Perfect. We're going to call to order tonight, April 2nd, uh, 2026 planning commission meeting. We'll begin with roll call. Commissioner Kazaki >> here, >> Commissioner uh, Zachman >> here, >> and Commissioner Sherber >> here, >> and Commissioner Braum is here as well. At this point in time, I'd like to invite all of you to stand and say the pledge of allegiance with us. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. >> We're going to call to order tonight, April 2nd, 24. >> Got a little fun background noising. >> All right. And at this point in time, uh, does staff or any of the fellow commissioners have any changes to tonight's agenda? staff has no changes. >> Okay. So, I will make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. Anyone opposed? Okay. Next up is open forum. Uh this is an opportunity to be heard um or address the commission on an issue that's not on tonight's agenda. Uh so if there's anyone who has an issue that they just want to bring to the commission's attention, you can approach the because I don't think we have any public comment rights for that. No. Is there anyone? No. Okay. Then we will move on to the minutes from our meeting which took place in February because there was no March meeting. Do you guys have an opportunity? Any comments regarding those minutes? Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion to approve the minutes from the February 2026 meeting? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> Perfect. >> I'll second. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. And anyone opposed? >> Okay. And that takes us right to our fullest section, which is all of our new business. Um, so we've got one, two, three, four, five, six items on the agenda tonight. And I believe they are all a public comment opportunity. And so we will, um, oh, before we do, I just want to give a very warm welcome to Commissioner Sherver. Um, this is our he's joining us, uh, on the commission um, as of this month. And so I just want to uh, welcome him and give him an opportunity to introduce himself or uh, address everybody. >> Yeah, thank you. Yeah, as she said, my name is Aiden Sherver. Uh, grown up in Corkran most of my life and I'm excited to be here, be a part of helping shape the community and give insight into how the town city continues to develop. >> Thank you. We're excited to have you and um we're grateful for your um willingness to volunteer and serve in this way. Okay. Now we're going to move into the new business and we'll begin with the site plan amendment and variances for landscaping for the Red Barn Pet Retreat and I think that is you can go right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh this is an application for two variances and an administrative site plan approval. Um some background uh the applicant uh received approval of a sketch plan back in 2022 and then in 2023 this property received a comprehensive plan amendment a resoning a preliminary plat and a site plan uh to allow construction of the red barn tech retreat and there were a number of conditions as part of that approval. One of those which was talked about at planning commission and at council was the need for a revised compliant landscape plan. This is in the northeast district. So if you recall, we have additional landscape standards beyond the the base standards in the zoning ordinance. The northeast district has additional standards. >> Uh final plat and development contract and a variance to allow construction prior to availability of city utilities was approved in 24 and the building was constructed. And then last spring we sent a landscape inspection letter. We send this letter to everybody. the development approval to remind them to plant the landscaping because we need to inspect that to start the warranty period and reduce the letter of credit that the city holds. So, this is a courtesy that goes to everyone, not just uh this particular land owner. But upon receipt, uh the land owner said he was ready for inspections. In fact, he needed to still submit a compliant landscape plan. We did work with him and get a compliant landscape plan that was approved on June 30th, 2025. when he asked us to do an inspection, we did that in August and found that the plan did not match uh the build condition did not match the approved plan. And so to resolve this issue, the applicant uh was given a number of options. This option is to request a variance to allow the built landscaping to be accepted in lie of a compliant landscape plan. Again, the Northeast District, one of the goals is to provide sustainable and environmentally friendly building and site design techniques. When we adopted the Northeast District, the city wanted to use it sort of as a test case for some of these native plantings, sort of zeroscape types of landscape um and other building sustainable building components. And so we have requirements and incentives in that district that are above and beyond the standard zoning requirements. One of those things is to require landscape plantings to be selected from a list of pre preferred trees and shrubs primarily native but um some materials that are because of a variety of reasons becoming um uh native like because of changing climate conditions. And so again, in this case, the request is in front of you. The applicant had an approved compliant landscape plan approved by the city. They planted something different. And the two variances are for the use of rock mulch where woodbased or wood mulch is required and to allow non-native hydrangeas to count towards the landscape requirements uh where they are not on the approved species list. And if one or both of those variances are approved, we would be able to administratively approve a site plan amendment to allow those changes. Uh these were in your packet. Very hard to read on the screen, I acknowledge, but uh in terms of the number of trees, the point of this is the number of plantings is generally consistent with what was approved. It was just that instead of using the wood mulch, they've used um rock mulch next next to the parking lots and buildings and swapped out um the approved landscaping with hydrangeas sort of along the parking lot. And so the reason we um there's two parts to this. We have our engineering design standards which are part of our zoning ordinance. And so compliance with those um is required for any development. And so rock mulch is not permitted. The the wood mulch is required across the city. So um this is true outside of the north west uh northeast district as well and regardless of the type of development. So for Corkran business parks which recently came in a half a million square feet of industrial large trucks they are also doing wood mulch and the U of M extension service um encourages wood mulch because it retains moisture so we're not using drinking water to water plants as much reduces the heat island effect suppresses weeds uh prevents erosion and it kind of feeds the plants as it breaks down. rock mulch can kind of cook those plants and provides no benefit. That's why the city encourages um the rock mulch. Secondly, uh the second variance is to allow these non-native plants in the northeast district. And noted in the staff report, hydrangeas are fine to plant as a flower. You can plant those on your site. Many people do, but it can't be used to meet the minimum landscape requirements. those need to be of the native species. So even in the northeast district, you can have non-native species. You just can't use them to meet your minimum planting requirements. Um, and this in this case, this is the parking lot. So they're intended to screen the headlights and the hydrangeas don't have the same kind of screening that maybe some other um hedge type plants or evergreen plants might have. Um, but again, if the varian not approved. The hydrangeas could say you would just you would just need to plant additional landscaping um in that area to screen that life. So when we review a variance, this is the uh item that the city has the most discretion on of all land use applications because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet these varant standards. Uh practical difficulties which is kind of a three-pronged approach. Is it reasonable? Is it unique to property and typically is it uniqueness is based on a physical site constraint and is it consistent with the essential character and we have six standards or six items in the the code. Uh one through five are standards and six says if you do approve a variance you can impose conditions to address the impact of the variance and you must meet all of the variance standards. If you fail to meet one of them then the variance should be denied. uh uh staff finds that neither of the variances meet all of these standards. Um there is no physical reason. There's no unique sight constraint that says wood chips can't be provided or that native plants can't be provided in our opinion. Uh but we did in the findings of fact try to give pros and cons for the commission of the different variances. And so um a little bit different tonight we did provide the two resolutions. We felt like those findings are generally in the staff report, but there were some where we just really struggled and couldn't find findings to approve. And so if the commission finds uh that the application does meet the variant standards, they should provide uh some more direction on those findings from that. You should review each of these variances separately. So maybe start with the wood mulch and then move on to the non-native species. Uh you could you have number of options. You could move to deny both variances due the findings in the staff report that the variance standards have not been met. You could move to approve recommend approval of both variances. Again in that case you would need to provide some supplemental findings to support the finding that all standards have been met. Or you could approve one and then approve the other or deny the other. As I mentioned at the beginning, if one or more of the variances are approved uh by the city council, then staff would administratively approve a site plan amendment consistent with that uh approval. And so uh with that uh madam chair, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you so much. Does anybody have any initial questions for Kendra? Otherwise, she's available throughout the discussion as well. So thank you, Kendra. At this point in time, we'll open uh actually the applicant is I don't Yeah, I don't see him either, but um Okay. So, typically we would give the applicant an opportunity to just address the commission um and um answer any questions. Uh but since the applicant isn't here, we'll move on to the um public comment opportunity. Is there any public comment cards? >> Not for this item. >> Not for this item. Okay. Uh, however, we don't want you to miss the opportunity if that is why you came. So, if you didn't have the opportunity to fill out a comment card, but you would still like to make public comment regarding the these two variances and site plan amendment for Red Barn Pet Retreat, we'll give you the opportunity to come up. >> Yep. And if you want to just come on up and then state your name and address for the record, that'd be great. Thank you so much. And if you do have any questions, uh, we don't, uh, we'll save them and questions would get answered at the end. I I have a question more than a comment. Mike Cannon, 10390 Elm Lane. My back of my house faces this property. I guess my question is did the owner ever give any reason for I mean that seems pretty clear. The standards seem pretty clear for and maybe that's not important but otherwise it doesn't really make any difference to me. I understand, you know, the city has to set standards for this kind of stuff and you have to hold people accountable, but I'm just wondering why he if he if you there's any been any discussions and why the owner decided to do something he shouldn't have. >> We will address that question as soon as the public comment opportunity is closed. