Okay. All right. We're going to call to order the February 5th, 2026 Corkran Planning Commission agenda. We'll begin with roll call. Commissioner Lind >> here, >> Commissioner um Harris >> here, >> and Commissioner Brummond are here. And we will note um that two commissioners are not able to join us tonight. And at this time, I would like to invite you to stand and say the pledge of allegiance [clears throat] with me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. And then uh the first thing or next thing on the agenda is approval of tonight's agenda. And that is only if staff and commissioners don't have any changes. >> Perfect. Then if my fellow commissioners don't have any changes that I will make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor say I. I. >> Anyone opposed? Okay. And then we're going to um make space for the open forum. And this is a part of the agenda um where we allow the public to address the planning commission on any item that is or any issue that's not on tonight's agenda. So if there's something that you've just wanted to bring to our attention and haven't had the opportunity, now is the time to do that. Is there anyone here who we only take uh comments in person. We don't do them online anymore. So that's why I'm asking. Is there anyone here who wants to make uh speak during open forum? Okay. If not, we will move on to the minutes. And this is um these are the minutes from February or excuse me, January 6th, 2026. That's my only comment is it still says January 6, 2025. The date is incorrect. But that was my only comment. Otherwise, everything else unless >> No other comments. >> Okay. And so then does anyone make a motion to approve the minutes? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> We can second it. >> All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. And anyone opposed? Okay. And that brings us to um the first item on tonight's agenda, which is the site plan for St. Terresa Corkrand phase 2. And we're going to begin this with a staff report. >> Thank you, Madam Commissioner. Again, Madam Chair, commissioners, excuse me. This is the St. Teres just south of us here. The original phase one was approved in 2021 and is currently operating today. This site plan uh was shown in the original development as a future phase. Uh but no approvals were specifically granted. The existing site um had a variance for the number of trees and shrubs on site, but that was specific to phase one. So, we'll talk about that. The applicant is requesting approval for site plan of the existing facility in the downtown mixeduse district. It's a very similar building to what you see today for the independent living. Um and then between the independent living that exists today and this building is a twostory uh common space with a green roof and um shared space. The underground parking will connect under that shared space from the existing building under the shared space into this new apartment complex. Um that looks better on my screen than up there, but this is the master plan for the site. Um so again, city center is right up here. Uh this is city center drive. Oops. City Center Drive wrapping around here to the existing building and uh this is 116 over here on the other side of the Deline Park. So this is the new phase two that we're talking about this evening. Uh the existing driveway that leads back to the chapel is here. So that won't change. This is just going in that green space between the existing building here and that driveway. This image is provides a little more clarity. Uh the existing building wing here, the existing driveway here. Here's the new uh living space, and the new common area here. So, there will be an access to 79th Street on the south. Um shared access throughout the building and a garage door leading to the garage um in this area on the north side of the building. This [clears throat] image shows a little better some of the green space um over the uh common area. So, there's outside recreation space on that green road that would be available to the residents. The site will require new landscaping based on the 31 new residential units and the common area. It requires a total of 56 trees and 83 shrubs. And the plan does comply with the number of shrubs, but not trees. There's an additional 25 trees required that simply cannot fit on this site. It's an urban area and so the landscaping is What the code allows is landscaping to be placed elsewhere uh on city property or for the applicant to pay a cash fee based on the cost of installation of materials. [clears throat] So I want to come back to that a little later. But those are the two options to address the landscaping and that's by right. That's not a variance. That's not a C. That's just by right. Um park dedication is due for the new development. 25,240 in park dedication. And when we initially met with the applicants about this initial or this addition, one of the things they asked about is when is the city going to improve this portion of linear park? Our residents like to walk and it would be really nice to have a loop there. Um they've also indicated a desire to use a portion of this lineal park for construction phasing. They did that with phase one and they would like to do that again. Uh for the second phase, in order to use that space, they would enter into a contract with the city and we would charge a rental fee for that. We need to define how much of that space they're going to use to determine that fee. Um but that would be something that the council would approve as part of the development contract. When the applicant talked about this lineal trail, we did meet with the parks