we'd have to reprioritize again. But yes, we have a three-tiered system on how those would get implemented, trying to focus on what's going to have the greatest impact and most immediate impact. [17:42] **Chair Fraser:** Any further questions? [17:43] **Commissioner Rasmason:** Yeah, this is just for my reference. How many respondents did you receive for the questionnaires that you sent out or the service that you conducted for the "Reimagine Recreation" survey? [17:49] **Zac Dockter:** Yes, so for that particular survey, I want to say we were at over 2,500, but then there was also a project with the middle school that was another 700 or 800. So it was kind of a hodgepodge of numbers, but it was over 3,000 responses. And then if you go back to the community survey, I think with the community survey it was another 2,000 responses. [18:10] **Commissioner Rasmason:** With the growth in Cottage Grove, has your budget been increasing with the tax base over the years, and we're just not keeping up for these bigger projects, or how does that look? [18:23] **Zac Dockter:** Yeah, so as the community grows and the levy grows to allow us to keep maintaining the facilities, it just doesn't allow for the capital investments. As an example, I've been here for almost 25 years. I used to build playgrounds for $25,000; now they're $100,000. Those are dollars that—you know, you still have to pay for fuel, for labor, for equipment, for seed, and fertilizer. We're able to keep up with those things; it's those big capital investments that we're starting to fall behind on. The city does a great job; we have a couple different funding mechanisms for some of those things, but it's these big-ticket items that we're struggling to kind of keep maintaining. [Alarm sounds] So that's my painkiller alarm, my apologies. Sorry about that soft rock. [19:00] **Chair Fraser:** Any further questions, comments? Zac, thank you for being here tonight and telling us about the plan. [19:05] **Zac Dockter:** And if I may share one thing? There's—I would like to say there's no secrets. Everything on the website is phenomenal; there's layers and layers of information. If there's something on there that doesn't look right, doesn't smell right, or you have questions on, call me or email me. I promise you I will tell you the answer. At the end of the day, it's up to the people to vote on what they vote on and we'll take it from there. [19:24] **Chair Fraser:** All right, thank you. Item eight tonight is approval of Planning Commission minutes from July 22nd, our last meeting. Any additions or corrections? Otherwise, I'd look for a motion to approve. [19:33] **Commissioner Rasmason:** Motion to approve. **Chair Fraser:** Motion to approve from Commissioner Rasmason. Do I have a second? **Commissioner Brittain:** Second. **Chair Fraser:** Second from Commissioner Brittain. All those in favor say Aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair Fraser:** Opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. [19:41] **Chair Fraser:** Item nine is reports. A is recap of August City Council meetings with Emily Schmitz. [19:47] **Emily Schmitz:** Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Looking back at August—all the way back to August 7th, actually—summer's nearing the end, can you believe that? But only two items: Mississippi Landing, there was a plat correction on there. So the developer worked with an adjacent property owner on what the historic property line felt like for a long time. That developer kind of worked with them to shift that property line about five or six feet along five or six lots that had been platted. Simple plat correction at the county, no need to replat, simple process through that. And then I just wanted to mention they did—when I say "they" I mean engineering, finance, Zac with his Parks team—the initial workshop with the council for the CIP for this year. That's our five-year Capital Improvement Plan. Just wanted to give you all a heads up, you'll be seeing that at your October Planning Commission meeting. They'll present their next five-year plan. And then jumping ahead to August 21st, only one item on there, but The Preserve at Prairie Dunes, 161 lots. You saw that a couple of months ago on your agenda. Pulte Homes is working through that project just south of 100th near that North Point development. So they worked through the approval at Council and will now start working through their final plat process. They're not moving anything out there probably until early spring, if I had to guess. And with that, Mr. Clausen, if you have anything else to add? [21:06] **Councilmember David Clausen:** We as a council are working our way through the annual budget, which is always a long process. But I just wanted to add with "The Preserve Play Prosper," I had gotten several questions about why we're doing it through a local option sales tax. The best answer I could give is because, as much as we as a community enjoy our parks, they are a non-essential service. Just as we did with the community center that was proposed a couple of years ago, whenever a big capital expenditure like this comes up that is a little bit difficult to classify as infrastructure or road work, we always want to try and get the broadest feedback possible, and the best way to do that is by putting it on the ballot. So that's all I have to say about upcoming projects and budgets, but I'm open for questions. So if anyone's got any questions, please throw them at me. [22:04] **Chair Fraser:** All right, thank you. Any questions for the councilmember? All right, thank you very much. B was response to Planning Commission inquiries; we didn't have any from last meeting. C: Planning Commission requests. Any requests tonight? Seeing none, we'll move on to item 10, adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjourn? [22:20] **Commissioner Rasmason:** Motion to adjourn. **Chair Fraser:** Motion to adjourn from Commissioner Rasmason. Do I have a second? **Commissioner Fischer:** Second. **Chair Fraser:** Second from Commissioner Fischer. All those in favor say Aye. **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair Fraser:** Opposed say no. Motion carries 6-0. We are adjourned.