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. >> Anybody else? Okay, then I will make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I said it was public comment. >> Sorry, public comment. I'm using the wrong word. >> Right into the discussion. You don't need a motion. >> Oh, we don't need a motion. >> Only for public hearings and that one was just a public comment. >> Public comment. >> Thanks. Um, okay. So, to answer your question, well, Kendor could probably answer it the best. So, I'm going to um ask her if she'd be willing to answer that question. How I would answer it is to say that the applicant provided a narrative in the packet with um his reasoning and um happy to share that with you. It's a couple pages. I don't know that I want to read that but um >> um he did provide some reasoning on pages 18 >> and um 23 of the packet. So the packet that she's referring to is every we are given materials ahead of the meeting that provides a a they give an overview during their staff report but we get a bunch of of information that is also available to the public. So you can find it two places. It's in the binder on the black cart there. And then also if you go online to our government and go to planning commission there'll be uh agenda packet in there. And so pages 18 and 23 would have um information that the applicant submitted on uh reasons um so they would kind of give his perspective if that's what you're looking for to answer that question. >> I want to answer that question >> or we can email it to you if you would like to email. It's just it's the um I guess that it it feels the fairest to give the applicant the opportunity to explain his reasons in his own words. And so because he's not here tonight, that's the those are the pieces of paper on which he submitted. Um okay. So let's take it the both items since we don't need to do the site plan amendment. We're just looking at the um mulch um standard. Uh and so we can take a look at that one first unless someone is ready to make a motion. Um I I just have some comments on the mulch versus the rocks. Um and I think that there is some room for the planning commission to find that maybe because of the business that rocks in the area where they put them would be okay because dogs come out of a car. They want to go there. owner wants them to go before they go into the building. Um, the mulch probably absorbs it more and maybe the rock that percolates down. I'm just I'm just thinking because of the type of business, the rocks in the area by the parking lot may be acceptable, but then hardwood mulch and other areas of landscape would would be preferred. The only caution that I have with that would be the varian with the land and the use could change, but they would still have that right regardless of what business goes in after this. So, just something to keep in mind analysis. >> Yeah, I I I guess as far as I'm concerned, I think it would be okay for them to leave the rocks around parking lot area. Um, as far as the non-native plants, especially as far as the screen headlights, I don't think it didn't look like there was really room in that planting area to plant an additional screen along with hydrangeas. So, that one probably not that one would probably approve the variance, but I think I would approve the variance for the the rock rather than the hardwood. Okay. some y >> questions. Absolutely. >> Can you help define maybe like practical difficulty in meeting that threshold uh versus like maybe a difficulty in use? Like would the uh does that question make sense? Like there's there's the practical difficulty that needs to be met, but then is is the fact that a the arm presumably would be on the malt. Is that a practical difficulty or is that a functional difficulty? >> Yeah, a practical difficulty is a threeprong test. So, you need to find that the request is reasonable that um the way they want to use it is reasonable but can't do it under the rules of the ordinance which I think might be what the commissioner is getting at. Secondly, you have to find that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property, not caused by the land owner. Again, it's the property, not the business. To that end, it relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property and not the personal characteristics or preferences of a land owner. And so, the example I put in the staff report is typically this is met by topography. There's a big tree that we want to avoid. There's a very that we can't cut into. And then the third part of that practical difficulty test is that if the variance is granted, it won't al alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Meaning it won't be out of scale, out of place or inconsistent. And so one could find that you need two of those but not the third. And if you don't meet all three, you do not meet the practical difficulties. And that's the challenge I think of the uniqueness factor. did um if I understood this correctly, I mean it was it was pretty clear um from city council on on what was to be changedly done in the piece of this property on for the business and then here we are. I think you could to point maybe one or possibly two but all three. >> Yeah, >> seemingly >> I'd agree. I think uh although I see the benefit and the why he would like to use the rock, but um I think the second point that Kender brought up was the how it was caused, you know, if it was by the landowner. And if I'm understanding, the landscape plan was approved June 30th, uh if that's correct. And then the in there was an invoice in the packet from the landscape company that lists the rock from September 2025. So it seems as though that rock was added on after the approval of the original plan. So it almost feels like that was an choice versus an accident. >> Sure. I think that I appreciate uh the consideration um for the difference in potentially business, but it doesn't uh fit the land. So, all of that to say, I would move to um I would make a motion to deny both of the variances. >> Is there any additional discussion that needs to take place? Could we put in a recommendation for a zoning ordinance change? >> So, uh, it is possible for ordinances to be reviewed. What? >> So, I would say the recommendations for the variance, but I think that's a fair critique that could go back to the applicant just that I don't think you would be the official recommendation of recognition. And while we uh while it is painful to make a recommendation that would require money having been spent to then be redone, um I think in this instance the design standards for the Northeast District, it is an attempt to um to course correct uh what has been done, which is that easiest isn't always what's best in the long run um for the environment. And so I think in this instance um it was made clear um prior to and so we need to sort of uh maintain the standards. So all those in favor say I. >> I. >> And anyone opposed. >> Okay. And so then you guys will write up a a resolution then based on >> Yeah. I I think your implied motion was based on the findings in the staff report. >> Yes, we would agree. Okay. So, now we're going to move on to the next item of business, which is the Alers's garage uh conditional use permit. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Um yeah, so item 6B is the public hearing for Alers's garage conditional use permit. Um this is a request from John Walers who uh would like uh to construct a an accessory building on his struct on his property that would exceed the allowed uh accessory structure sidewall height limit of 10 ft in the sideyard. So quick overview of the property. Um the subject property is located at 22085 Oakdale Drive. It is um 4.09 9 acres in size and zoned rural residential and guided for rural egg residential uses. The surrounding properties of the subject property are also zoned rural residential and guided for that rural and egg residential as well. Um there going through um some of the city's natural resources um inventories, there aren't um any um ecologically significant natural areas on the site. However, the 2040 natural resource inventories area inventory areas map identifies a stream along the east side of the property. Um, but the proposed structure is not located located near that stream. So, um, that's not a concern with this application. Uh, and then this property is located outside of of the new sub. So, accessory structures in the rural residential district are required to meet um a set a minimum setback distance of 50 feet from the front property line, 20 ft from the side property lines, and 15 ft from the rear property lines. Uh the proposed shop is um closest to the western property line in a setback at 20.3 feet from that property line. So, it meets that side uh setback requirement as well as all of the other setback requirements. Um, properties of this size are allowed to have a cumulative accessory structure footprint of 2,156 square ft. Um, this doesn't include the first 1,000 square feet of attached accessory structure space. So, um, the subject property currently uh contains an attached garage that's less than,000 square feet. So that's not included in that footprint calculation. Um the the applicant is proposing a 2,156 square foot structure which would be allowed for a property of this size. Uh the proposed structure would be constructed uh in the sideyard and would have sidewalls that have a height of 16 feet where a maximum height of 10 feet is allowed. Um, within the city code, property owners are allowed to exceed this limit through a conditional use permit, which is what the applicant is applying for tonight. Um, and the height of the structure itself is 22 feet and does not exceed the 35 foot height limit for the rural residential district. Uh, the proposed structure would be constructed with LP smartside and gafted timberline HDZ shingles. Um these materials are allowed uh as um materials for accessory