and trails commissioner. talked about, you know, what are your park improvement priorities um for different parks beyond the ones we're already working on? And they did suggest that they would be open to um having the developer make improvements to that park, meaning grade the park, build the 8oot trail, uh provide landscaping, uh and use uh put together a plan for city approval. And then use those fees that would otherwise come to fit in our park budget. Uh use that equivalent cost uh to construct those improvements. So [clears throat] that could include also the um rental fees could be incorporated into that to get the most um improvement in that lineal park. That's really a policy issue for the council, but I think planning commission may want to weigh in on that idea. Additionally, those 25 trees that we talked about that can't fit on this site could very very easily be part of a park improvement in that portion. The site plan complies with all code requirements um with a couple of things related to landscaping discussed and is consistent with the original concept plan. Um the landscaping that needs to be either off site or uh a fee paid is an issue. The um rental of the city power plant in the construction staging area is an issue that needs to be addressed. And um I think that's something the commission may want to talk about is the use of those three items uh on the site. But in terms of the they're sort of separate. I want to be clear those are separate from the site plan approval. Those are policy issues for the council. But because it's such an important part of the project and this downtown mixed use area. I think it's important for the planning commission to weigh in as well. So with that, we recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the site plan with the findings and conditions in the draft resolution. I'm happy to answer any questions. Um it's not a public hearing, but the applicant is here tonight as well. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, so do you guys feel like you have questions that you'd like to run by the developer? You would like to hear something or would you want to just move into recommendation discussion? >> I think it'd be great to hear something about >> Do you have specific questions? >> No. No. >> Okay. Do Do you feel like you have a summary that you would like to uh add as the applicant that is different than what has already been presented in the staff report. >> You don't have to. >> Yeah. Seriously, if it gives >> us an opportunity if you wanted to. >> Okay. If there's any specific questions, we will be sure to ask. Thank you for being here. Um, does someone want to begin with comments or questions? >> Yeah, I did have a I I'll kick off the first question. How about that? Um, Kendra, a question for you around the 8 foot off-road trail. Um, would it be your understanding that I know it's early, it sounds like it's early concept, so not sure, but would the idea be that it would connect to other future park systems so that it's more geared towards public use rather than just exclusively for St. Trees residents? >> That is a great question. Thank you, Commissioner. I should have been uh clear and I realized maybe I my packet could have had a better image in it. Yes, the lineal park will extend from where we are today at city hall at city center drive uh south of 10 to uh Larkin Road >> and that's part of a about a 180 foot wide lineal park space that was developed as part of the southeast district plan initially back in [clears throat] 2004 and we did some updates in uh 2015 and 2019. The idea of that plan is to make more of a walkable downtown. So, it's not a sidewalk, but it's more than the on-road trail planned on 116. So, this would be a city lineal park that would have a trail that winds from city center drive down to Lin. And the idea in the initial southeast district plan was to maybe have some ultimately benches, maybe some way, you know, could be court kinds of things. Parks trail parks and trails commission have not done that design yet. Um but they felt like if there was an opportunity since the applicant is mobilized on site, if they have an interest in doing that, we could have them do this section and then as property to the south develops, ultimately that trail would connect. And certainly the city um could over time make improvements to that park, >> more benches, more wayinding, those kinds of things. But yes, for now it would really be a loop around St. Terres, >> right? >> Because that's where the sidewalks are on City Center Drive and 79th, but ultimately it would go down to Larkin Road. >> Thank you. Um, I just wanted to make a comment um to the developer just indicating that I like the orientation of the addition um because it's really only two from my understanding on the plans, it's really only two um buildings on the first two floors that will face another building. So, I appreciate that. Just the windows of the other units looking out won't be looking out. Um it's not running linear. So, I wanted to make a note of appreciation for that design. Um, and then I just had a question and I guess this is just a question for um, Kendra. I noticed that there is with the addition of the underground parking, but there isn't any addition of any exterior parking spots. And so is that because what is on site already uh, fulfills a requirement? >> It does. Uh, the land the the parking requirement is met by the underground parking. We talked about that with the applicant uh, early on. Um, they feel like functionally they have plenty of space and it does meet the code. >> Okay. And then um oh in regards to the park I think it's a great