structures. Uh and within the code uh accessory structures are required to have eaves and overhangs that are at least 12 inches in length. Um and the proposed structure has eaves and overhangs that exceed uh that 12 inches on all sides. Um there are no architectural interest requirements for accessory structures in the city code. But if the commission um finds that the size of the structure may um may not meet all of the conditional use permit criteria, uh they may impose additional architectural treatments and design enhancements um to address address the scale and size um to meet all of the criteria of the conditional use permit. Again, uh there are no landscaping requirements for accessory structures, but um similar to the architectural interest, um we've seen with previous approvals of some of the more larger accessory structures, um there have been landscaping requirements as a mitigation measure uh for from the potential visual impact on two adjacent properties. So if the planning commission believes that all the criteria for the conditional use permit um are not met, they may impose landscaping standards um to address uh the to address that and ensure that the structure is not injurious to the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity. Um the proposed plan is showing um a grading and sloping that would allow water to drain away from the proposed structure. However, the grades show a 3 to one slope, which is steeper than what's allowed um by city policy. So, a condition of approval would require these grades to be revised to a 4 to one slope uh which would allow for um lawn maintenance and and would be um a little less steep. Um and then ultimately the final grading plan will be reviewed and approved uh as part of the building permit process. So going into the conditional use permit um again the proposed structure would be constructed with sidewalls uh of 16 feet uh where 13 ohm that's a title sorry where 10 feet is allowed. Um so accessory structures may exceed this limit if they comply with the specific standards of section 1030.020 0 subdivision 5B which um going through those standards. Uh the proposed structure is uh would be in conformance with the city regulations. Um a certificate of survey um was submitted that identified all the existing structures on the site. Uh and it complies with the conditional use permit criteria outlined in 1070.020. Uh and the proposed building would be compat compatible with the surrounding land uses. staff has added a condition of approval which is standard with all of these garage uh cup applications that um it may may not be used as a living space without first receiving approval for an accessory dwelling unit and it can't be used for commercial uses without first receiving the proper approvals for the home occupation on the property. So I just wanted to add that note in there that that's part of the uh approval for this application. Um, so ultimately staff finds that the proposed sidewall height complies with the standards outlined above with the conditions outlined within the staff report. And at this point, we would recommend that you open the public hearing and take testimony. And staff recommends approval of the draft resolution approving the conditional use permit. >> Thank you, Dwight. Do we have any comment cards regarding this garage? >> We do not, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Is there anyone who is here who missed the opportunity to fill out a comment card and wants to make public testimony regarding the Alers garage cup? >> If you could just state your name and address for the record, that would be fantastic. Thank you. >> Joe Lackner. I live at 22075. So, if you put the map up, we're uh right across from the property and uh we're right here. >> Yeah. So, we've been here 10 years and uh uh we've never had to deal with this. I don't see how a building and as I say, I'm sorry, John, but every window we look out, we have to see this. And I don't see how a building of that size in that location why there's reasoning for it. If the building can be located maybe behind where it's not obvious to us out of every window, I wouldn't, you know, have concerns and I wouldn't care what the size of the building is. But I don't think anybody would want to look at a building that size that doesn't fit in anywhere with anything. So, as I say, John, I'm sorry, but we've been here 10 years and and now it's changing to something completely different. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Is there any anyone else? And I will give the applicant the opportunity to um speak as well. So, if there isn't anyone else who wants to make public comment at this point in time, um I would make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. And anyone opposed. Okay. And the applicant is here, I believe. And so, if you'd like to come up to the mic, um, >> that would be great. State your name and address for the record as well, please. >> Uh, John Wers, 22085 Oakdale Drive. >> Perfect. And you are welcome to say what you want in this spiel. We try to limit it to just a couple minutes and then if anyone from the commission has any questions will certainly ask. >> Yep. Yeah. I mean I'm open to pushing it back a little bit. I mean uh I think uh if you pull up the survey, it uh shows it pretty much even with the front corner of my attached garage right now. Um I mean I could push it back to starting maybe at the back corner of the of the garage there. as you can see that other point that's laid out there. Um, but I wouldn't want to shove it back too far because that would create either I'd have to have a second driveway. I'd have to turn the whole building around. It just wouldn't work that well. Whereas this I can just make my driveway right into it, you know. So, >> um, appreciate it. Does anyone have any specific questions for Mr. Alers? I think what I would recommend is some type of screening. It's not so obvious to the neighbors. Unfortunately, that takes a while. >> We is that possible to be a set of conditions. >> I think uh in joy staff report he did talk about because one of the parts of the conditional use permit is just that it isn't injurious to the area. So, it can be a part of it. Um I don't I think we could consider whether it fits in um the motion as a recommendation during the discussion. I don't know if that is a directed question at Mr. Alers or not, but >> are you open to >> Yeah, this uh we talked the other day and uh we talked about possibly putting some pines or something in the front yard. Um that would I guess block his view of the building. I thought he was concerned about the trailers. So, I actually talked to tried to talk to Dwight a little bit about having a a drive the driveway actually go around the west side of the building and I'd have a parking spot behind it um where I could put my trailers so that they would be out of view of everyone and I could even create a burm with some pines or arborites or something or a cedar fence or something to hide those so no one can see them um if that's if that's the issue, you know. So there will be trailers parked behind the new barn also or >> I mean if that would take it away from being in front of the property. Yes. Then it would be out of sight of everyone which I don't know if there's I don't think with talking to Dwight I don't think there's I can do a driveway around the that side there as long as I obviously don't go over the property line. But >> yeah, that's correct. We don't have a like a setback requirement for driveways. They can go up to the property line, but we want to make sure that they stay out of the drainage and utilities. >> Yep. >> Does anyone have any specific questions? Otherwise, we'll let Mr. Aler sit down and then we can begin our discussion and make a motion for >> I'm not sure if there's a restriction in the the mapping or anything. Is it more of a preference for how back how far back with the driveway setup or is it like a sight limitation? >> Yeah, I mean the further you go back the more it drops too um in elevation. Um and I guess then I'd have to either have a longer driveway from the front and it'd be further away from the house and or I'd have to put in apply for a second driveway from the private road because I'm sure we wouldn't be able to put a road off of Oakdale. But either way and that incur quite a bit of extra cost, you know. Good question. Okay. Anybody else have a specific question? If there does one that or is one that comes up, we can call you back up. But we appreciate >> um you uh if so, this would be the time to uh discuss um if you wanted to add any landscaping or screening requirements. Um, otherwise I just want to comment that again this is one that I feel like I just want to point out that the conditional use permits for the sidewall height 16 feels really standard 16 ft. And so I I'm saying this more for I uh this has been something that the commission has asked over and over again uh the ordinance be reviewed um so that it is possible for it to be updated to match um standards. So, just bringing that up again um because uh it is something we see frequently and so that sort of lets us know. >> Madam Chair, there was a recent conversation with council a couple meetings ago where there did seem to be a general desire to figure out where we could streamline some things and make things easier for some applicants since that was specifically brought up. So, I I do continue to push that. >> Well, and not for our sake. I mean, we I we this is what we're here for, but for the sake of the applicants that are requesting to build these accessory structures, um it would make the process a lot um more streamlined for you. So, that that is but the reason I also bring that up is that really is the only deviation from what would be allowed on on uh as this as this landowner. Um, and so the deviation is a 16 foot sidewall height rather than 10. Um, so when you're just looking at it as straight ordinances, everything else fits where it's supposed to. Um, so just bear that in mind. Uh, I guess that's what comes to the forefront of my mind as we have a discussion. I think it seems like the applicant has a um a desire to um obviously make this fit well um or fit better um with the neighbors. And so there seems to be um both a reason um from sort of uh neighbors feeling like it's going to change their view and then also um a willingness to support some of those screenings. Um so if we can kind of if everyone feels like that is uh a direction we would want to go then we need to just think about the language that we would want to have um in the conditional use permit. >> And I would say approval dep on having some screening from the front and I like the idea of a berm also because that kind of gives it an immediate screen where just planting a small tree probably wouldn't. So maybe we want to specifically specify that there's a b with with plantings with spruce plantings or some type of screening. Can we just Yeah. Can