uh I think it's a creative solution. So, I am a fan of um of taking that. Um this I guess this is a policy question, not specifically related to this, but I've noticed that it is a really high landscaping um ratio to the square footage. And this is a high density area. So, I guess I get the feeling that um that a lot of sites within here are not going to be able to have the tree requirements. Okay. I think that's accurate. It came up with the first phase of St. Terres and we did, you've seen our list of ordinance updates that are on our wish list and I think we did acknowledge that it might warrant some review in the downtown mixeduse area where we have more dense develop to development to revisit that, but that has not occurred. So in the downtown without revisions to the code, it's the same landscape standard across the >> Yes. Okay. Um well I uh I I like the idea. The other recommendation was I know we had to take down a number of um destroyed ash trees from the emerald ashbor in city park. So that was going to actually be before uh sort of when I heard about it not being able to make it. That was going to be another suggestion. So um but I like the idea of of creating this because I feel like um it would fulfill um something that it sounds like your residents are also asking for. So then it feels like it's a win um all around. Um in terms of what that looks like, I don't think that there's anything. It's just a linear park. I guess the question would be is the intent of the park to be um motorized or just by bike and pedestrian. >> Bike and pedestrian. >> Biking and pedestrian. Okay, that's all I had. [clears throat] >> So do you have any questions, Commissioner Harvey? Nope. >> Okay. At this point in time, then I am ready to go ahead and make a recommendation for approval. Uh of the St. Trees. I >> seconded. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I. And anyone opposed. >> Okay. So, that recommendation will go forward up to councel. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And then we're going to do our next um agenda item, which is the MJ Creek Side Varian request. And we'll have a staff report as well from Dwight. >> That's right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Uh item 6B tonight is the M&J Creek Side Vineyard variance. Um this is a request from Margaret and John Fernandez who are requesting approval of a variance which would allow an existing structure to remain within the minimum setback area of the Shorland Overlay District. Um so some background uh the property subject property is located at 23020 county road 30. This is a 7.76 acre site um comprised of two parcels that the applicants are um intending to combine into a sing singular parcel um in the near future here. Uh the zoning of the property is rural residential as is the surrounding properties and then the subject property and the surrounding properties are all guided rural egg residential. Uh the property does contain um a portion of Rush Creek that flows through the through the middle of it a little bit and then a large amount of mature tree coverage around the north west and south sides of the property and uh the property is located outside of the musa. So for some background um in 2015 the city approved a building permit for a 978 square foot fullb barn. Um going through the file, the site plan that was included within that building permit file indicated that the Barnes location would be behind the house. Um and because of that proposed location, it didn't require an asbuilt survey, which would have been the best mechanism for identifying any sort of discrepancies on the location of where the the barn would be constructed. Um so after the barn was constructed uh in the sidey yard rather than the rear yard um the building inspector went out to the site and verified that the structure met all the applicable building code requirements that the location uh reviewing the location of the structure was outside of the scope of that inspection. So um that's where there was some discrepancy between what was shown on that site plan and what was actually uh constructed. So um And then lastly, the current owners uh purchased the property after this uh farm was constructed and they purchased it in 2019. Uh and then last year uh 2025, the city approved an interim use permit and a site plan for the M&J Creekide vineyard uh which was an aggra business for a vineyard and a wine tasting room that I'm sure we all remember. Uh and this as part of these approvals, there was a condition that the non-compliant bullbar pole barn either be removed, relocated, or apply for an after the fact variance. Um and so going through some of those options, um the applicants have stated that the pole barn is going to be important for the storage of equipment and materials related to their winery and alternate locations would require removal of established vines on the property and and due to some of the site conditions um there aren't many feasible locations for those vineyards to be relocated. So um they've decided to proceed with the variance request. So um tonight the item to be considered is a variance. Um so just an overview of the city's discretion. The city does have more discretion for approval of variances than they do other land use applications. And the burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that the hardships met meet the variance standards of the zoning ordinance. Um, and so without going through the entire list of what the what that criteria is, I have it on on this page here and it's outlined further in the staff report, but there's um six criteria that all need to be met in order for a a variance to be approved by the city. Um, and so to summarize uh the materials that the applicants have provided in staff's analysis, um the existing polar barn was constructed prior to the applicant's purchase of the property. So, this isn't a condition that was brought on by the applicant, but by a previous owner. Um, and that there are practical difficulties in relocating the structure. As I said before, it would require removal of established vines that cannot be reasonably relocated and established elsewhere on the property. Um, the structure has existed for over a decade. So staff finds that continued use of this structure and having it remain in the same location wouldn't alter the essential uh character of locality as it's already an existing structure. Uh and the granting of of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance and it is consistent with uh the uses anticipated for the rural residential zoning district. Um and so the city does have an option to uh add on additional conditions uh of approval to mitigate any sort of impacts to the variance. So staff recommends just adding a condition that the structure be used for storage only and not for additional interior space for patrons of the aggra business on the site. So at this point staff recommends approval of the draft resolution approving a variance from the minimum setback requirements of the shoreline overlay district. >> Thank you Dwight. And this one's not a public hearing either. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so at this point in time, um, does anyone feel like they we remember the issue? Is there any discussion that needs to take place or is somebody ready to make a motion? >> Well, could I ask is the applicant here? >> Yes. Can I ask a question? >> Absolutely. If you guys if one of you wouldn't mind when you answer at least come up to the podium so we can record. >> First of all, could you close that door? >> Yeah. I was going to say thank you. I think we were supposed to just ask the lock. >> Okay, perfect. >> Thank you very much. >> Yeah. >> Well, currently what is what is the uh building what's stored in the building currently? It's just right now we just have um we haven't put any of the uh wine making or or uh stuff that we're going to put in there um yet because we haven't started constructing and we haven't purchased all of the stuff that we'll need to do for the agra business. So right now it's just our own materials that are in there. >> Tractor, sprayer are in there, lawn, uh furniture, stuff like that right now. So having the restriction of the building only being in storage, is that going to cause any issue with you folks? >> Uh it's not our favorite. I mean, I would like it to us to be because um of where it is and and the nature of the the river like we don't have runoff from crops or or poop from animals or anything like that that would affect the creek. And I'm there to make sure that, you know, we're here and and think that the overlay, we get it. We don't want to hurt the integrity of the watershed. That's very important. But it's a structure without any sewer or anything in it. So, we're happy to maintain that. We would at some point like to be I mean, we probably won't be able to just due to space. Um, we're going to need it anyway because we're going to have restrictions with the state um for the tasting room. So, we're probably going to just need it for storage anyway. So, we're fine with that. Um, it feels a little restrictive, but we're fine with it. >> Okay. >> What do you >> Yeah, we are already kind of busting out of the seams with the stuff we do have, right? Our current garage is full of equipment. >> All the other barns are full of equipment. There really is no other space. So, now when we start adding, you know, my concern is um our the tasting room, our our processing area of that tasting room. It's going to be a little small because of the way this is all set up. So, we're going to have to do a lot of transferring equipment back and forth, harvesting and and fermenting and all and bottling and all that kind of stuff. So, a lot of that's going to have to be stored in that. So, I've been looking at ways of, you know, do we do we try to heat a little spot of it? You know, you have to keep it above, you know, freezing at least. you know, I mean, that's even that's a little a little low, but uh so we're looking >> we know it's going to be full. How's that? We don't have >> I guess with knowing that, you know, anytime you put restrictions on on somebody's property or the use of their own property and their own buildings, that's that's a tough sell for me, but I think it's a very reasonable it's a reasonable >> Yeah, we're going to use >> compromise. Yeah, reasonable compromise. >> Okay, great. That's what I wanted. Thanks. Appreciate it. >> Yeah. And then I I don't think this matters or anything. Um but um part of our process when we purchased it, just so that you know where we were kind of confused, um the the final inspector actually did sign off on the location of the of the uh um >> we thought we did all our homework, you know. >> Yeah. So even though there's a picture of where it was supposed to be, the last inspector did sign off and knew exactly where the creek was. So >> So we were we thought we did our due diligence. So >> I'm sure you did. And I understand. >> Okay. Thank you. >> At least I'm glad that you're the building is being saved. I know at one point there was some discussion of >> removing it and I'm glad that that's not happening. >> Yeah. If if it were going to hinder the watershed or anything, I I would I get it. But there's no runoff or anything. It's built up. It's not Yeah. >> Yeah. Good. >> Yeah. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. >> I guess um my only question is is that stipulation would it prevent them? So, uh, they're obviously exploring options on, um, being able to, uh, instead of setting up each piece of the process at that point in the, um, production that it's possible that you're looking at, is there a way we can have some of these things set up in this uh, barn building, right? I mean, I don't know. But even if they got to that point, it's not the customer's wine tasting, but it is just the equipment set up or even like eventually customers are like, gosh, you know, it's a smaller place. Can I see how this is produced? >> You can't even all of a sudden be like, I'm just going to walk you back to the part where I process in the barn. >> So, the idea being it wasn't there's fluffing concerns. So I understand that in a normal typical situation it's really not a problem but part of the >> part of the intent of the shlay ordinance is to basically reduce the potential harm to life in property. And so it's I think that would be potentially the concern that we would be running into by having people in in the building other than the property owner. um but it's their personal property. So if they want to store things there then that's a much easier give in terms of the integrity of the ordinance. >> Um does the the variance remind me because I always forget but it it follows only the business right. So if there's a sale or if like if the if they sell their property or the business is no longer operating the variance is >> I don't think how the variance currently drafted that's the case but we could look at that with the city attorney language that I >> I don't need the language added in terms of I guess I was just trying to think of something that felt less restrictive but also maintain the integrity of the shor overland uh ordinance in the longevity of the existence of the property. Do you know what I mean? Y >> um so yeah, I don't feel like there's a need to have to look into that um any further. If they are willing to concede that they can see a reason for it despite me feeling like it's it's restrictive um then >> is the term storage the definition storage how flexible is that? >> I mean that right? Yeah. So it sounds like that that requirement of the storage is pretty hard set because of the shoreline fees. >> I think the big the big concern is >> or is that entering >> having a patron? Yeah. >> So I mean if if there were a manufacturing component in that building I think that is one thing but if you were bringing people back in there to show how it's manufactured and that's where a lot of the concerns are are raised. So I think the big concern is public entering the building >> and my guess is that the state would or even they would have things to say about that anyway because it it's yeah so my guess is that this would be nothing compared to maybe what other people would have in terms if you wanted to all of the sudden have tours of the process as a part of of that you would have other obstacles to overcome. But is that something that there is once once this variance is is passed or approved there? I guess I just want to make sure that we're not keeping them from having that as an option. You know what I mean? Like if they were to uh make it over those hurdles in the future, is this then eventually going to be the restricted point if that were to be an option? >> The variances stand as it's currently written. It's not unheard of in the future for we've had a couple varies. in the past year where we reevaluated things and have granted some additional flexibility. So it's like a revised variance. Okay. >> But at this point this is this was basically the compromise that we could get to get in. >> I think it's a good compromise. It's like a no-brainer variance to support this type of business. >> Yeah. >> I'll recommend a motion to approve. >> I'll second it. >> All right. All those in favor say I. I. >> And anyone opposed? >> All right. So, that recommendation will go up to council as well. Thank you. Way to stick with it, guys. Yeah. Can't wait to go. >> Um, >> I'm going to sit in that storage building and I have a glass of wine. [laughter] >> Well, no, that's exactly what you're not supposed to do. >> You will not. >> I got I got a table reserved already >> in the in the tasting room. Yeah. Okay. So, uh, we have the, um, next up is the city council report from Councilman Baron Camp who joins us tonight. And I have one question, but if you guys have other questions, lead with them or I I was just going to say, I mean, for for yourself or any other council members or even my colleagues here who attended the open house earlier this evening, how it went and overall sentiments to the project. It is connected to my question. So my question was going to be I did attend the open house, but I was curious if you just have a quick blurp on how um the what was the council feedback on the um Corkran Springs conduct plan when it came before council last week? Was it last week? >> It's it's been a long it's been a long process, folks. It originally came next to Mama G's on the east side. >> Okay. Um we had mentioned that it would we did we if I remember right Dwight Natalie let me know Kendra you've been part of it too. Um it it came to us first as a private gated community which we don't do. So we asked them to go back and look at it. They came back with it on the west side with that dividing road if that makes sense. Okay. When it came back then we asked for them to examine and look at it. Is there a way they could do something more of this type