we just say something as general as screening? Do we have to specify a specific direction? Um >> so I would say um deciduous if the purpose of screening it may be helpful to clarify that you're looking for deciduous >> coniferous sorry um but anyways the making sure that that part maybe is more identified and then I think the rest of it you could work to identify screening plants. My only question is we're only hearing from >> one neighbor, >> one neighbor um and he also has frontage along the east side. So it may be also helpful to determine if there's any recommendation to include screening along the east boundary as well for the property. I I just feel that from a conditional use permit standpoint, that's what we're revering is the sidewall height. I mean, the decision to be neighborly that's I feel separate from the sidewall height issue. >> Well, except for 16 ft is quite a bit more than 10. So, it becomes a large building and it's in the sideyard and it's visible from the front. I mean, if we if we do change the zoning to the sidewall height, I almost wonder if we want to include something about the building being located on the back of the property or screen from view or that might start to get too difficult to enforce. I I do think a real big tall pole building with 16 foot size is is the box. >> So, and I think the applicant did also, you know, say that he would be willing to set it back a little further on the lot. It looks like there is screening on the west side that those could be deciduous trees. So, you know, even if you have a tree line there in the winter >> Yeah, I I agree on the west side. especially if we move if we're saying to move the building back does that push the need for any screen on the east side but we didn't hear from those neighbors so I don't know that would be one clarification when we say front or screen from the front technically they have another front edge on >> okay >> could we maybe include some level of discretion for the land owner on the screening other than setting strict guidance on it. Just that >> you know the intention is to can we be that loose with the language because it's not what I'm trying to create here is a scenario in which he's able to do the things that he's already willing to do but not being forced into things that are kind of outside of what might be within reason to him. Seems like he's not trying to just stick to exactly what the plan was out of the gate. Now that he's had this feedback, you know, give him a little bit of rewe I believe that we could say something as high level as that we recommend approval of the first garage c uh with the addition of um coniferous screening on the front and east. So maybe say south and east. >> South and east instead of front. Okay. Thanks for I wasn't sure which one was north and which one was. So I was trying to it doesn't have my little uh um >> south and west. I think it would be >> there's already. So the reason we're doing east is because of the uh >> so even if it if if he finds as he's building it that it makes a little bit of sense to push it back then it just becomes more visible to those um homes because uh now more of his current home is not blocking it. So I think that's why thinking of south and east and we and so if that feels like uh a high level enough then we could we don't have to be more specific than than that. So that would be that I'm not necessar I am not making a motion. I'm giving uh the language for what could work. >> But if you are prepared to make a motion, you're welcome to >> and make a motion with the language that was just >> so a motion to approve the cup to recommend approval of the cup with the addition of coniferous landscaping to the south and east of the garage. And so then I would second. And so then all those in favor say I. >> And anyone opposed. So then this becomes a recommendation uh for approval that goes to the council. So that is the next step. >> So you saying that it has to be on the east too or just if the neighbors think it's required because I've talked to both of them already. They had no issues but obviously say anything here, but uh that's what they said. >> So the recommended motion was to include some screening on the east and south. It didn't define how much. So if those neighbors are less concerned, I think you could do bare minimal planning on that side. But this also isn't the final approval goes to city council. >> Um so that that would be another it would likely be on consent, but that would likely be you could write in if you are fairly opposed to that standard. um Dwight to get that message to council. Uh but the the recommendation tonight would be to include some screening on that east boundary. >> Would you take elevation into consideration? We're on a hill looking down. If you got a 16T wall, you're going to have put pretty big tree trees up. So we will work with the applicant to develop the screening plan that we can get at this time. We don't have a screening plan in front of us to evaluate. >> Thank you. >> And even if it doesn't completely block it or screen it, just break breaking up that big facade >> is usually helpful so you're not staring at, you know, wall. Does that answer your question in terms of having an opportunity so that if you uh if it is like what she said if it feels uh like too much to include both uh positions or both directions then you can um work with Dwight to make sure that that council's aware. Perfect. Okay. So then we are moving on to the next um item which is a wiseman garage cup. And so I think we're going to start with a staff report. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. Item 6C is the Wiseman Garage CUP. This is a request from Alan Dornney Construction Minnesota who is requesting the conditional use permit on behalf of the property owner to to allow the construction of accessory building that exceeds the allowed accessory sidewall high limit of 10 ft in the front yard. Uh the subject address is 7938 Maple Hill Road. This is an 11.47 acre property that is zoned urban reserve and guided for low density residential. property is surrounded to the north, west, and south um uh with properties that are uh zoned urban reserve and then guided also for low low density residential. And then to the east is uh a property that is uh zoned public institutional and um is guided for public semi-public use. That's that would be the uh Russian Creek golf course to the east just for um extra context. Uh natural natural characteristics of the site. The 24 natural resource inventory areas identifies as medium quality wetland on the northern quarter of the property but the proposed structure is not located near uh that area. And the property is located within the Musa but is located in the third stage of the 2040 staging plan. So um sewer and water are not available to the property at this point. Um for location and setbacks, the minimum setbacks for accessory structures in the urban reserve district are 50 feet from the front property line, 20 ft from the side and 15t from the rear. Uh the closest property line um to the proposed structure would be the property line to the east which is about 80.3 ft away. So the the structure um more than more than comfortably meets all of the setback requirements. Uh properties that are over 10 acres in size are allowed to have a a cumulative accessory structure footprint of 3,969 square feet excluding the first thousand square feet of attached accessory structure space. Um but they also have the option to exceed that uh that footprint through a conditional use permit. Um the property currently contains one attached garage which has a footprint that's less than 000 square feet and a detached garage that has a footprint of 1,940 square feet. Uh, and the applicant is proposing an additional detached uh garage that has a footprint of 1,600 square f feet, which would bring the cumulative uh accessory structure footprint to 3,540 square ft, which would be allowed for a property of this size. Uh, the proposed structure would be constructed with sidewalls that have a height of 12 feet where a maximum height of 10 ft is allowed. Uh property owners have the opportunity to exceed this limit through a conditional use permit. Um and that's what the applicant is applying for tonight. Uh and the overall height of the structure is about 20 ft and does not exceed that 35 foot height limit for the uh urban reserve district. Uh the proposed structure would be constructed with uh galvanized wick steel siding and roofing. Uh the performance standards within the zoning ordinance allows for metal siding and roofing uh through a certificate of compliance provided that the materials meet the Minnesota state building code and have been treated with a factory applied color color coding system that protects against any fading or degregation. Uh the applicant has provided documentation confirming compliance with these requirements. So a uh certificate of compliance will be issued as part of uh the conditional use permit. Uh and this or this structure also contains eaves and overhangs that exceed a minimum length of 12 in. Uh the proposed plan appears to show that water would be able to drain away from the proposed structure on a grade that is uh 3 to one. Um so a condition of approval is that these grades be revised to a slope of 4 to one or less to allow for uh better lawn maintenance of that slope. Uh and the final grading plan would be reviewed and approved as part of the building permit. Um so going into the conditional use permit, accessory structures u that are constructed with the sidewall of 12 feet um or 10 ft is allowed may be uh approved through conditional use permit provided that the standards in section 1030.020 subdivision 5D are met. Um and staff has gone through those conditions. um in the stack report and I have a quick summary of them on the slide here so I won't go through all of them but staff finds that the proposed sidewall height complies with the standards outlined above with the conditions outlined in the stack report. So at this point uh staff would recommend open opening the public hearing and taking testimony and staff recommends approval of the draft resolution of the conditional use permit. >> Thank you Dwight. Um, at this point in time, we'll open up the uh public hearing for the Wiseman Garage CUP. So, if there's anybody here who wants to make public testimony regarding this agenda item, we invite you up to the podium at this time. And since no one is making a move, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. And anyone opposed? Okay. And then is the applicant here? Awesome. Would you like to take a moment to come up to the podium, state your name and address, and then >> I'm Daniel Tusenol with Allen Dorian Construction um 7840 Main Street um in Fidley uh Minnesota. Um I don't have anything to add um to this. I just came if anyone had any questions. >> Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Um when applicants are here, that's certainly helpful. Um, does anyone have any questions for staff or for the applicant? My only question for staff and it is really just because it came up twice tonight, but the grading on the plans is is 3 to one slope. City recommends 4:1 is that uh it's an engineering uh correct recommendation. And so I'm just curious uh where the difference lies like why the desire to build with a steep grade maybe from an architectural standpoint at least when the drawings are put up and it's really just because I'm curious. >> That's a good question. Um maybe the applicant can speak to to that but um I I don't know if there's a strategic advantage for um for them to have a slope that steep, but from an engineering standpoint um it does create for more difficult conditions to actually maintain the grass that's growing on that slope. So, city policy is to have slopes that are 3 to one or less. >> Okay. >> Sorry, four to one less. I >> think that's that was the only question I had for staff. Does anyone else have any additional questions? >> Could we have that applicant comment on that? >> If you would like to, do you want to comment on the grade? Uh the grade I I think it's just what the surve surveyor put on there. Oh, >> you know, so I mean it's just >> easy enough. >> Um but yeah, I mean less of a slope would would make it easier and >> and it's just what the surveyor did. So >> great. >> Okay. So at this point in time being that it is a a similar issue um or similar um uh cup we're familiar with the process and so if there isn't any discussion that needs to take place I'm happy to recommend um make a motion to recommend approval of the Wiseman garage cup >> second >> and all those in favor say I >> I and then anyone opposed. Okay. So, that will be a recommendation that goes up to council then. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. And we move on to the fourth um new business item, which is the Lindberg Accessory Dwelling Unit, CUP. And Dwight, you're up again. >> Back up again. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Item 60 is the public hearing for Lindberg uh accessory dwelling unit CUP. So, this is a request from Heidi Lindberg uh for an approval of a conditional use permit to allow the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or ADU that would exceed 960 square feet. The subject property is located at 8301 Straler Road. This is a 39.6 acre property that is zoned rural residential and guided for rural egg residential and is surrounded by properties that are also uh zoned and guided for those same uses. Uh the 2040 natural resource inventory areas identifies a medium quality wetland on the southwestern corner of the property. Um a wetland delineation was conducted in 2020 um for the construction of the house and was um reertified as part of this application and confirmed that the proposed location of the ADU would not conflict with that uh with those wetland areas. Uh and this property would be located outside of the Musa and would be uh serviced by a septic and well system. So setbacks for ADUs in the rural residential district are required to comply with the principal structure setbacks in that district. So that's 50 ft from the front and 25 25 ft from the side and rear property lines. Uh the proposed structure um is located in the middle of the property and and um comfortably meets those setback requirements. Um, property properties that are over 10 acres in size are allowed to have cumulative accessory structure footprint of 3969 square feet excluding the first thousand square feet of attached accessory structure space. Uh, the property currently currently contains one attached garage which has a footprint less than 1,000 square feet. Uh the maximum floor area of ADUs however in the rural residential district are 900 960 square feet but property owners have the opportunity to increase this limit to 1,200 square feet through the cup process. Uh the applicant um is requesting approval of a 1200 square foot uh ADU through the CUP process. Uh, and I just want to make a note uh, in the staff report that you guys received, the plans included, uh, an ADU that had a footprint of, uh, our floor area of, um, 1,233 square feet or,23. Um, and the applicant has since submitted revised plans to show that floor area at 1,200 square feet flat. So, um, that is allowed on on this property. And I apologize, the I believe this screenshot is from the last slideshow. So that's not um that's not accurate. So I apologize for that. Um the proposed structure would be constructed with sidewalls that have a height of 9.25 ft which is allowed in the front yard of uh of this property and ADUs are required to have a height that is shorter than the principal structure. So, in reviewing uh building permit uh records for the principal structure of the property, the height of uh the principal structure is measured at 21 and a half ft and the height of the proposed ADU is measured at uh 18.3 ft. So, the height of the ADU does not exceed the height of the existing home uh and meets that requirement. Uh there are architectural standards for ADUs. They are required to incorporate similar style uh color and material as the principal structure. And again going through the building permit records for that principal structure. It was constructed with hardy panel uh smooth siding with um batten strips uh 4 in exposure lap siding hardy panel smooth and asphalt shingles. Uh proposed ADU would be constructed also with that hardy board siding and asphalt shingles. Um staff has reviewed those materials as well as the overall design of uh the structure and find that the proposed materials and design are consistent with the materials of the existing structure and uh this ADU would also contain uh eaves and overhangs that exceed the minimum length of 12 in. Um the grading on this proposed plan uh appears to show uh that water would drain away from the proposed structure uh and would ultimately need to be be reviewed as part of the building permit application. Um so there are specific uh cup criteria for accessory dwelling units to have a floor area of over 960 square feet. Um, and I can go through them um, kind of briefly here, but they are detailed more in the staff report, but the applicant is proposing just one ADU, which is uh, the maximum amount of ADUs on the property. So, that's allowed. Uh, the detached ADU meets all the principal structure setback requirements of the district and is is clearly incidental to the principal structure. Uh, the applicant has submitted revised plans that contain a floor area of,200 square feet, which is the maximum allowed. uh floor area for ADUs and the exterior design of the ADU incorporates similar styles as the principal structure. Um the owner has uh stated that she intends to live in the ADU uh while her family lives in the principal structure uh and that there would not be separate ownership of uh the principal structure and the ADU. Uh the ADU does does provide two off- streetet parking stalls that would not conflict with parking of uh the principal structure which is another one of those requirements for this uh this request. And um as a condition of approval, the ADU would be required to have the same street address as the principal structure with signage clearly identifying it as apartment 2 or unit 2 and then um the principal structure would have to have uh signage clearly identifying it as unit one. And then height of the proposed AU does not exceed the height of the principal structure. Um and then of course they have to conditional use permits have to um meet the conditional use permit criteria of section 107.020. Uh and staff finds that this proposed ADU complies with that criteria. So at this point staff recommends that you open a public hearing and take testimony and then uh staff also recommends approval of the draft resolution approving the conditional use. >> Thank you again. Great. Um so at this point in time we will do just that. We will open the public hearing. Um, no comment. Do you have a comment? >> Okay. So, uh, if there's anyone who is here to make public testimony or public comment regarding the Lindberg ADU CUP, now would be the time to approach the podium. And since no one is joining us in that way and we only take um in-person comments uh then we will make a motion to or I will make a motion to close the public uh hearing. >> All right. Uh that was a second by Kazaki. So all those in favor say I. >> I. >> And anyone opposed? >> Okay. Like to give the applicant the opportunity to come up. If you would like, there's no requirement, so you don't have to, but if you would like to address the commission, you're welcome to join us at the podium. >> Perfect. >> Okay. So then if anyone has any specific questions uh we would call the applicant up but otherwise we can just move into uh if someone is prepared to make a recommendation I encourage you to just jump right to that point but if there's some discussion or questions that you would like to ask um who would like to begin >> I don't see anything wrong with it a beautiful >> I'll sorry one question I have >> you have to um it can't be sold separately. It has to have the same address, just a different apartment number, but it could be rented out. Correct. You can be rent >> as long as you obtain a rental license. Um then yes, >> I'll make a motion to approve the draft resolution. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. and anyone opposed. So then that recommendation for approval will go to council and they ultimately will make the final decision. Thank you. Thank you for joining us this evening. Thank you for being here. Um and then that takes us to the last item on um of new business tonight which is the Karanini Orchard Preliminary Plat. And is that you again Dwight? >> That is correct. >> Correct. All right. You're going to start us off with a staff report. >> Waiting for the presentation to open. No problem. We'll all reset. We'll give these folks a minute. Thanks. Have a good night. >> Just by way of clarification for those who might be curious, it is only in the rural residential where you can have an ADU in the front yard. Is that correct? >> Correct. And um >> just because it is a unique feature, right? It almost looks like you're adding a development rate, but you're not. >> Um >> which would be a way to kind of >> I want to you know, I think maybe in the urban reserve you could have it beard. >> I believe it in the urban reserve it can be in the front yard, but the urban reserve doesn't grant property owners the opportunity to go up to,200. That's the one that maintains it >> tonight. >> And then I guess just since we're Well, it's it is just a question only for me. Does the garage suffice as those additional parking spots on an ADU? Because not all ADUs have garages, but if an ADU has a garage space, that would uh they don't have to have separate parking outside. Correct. >> They just drive or Yeah, there's a couple different ways to meet that requirement. >> Awesome. Sorry, I should have asked those earlier. All right, we're ready. >> All right. Yes. The last item under new business tonight is item 6E, Karanini Orchards, which is a preliminary plat. Um, this is a request from Alipa LLC, uh, which is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to allow the development of Kini Orchards. The subject property is located on the farmland uh surrounding 20400 county road 30. This property is zoned rural residential and guided rural/tag residential. Uh the proposed development would consist of seven residential lots and one outlot on 61.03 acres. Um and the property is located outside of the 2040 Metropolitan Urban Service Area. So it would be sered by and well systems. Uh but just for um extra context that 2040 Musa boundary actually runs along the um eastern boundary of the site. So right along the east here is is um the Musa boundary. So the subject property uh currently contains seven development rights and the applicant is proposing use of all those rights through uh for the creation of seven single family lots. Um the that is also including uh the creation of a single out lot um located to the north is facing to the right. So this would be the south eastern corner of the property. Um this outbot would not be buildable due to its size uh the existence of that storm water basin and accommodation uh for the street to align with dumping drive to the south. So lots in the real residential are required to meet the minimum uh the minimum lot area requirements of two acres, minimum lot width requirement of 200 feet and minimum lot depth of 300 ft. All the uh proposed dimensions in this plat meet those minimum dimensional requirements. Uh and in the chart to the right uh shows the minimum setback requirements. I apologize if the text is pretty small. That's a lot of information to fit into a single uh table there, but um I tried to highlight things in in green if they met the setback requirements and highlight them in red if they didn't. Um and uh the proposed building pads and all of the lots appear to meet all the minimum setback requirements of the uh rural residential district. Um, this proposed development would construct a paved north south public street um that would um grant access to all of the seven new lots and would ultimately align with Duffy Drive at the new inter at the intersection of County Road 30. Um, since this new street is connected to a county road, access is subject to all the applicable county requirements, um, which may include the installation of turn lanes. Um and in their um in their memo, the county had um provided a recommendation that turn lanes be installed, but it was unclear whether that was a recommendation or requirement. So that's something that will need to be clarified before the um final flat and that's something that the applicant would have to have to uh comply with as part of this development. The plat's also identifying a future east west roadway between block one and block two where my laser pointer is. Um and this would serve that parcel to the west as it redevelops in the future. Um, as part of a condition of approval, um, staff recommends that a roadway stub be installed at this location so that is clear that a future roadway is going to be, um, coming off that off of that location. In 2024, a wetland delineation was conducted that identified five wetlands uh, on the property. Um, and since that delineation, the property has gone through um, one division. And so since uh, Since that division, three of those uh wetlands are um still located within this uh you know subject subject property that we're reviewing today. Um and wetlands are regulated by the wetland overlay district which includes buffers, monuments, and a 15 foot structural setback. All the wetlands are classified as medium quality and a condition of approval will require the applicant surveyor to certify the buffer widths and uh comply with the buffer width requirements of medium quality uh wetlands. Uh and as part of the wetland buffering uh requirements that the buffers are required to have monument signs posted at each uh each time a lot line crosses a wetland buffer at any time there's a contour of the buffer or any interval of the buffer that exceeds 200 feet. Uh staff has reviewed the u proposed signage and found that it mostly complies but there is a missing wetland buffer sign between lots four and five. So a condition of approval would be that that be updated so that that missing sign is is addressed. Um and then u as a condition of approval a wetland buffer establishment plan would also be required. Um going into the landscaping requirements um for a subdivision one overstory tree is required per dwelling uh and no more than 33% of the required number of trees can be of the same species. The applicant has provided a landscaping plan which is shown uh on the screen here. Uh but it did not specify the species. So a condition of approval would require the plan to be revised to identify the specific tree species for each lot. Uh and then as part of the final plat safety will review the need the potential need for an overhead light at the entrance of of uh of the development. Um each lot contains a perimeter DNU easement which is consistent with city policy. However, uh there is um a need for a revision on lot six block two uh so that there is a DNU that fully encompasses the 100year flood elevation on that property. Um going back to out lot A, there is a storm water basin uh located on that property. However, it's unclear who would be in charge of maintenance of that storm water pond. So, as a condition of approval, the outlaw would either uh need to be maintained by a homeowners association or uh subject to a deed restriction assigning maintenance responsibilities to one or more of the laws within the development. So, staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure responsibilities are established very clearly before the final plan is approved. Um, and at this point, staff would recommend that you open the public hearing and take testimony. Uh, staff recommends approval approval of the draft resolution with conditions uh, of approval as outlined in the stat board. >> Thank you, Dwight. Uh, at this point in time, we'll open up the public hearing. Uh, is there anyone here to make? >> Madam Chair, we did receive a card for this item from Gary Ort. So, we >> Thank you. We invite you up to the podium. State your name and address for the record, please. Hi, my name is Gary Wart. I own both 2060 County Road 30 and 20550 County Road 30 which adjoin to the property in question. My big issue is with the drainage plan. There's 33 notes from the engineering firm with issues with the drainage. All of that would run down onto my properties and hurt my ability to use my properties because of the excess water from the lack of drainage because of the buildings and the road surface that are impermanmeable. I just want to make sure that all of those are fixed and okay. The other thing I have an issue with is there is a trail permitted or on the plan that would run and on the 2030 comprehensive plan that would have to run through my property based on following that plan. So by approving this plot, is the city going to imminent domain part of my properties? Is is that what like the plan is going to be then or what's going to deal with that trail? Otherwise, it dead ends on both ends of uh the developer's property. I'm all for having seven homes. that look like the rest of the plan is fine. I just want to make sure that like my property isn't harmed by building these and I think that it would be with the way the plot currently exists. >> Is your property to the east or is it >> to the west? So, if you go back to the map, I can point out both of my properties >> out there. >> So, I have the two properties that are L's inverted to each other. They were originally part of the Krueger edition and split at some point in the 70s and I've owned the left parcel since 2017. And I purchased the right parcel for my parents to live in in January. And right now the way the drainage plan would work is May I approach the map? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> So all of his drains and the ponds have to run uphill currently in the way his plans are. So it doesn't make sense. It would run down this ditch and into this culbert crossing my driveway and flood my driveway at the point where the Y is and also flood this swale that runs to the uh north fork of Rush Creek that runs along my property edge. Right now in spring those floods are unusable, but for the rest of the year they're usable. with the extra impermanmeable membrane. I'm not sure that it would dry and there's no environmental assessment or anything of that with this development plan to make sure that my property doesn't flood and that I don't have a risk to either of my homes or my shop and I'd like that fixed before this gets approved. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um do we have anybody else? I will give you the opportunity to address the >> is the applicant. >> Yep. >> I I am familiar. >> Okay. >> Um thank you for coming. So at this point in time, uh then we will I will make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor say I. I. And anyone opposed? >> Okay. And then we would like to invite Mr. Kini up to the podium. if you would like to address um either the questions or just the commission. You don't have to, but you're welcome to. If otherwise, if we have any questions, we can certainly call you up. >> You address the question about eminent domain real quick. That's a real easy one. We will not be pursuing eminent domain or the city. At this point, we're trying to really we're planning more for there to be a connection to the east to the regional trail system if your properties were ever to redevelop in whatever. >> Absolutely. So whenever those were to be redeveloped that would be likely when a trail would go through. I am confident that um the culture in Corkran is to avoid eminent domain at all costs and it certainly wouldn't be a trail that would trigger that decision. So >> Mr. Kane, did you want to come in address? Perfect. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you commissioners, staff, and u and for for other comments. Um I'm Nate Karen, 20795 Larkin Road, Corkran. And um there's a I think one just to address the qu the concern that was already raised. Um it it doesn't show on this map here, but there was a the parks and trail commission did recommend um a a trail or a trail plan that might look a little bit different than than possibly what I I don't know what you were envisioning, but >> well what's on the impact is what I saw. >> Yep. Yep. >> Went around the wetland and then it connected to the north, but there wasn't a good connection to the north. >> There's no connection to the north. There's no connection to the southwest, but on the 2030 city plan, they have a proposed trail that runs along the wetland edge and then follows the creek through my property out on page 95 >> and that is a like that is supposed to cast a vision >> that line marker is what our public works director will call it. Um so essentially the hope two properties over to the east. Uh we've started a trail system and a regional trail system for Diamond Lake. Um the property in the middle has we have not seen a development proposal on. So we're trying to set up the trail here to connect to the eventual trail system for when that middle property between hold and this property comes in. Um, so correct, there wouldn't be a connection tomorrow, but there would be a connection in the foreseeable future to the trails. >> And that would be the D system of trail. >> Yes. Yes. And this the city has a local trail, but ultimately that's the connection we're trying to get to. >> The the I guess the the the comment or um possibly also the the question I have for the the planning and zoning commission is that the the parks and trail had had um kind of heard out our alternate plan to have the ultimate trail be all the way across on the other side of the wetland um just to you know for actually for a lot of different factors. one as in you're not, you know, you're not plowing through sensitive wetlands, which can be just, you know, very difficult for obvious reasons. But, um, I think the other possibility is that the the property to the east seems much more likely to develop and ultimately offer a trail connection at some point in the future. the properties to the west. I I know uh Carl, your your neighbor immediately next to you and it sounds like from what I just heard now probably not looking to do any type of you know development or or have any sort of trail and um and sounds like eminent domain is not a policy that's that's you know been considered either. So, um I I think it's highly likely that that trail connection comes from um comes from the the east. And one thing I was going to ask is that would the would the commission have any preference or or would they be open to making that trail the new trail as approved by the parks commission making that an easement rather than making actual trail improvements that don't at this point they don't connect on either end. So, I'm sure there's pros and cons to that, but from my viewpoint, if if it's unclear where that trail connection might come in, I mean, it could come in on the southern portion of that property along the county road. We see, you know, there are trails like along County Road 19. It runs right along the county road. Um, I I doubt the the trail ever comes up from the north because there's a there's an established neighborhood up there, but I could see at any point along that, you know, that I don't know 8 8 900t border, someday a trail connection could come in. And I I think and I don't I'm not an expert on these matters, but I think in that case if the easement were there, the city could use the property that they want to use and then and then vacate, you know, the the remaining easement that that's no longer needed. But um so I guess that that's something I'm asking about is is that and I don't know if this if this is the right place to bring it up or if there's another way to to have that considered, but I and I really like the trail plan. And I think the trail plan there was a lot of uh thought put into it to make it a much you know so the the overall concept is just that it's a concept but this was an actual plan that considered a lot of different variables but would they make that a trail easement rather than making a trail with improvements on it? So that's a question that that I had. >> Did you not commission? I did not believe so because that defation yes and I believe their recommendation was to build the trail now as the staff's recommendation. So um we can work with the applicant or this will likely not be on consent for city council. So that would be the next venue for that to be fully flushed out. >> Yeah. So that falls under the yeah discretion of the parks and trail. So, not our purview, but um you would have an opportunity to address council before they uh officially um vote on the flat. So, you'd be able to raise the concern or the question about uh making it an easement versus developing the trail. >> And so, staff would let you know when that item is coming up on the council. And so, just uh prior to that, that's when you would have the opportunity to um bring that up before council. Is is that something that I should that I should bring up, you know, prior to the council meeting? Is or or is that is that something that is handled in the meeting itself? >> No decision would would be made outside of the council meeting. So, um I mean you could certainly reach out to the council members. Their emails are all public information. Um and maybe that helps them have that context going into that discussion. Um, but like Natalie said, um, this item is probably not going to be on consent. So, um, there will be council discussion to some degree and that would probably be the best opportunity for you to bring this concern or this idea up. So, and then we can discuss that further at that point in time. >> Okay. Okay. Uh, thank you. Yeah, that uh as to the as to the water question that I mean I I just know those are water is always a question and I I mean I know there's a there's got to be a professional engineer that's signing off on all this. it's it's way above my pay grade, but but um but auto associates um certainly that's that's within his uh qualifications and um so if there's yeah I didn't know if there's anything else I could address on that but um I don't think discharging water runoff in the in the wrong direction is uh certainly not part of my plan. So >> thank you. Yeah, appreciate it. And can I can I just add one absolutely point of clarification for the um for the comment that was made. Um there there are 33 conditions in the um grading and storm water se section of the engineer report that would have to be abided by before um the fin before the preliminary plan is fully approved. So um that would be something that would have to take a pretty decent amount of work um to address. And I believe a lot of the concerns that um that you are raising are handled through those 33 conditions, but um I can certainly get you in uh in contact with the engineers who would be reviewing that a bit more thoroughly if if you'd like. >> So what he's saying is those condition those are conditions of approval. So even if the recommendation is for approval, those conditions are all attached to it. So, uh, just wanting to verify that your concerns are, um, shared, I believe, by engineering right now and would be addressed. Um, >> so that where the filter farm is uphill, the outlaw farm will be fixed because right now it has the preliminary plat has it flowing uphill from the outlaw to the filter basin. And then the other uh, one on I think it's loted to the filter. at all. >> I I think >> there's massive engineer that plan. >> Yeah. I I I think the best advice we can give you is to speak with these headlines and get you in contact with him. >> I can get you this card after this. >> Yes. >> Um what we are mostly looking at is compliance with uh ordinances and design standards. So that's primarily where we are. And the beautiful thing is is that a lot of eyes look at this before I mean like lots of of people and people who are experts in their areas uh we just know ordinances and and the design standards. So the only and this is not because this application as it comes in meets all of the uh standards and um so therefore I think it's pretty clear that it it needs to be recommended for approval. There isn't a variance. there isn't any sort of um deviation. The only um pause that I had and I think that I don't know that there's a way to address this, but because it does run right along that Musa line. Um it my con my concern my my concern is that there will be just two lots over a multi- uh family housing unit and then these larger lots and I and I don't know and this is not an app. This is not an application. It just feels like um it feels disjointed a little bit in terms of planning. And since our our purview is planning, I don't know that there's a way that we could uh that we could impact that in any way. But it feels to to go from jarring to go from a multi- um unit housing development to a 40 acre plot um within a close proximity. And I guess my concern would be um is the potential that's that's a 2040 mucus line. There's lots of murmurings that it's not going to change. There's murmurss that it's it might change. And so I guess my concern is ultimately for the uh future residents living in these spots just being um aware of their unique location within the city. And because the the land that is zoned for that multi- um some of it commercial and then the uh high density uh multif family housing just that they and I know that that lands on an individual's responsibility to be aware of where they're purchasing but that's just ultimately my concern. I don't know that planning has the ability in any way to make that feel less disjointed. How about when that land in the Musa is developed if there's some kind of screen on the western borders screen that high density development from this lower density? Yes, >> we do have there will be additional screening requirements put in when you have one type of land use abuing another. Um so there are unique screening requirements or sort of buffer. I think we called it the buffer. I remember the buffer yard requirement. So, but you're right. So, it's going to be really dense along this corridor county on both sides. Um, it's going to be going to be a combination of commercial. Uh, we have a business park district. Um, on the northeast corner, 11530 and then we get to Hope, which has the the medical office space that they're trying to target, the uh multif family buildings, town homes, and villas. And then to directly east of this proposal is a mixed residential. So likely be a combination of apartments and town homes, things like that. Um so it will be done. Um and that that to commissioner's explain there would be that buffer yard requirement along the west boundary based on our current ordinances to provide some separation for these lots. And then I would say uh as far as rural density goes, a lot of these lots are closer to that two acres. Not all of them, but just that one. >> Yeah. Um so they are more on the denser side for as far as rural residential goes before it starts getting to um some larger lots from there. So it does provide a transition. It is sharp because what you're that line is basically suburban density versus rural density which is suburban is overall average of units an acre versus one acre for one dwelling for every 10 acres. >> And I don't want to lead us down a rabbit hole, but I just think I find it interesting that it the boundary for that distinct um edge is not a roadway. >> Roadways are can be great separators, but