community which we I think everybody is is liking. What we asked is any way it could be put in to the north side of this property from from the uh commercial property back then it was the quick trip west to the wetlands across the road and then put more on the north side of that west side um property. They looked at that and it doesn't fit their community type things. They they have a um central amenity center with a swimming pool, those kind of things. And they'd rather it be all connected on the west side as one big area and then obviously with this being mixed use, the commercial side being next to Mama G's and those kind of things. So that's where the concept is right now. They did spend a significant amount of time and figure out if they can butt it up against the bell weather property as far as the town homes and those kind of things and then it would be subdivided by a road and then there'd be more properties west of the wetlands on that northwest corner and it just doesn't go with what they've done in multiple areas of the city where that townhouse area is a community. [clears throat] the access to the um kind of like kind of like the bell weather, the access to the public room, the the amenity center, those kind of things. That's what this place in concept is going to have. And they'd rather them all be together and not split by a major road or not a major road, but a road like that. So that was their com and the council and the mayor all understood the concept is there and then they have began the public. So >> it's interesting reading about this. I mean it's saying there are 294 market rate unit apartments. >> Correct. Not apartments. >> It says apartments. >> They are apartments. So they try. So it's a unique product in that they're kind of a mix between traditional multif family and town homes because each unit will have its own private entrance. They don't have like a shared entrance, but it is more of apartments in terms of there's units above and below. [clears throat] And so it is in terms of our code, it would be considered multifamily both our zoning code and as far as rentals go. Um but I think in their mind, the builder's mind, I think that they market them more as a town home experience, uh, just because they are a little less the traditional apartment. They're more of like a like I don't know if you've ever like a forplex where you kind of have a little like you don't necessarily have um you don't necessarily have a a unit share with everybody in the building. You might have your own entrance to it. So, it's it's like a >> one of the questions I I brought up was the the rental agreement and such. A studio was going to be, if I remember right, $1,300. A onebedroom was going to be around $1,700. A twobedroom would be on the low twos and a threebedroom would be 27 to $2,900. >> If that is correct, I think I remember right. It's incorrect. Somebody correct. But again, the amenity center, um there there's talk of of a possible um coffee shop, those kind of things in there. There's a swimming pool, um interactive, and kind of some pretty neat, I'm going to call them courtyards between buildings, those kind of things. Sidewalks, significant number of trees, um landscape, all those things. I think I'm doing okay, Kendra. Everybody, am I doing all right? It looks like a neighborhood. Um, >> yeah, >> the point of splitting it up, putting it next to Bell Weather all the way across the north side and having two major roads intersecting it and such, it's not going to make it something that in my mind would be safe to to put the put the uh >> put the development all in one area is I think is a better thing and the commercial on the other side. um next to and those commercial properties on the other side is a better thing. Um and in my imagination sitting up there as a planning commissioner and stuff, I would imagine heavily heavily landscape property south of Belleather and then that road going across and then the commercial being on the other road other side of the road. But there's there's no concept of what commercial would be right now. There's There's not even a a ghost spot or anything of it. It's just all labeled commercial. And then the other question too was being a 5050 split. If I remember the numbers right, this residential area would be 38% of the property and the commercial side would be 62% of the property. So that's another thing that >> boy I'd hate to be in the units that are on 30. >> It it's it's a choice. It's it's something that that's what they've got to sell. That's what they've got to do. And then you're you're right, Commissioner Hargra Hard Graves. I I that's why we had talked about is there a way to move it north and keep the commercial to the south. That in their mind and others, it just doesn't make sense. The commercial being on the one side of that main road and their residents, apartments, towns, whatever we're going to call it, >> is on the west side. Okay, >> thanks for sharing all that. >> Thanks. >> Yep, it was it's it's been in the works a long long time. They've done a lot of studies and then now this group coming in. Um, feel free to contact them. I have spent time in two of their communities in the Twin Cities and they're pretty darn nice. I I did not see any issues in those kind of things, but they don't have a major road dividing the two or dividing the properties up. It's it's a community. Um as they described it, it would be targeted toward white collar folks. Um they'd also team up with local businesses and make sure local businesses, including our city hall folks, the opportunity to um with the big industrial building north of the KOA on the west side