yeah, at this time it is not that is that is not something that was identified. The roadways are more of a east west connection rather than having a north south separator. Um, okay. And then my last question and this is a um because it's in the hands of the counties for the turn lanes. Um, do they they are so this has approximately similar density to what is developed across Duffne but because it's going to line up are they looking at not just number of homes but also like current traffic on that road? is that like I know that that's the county and like I don't mean for you to speak to their job but um but I would assume so when Duffne was developed there was not the requirement of turn lanes um but it isn't solely just density that they're looking at they would look at like number of cars also traveling on 38 >> hopefully >> I I would imagine so the county is not really um transparent on that goes into their recommendations and requirements and and maybe maybe they're transparent, but I think some of their decision making processes are in the middle of changing. So, it's a little hard for staff to kind of guess where things are going to land right now. Um, but I believe that that was as far as when proposals come in, they do usually talk about traffic volume and they um also consider the density too of the proposal at least they did previously. Okay, >> those were my questions or just comments regarding it, but otherwise uh I see that it matches the the um development standards for the lot. >> I'm happy to add a comment if appropriate um on that. So on the um the previous plan that was there in 2023 was uh was under the OSMP standard. >> Yeah. with the fix. >> Yep, correct. And um this was the feedback I received. Now, this was over a year ago with the county, but I don't, you know, I don't know how quickly counties change. Um their feedback was that um in in this type of situation, if it's under 10 residential lots, they don't because there's minimal volume turning in there, um that they would not require turn lanes. And then anything over, you know, and that's so if there's a hundred cars turning in there or over 10 cars turning in there, then they generally would require turn lanes. So that was just um that at least that was the feedback that I had received at that time. >> That was the pre that's what I'm saying. That was the previous policy and now they may be having different decision processes. Okay. >> So I don't know that that's what is holding true at this time. That's one of the points of clarification that staff working with the county. >> Perfect. And if that changes, is there an easement on the property that lot one that would allow room for a turn lane if the county requires it? >> So the half right of way >> there's there's enough >> as part of the um as part of the proposed subdivision, the applicant is dedicating rightway along County Road 30. Um my understanding is that that would be sufficient for a turn lane to be installed there. Okay. Do you guys have any other comments, questions, clarifications? >> The only other question I had was about the parks and trails, but maybe >> please feel free to ask questions. It's just more making a recommendation on the trail aspect >> because in here it had stated that it was going to go along part of the wetland and then it was going to cut through It said it would follow a portion of the wetland complex before turning east along the shared property line between lots four and five block two crossing the proposed public street and continuing north along the eastern boundary of lot six before stubbing toward the adjacent farmland to the east. Is that that is accurate still? Yeah, I'm doing a rough sketch, if you can switch over to my screen, of what the developers rough sketch of the um alignment was. Um and so yeah, it would follow a small portion of the wetland before cutting up. I'll switch to my laser pointer. Um so small part of the wetland before cutting along uh the shared property line of lots four and five and then crossing the street before continuing north along the east property line uh and then ultimately connecting um to the east uh to that property when it develops in the future. >> So that would be on Karanim's property there on the propert. >> Correct. >> Where does it go to the west? It just kind of stops there. >> For now I would stop there continuation of that would depend on future development. >> Quick question. Sorry. Is there a I don't know what the plan was before for that and again sorry for rabbit hole if this is the case but was there ever a plan for that yellow line just to run the creek and then take that bend along like to the edge of that tree line like east down there and then just connect that county road 30 go straight along that edge of the >> the original alignment is kind of shown in this red um this red markup that that was shown in the in the comprehensive plan and was ultimately going to um run along the wetland to a city- owned uh parcel on the west side of that wetland complex. Um >> and uh would connect to the north through the uh through the devel neighborhood on Hillside Drive. Um but staff uh staff forwarded a recommendation to the parks and trails commission that it would be more logical to have the trail um cut along to the east to connect to the farmland to the east rather than cut through an existing neighborhood. basically three alignments. So there's the compine alignment. Uh the staff adjusted alignment, had it going east instead of having it going north, but still had it following that creek for the most part because where we can we want to follow a natural resource corridor. >> Um and then the developer and parks and trails recommendation there's some disagreement on that and will shake it up. Yeah, >> I don't know if this is not part of the plan, but is there that possibility if there were to be a decision to run it in between the to the counter 30 like straight south along the edge of the property line or is that not >> so the that would fail the intent of getting it to where we're trying to get it to go to the west? >> Gotcha. Okay. >> And that's fine. The city can wait 100 years to get it, but whenever the development comes in, that's when we would get that further. But right now, we're more focused on trying to get it to the east for access to that trail system. >> Hopefully that dynamic regional trail won't take too far off. A nice trail to have. >> Well, I guess um I I guess I would like to recommend that we approve the preliminary plot with the commission outlined in the report. You making a motion? I'm making a motion. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> And anyone opposed? >> Okay. So then that uh recommendation uh for approval will go up to council and if you would like to check with staff or they will let you know when it's supposed to be on council's um agenda. So you would have an opportunity to attend the meeting. But then also prior to that, if you want to raise the issue of easement versus actual trail, that would be the time to do it. Thank you. I really appreciate you coming in. Um and uh joining us tonight and um sharing your concerns um and staff after the meeting will make sure that they give you the telephone number of the individual so that you can have um assurances of the uh grading and water issue. The next thing that we have is uh the opportunity for any questions regarding the planning project update. Um commissioner or council member Varon Camp is not able to join us tonight, but it's always available on um if you reach out to him via phone. So um if anyone has any particular questions for him, that would be a way to get a hold of him, always available. or if anyone has any questions for staff. >> Um maybe Dwight, you can help me out with my I have an issue getting the agenda but I don't have my email set up or something. I don't know. >> And also know that Dwight is available. And then just a reminder too that Deb um Johnson, the city clerk, is always available if you want to reach out to her. >> Is she the one? Oh yes. >> And she is um very helpful. >> I Something changed because I was getting it, but I think you guys were sending an email with the agenda to to our regular emails. >> Oh, okay. Good to see you. >> Yeah. So, now you're probably not doing that anymore. Make sure to >> No problem. Um, we just in talking about the commission limit. So, um the commission liaison calendar is in there. But the one thing I want to talk about before we get to there is uh Commissioner Lind was the um co-chair or uh for the planning commission. And so being that she's no longer on the planning commission, just in the back of your mind be thinking um not this meeting, we will wait until everyone is here. Um but we will at some point in time um want to make a decision about a um co-chair um for or a vice chair I guess they would call it for the um planning commission and it does sound like we will have a main meeting um and will the main meeting be where we plan to do a little bit of training or it depends on how full >> Yeah, I I prefer to wait for a meeting where everyone's going to be there. So if there's a chance that we won't have everyone then we might postpone it. That might be a really quick meeting. Okay. Um otherwise the um the commission liaison calendar did to Dwight fill you in on just sort of what it is. So it used to be a requirement that someone from the commission came. Now it's just a recommendation and we just uh or um we still put commissioners names on there just so that we're cycling through, but you're welcome to attend as many as you want. So wherever you see the blanks, you can just insert your name. Um it's just a rotation >> to attend the city council. >> Yep. To attend the city council meeting and just be able to uh hear um and uh what's taking place in sort of Yep. Okay. Anything else that I am missing or forgetting? Um will we just take July? I'm sorry. My I'm planning the whole summer. So I'm just like do we want to look at July and say are we are do we have any sort of holiday rearranging in July for a meeting? >> So uh the Thursday meeting would be July I'm sorry the July meeting would be Thursday July 2nd. So um it really depends on whether or not we have a quorum. So we have three um or if we think we would have better luck rescheduling it to Tuesday July 7th that would be the alternative. Um I think staff neither one of us have a vacation planned. I think the third we have off um so we would be here for the second. So >> okay on Saturday >> we don't need to make a decision now but if you maybe just come prepared in May it would help um because then obviously it's yeah it's more beneficial to let applicants and the rest of everybody know ahead of time. So just look at your schedule and have that on your radar. Um and we can talk about that in May. Um otherwise that is all we have for tonight and so I will make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. >> All right. And we are adjourned.