of 101. That's that's a pretty significant group for uh businesses going in there as far as what's going in there. An opportunity for somebody to live that close to work and trails, those kind of things to get to work. It's a neat deal. I I still don't understand how the price range and stuff. I I did >> to work but not in that position. So >> question for staff just like that you know concentration how does that support our density milestones. So it's consistent with the number of units anticipated for this site overall. Um the and it comes back and we had a density of a little over 10 units per acre on the portion of the site that it's Um, so it's it's a little bit above the minimum uh of eight units an acre and then it's I I think it's actually the residential side takes up more than the commercial side particularly the the residential side will have more upland than the commercial side has. Um but again we when we did the comprehensive plan we looked at that site overall the mixed use portion of the site overall and dividing that you're basically expecting that half of that will come in at a density of 8 to 30 units per acre and the 294 falls within what that would have been regardless of the footprint of the residential side because once you take out the wetland it's not really 30 and 60 because there are two big I mean they even have them on their in terms of what's designated as >> correct. Yeah. And they have more so the the >> that will be between them and the commercial. >> Correct. Yeah. So it's basically on the west side of the street extension I think and it's 25 acres and then technically there's 34 acres on the commercial side but there's more wetlands on the commercial side. The net is actually more like 16. >> Okay. I do think so. The concerns that I'll just share that I overheard from the meeting, the neighborhood meeting with the developer was traffic um because they would have right now and obviously it has to go through all of the proper channels and the feasibility study, but it has a turn off of County Road 30 which uh is a concern. And then um secondly was um the trail the location of the proposed trail there is a resident but she was able to And so she's really made her concerns known. Um, but there's a trail that will run like extremely close to a few residents backyards. >> And so that was a secondary concern concern. But >> just just real quick on that chair, um, that trail has it was in their purchase agreement or everything else. Um and it's it's set set back is such that it is not six feet away or anything. It is an appropriate distance away and we did talk about that on council of the trail going more over toward 116 and coming north on the farm on the north side of the farm and then cut across to that trail. But in my questions and stuff like that, that trail won't move where it is right now. It will stay there. So >> that's done. There's two, >> aren't there two? >> Yeah. So there's the D regional trail. So that's what is right next one that's there. >> Yeah, that's what's there. And this is a city trail, right? >> Um and take a closer look at basically the idea being we would like a north south north south trail. So the people on the south side of 30 are able to access the open space park and neighborhood parks within Bellweather as well as the Diamond Lake Regional Trail that runs through there. Um and so we did actually after the concept plan staff took a closer look at the um the crossing point. >> Yes. >> And we do think that the crossing point needs to go through this property the that's under not the Oswell property. >> So we talked with the developer. We don't really have a trail alignment right now. It's something that's going to continue to be evaluated proceed, but um a little different discussion than what was anticipated at the concept plan just because there there was a more we kind of zoomed out a bit more after that discussion and um our my initial hope of just kind of making it go to the west um might not make as much sense as I thought. So >> because I remember also when the concept plan for that business park came through there was trail still going to be the the three rivers trail on the north. Okay. >> It's a it's a north the question right now is a north south. >> Yeah. Yes. Exactly. >> Okay. Because I do think um you know and also I appreciate the like thinking ahead to the future residents. I understand that it's the developer's job to sell that product, but I also am aware that sometimes when there is undeveloped property around it, um it's not always extremely clear during a purchase or what have you. It sounds like in this case it would just be a rental agreement, but yes, some of those units are going to be between a business park and a county road 30. And so whatever um influence the city has to um to build like to create uh from our partnership side of it the best product for a future resident. I think that is where our responsibility lies rather than um you know I don't know uh making it look like other products that might be built around the city but not have some of the same um constraints. That's my only comments on that. But otherwise, >> yeah, >> I don't know if you have anything to add. >> Uh, Commissioner Harvey was there as well, so I don't know if he has anything to add. I was just going to give him the opportunity. Okay, go ahead, Commissioner. I just had a question on if there's been any um any activity or updates or anything from Met Council on density requirements, attention on the outer suburbs, sensitivity to agriculture, anything. The Met Council did release their goals, right, for their their the or not the goals, their sort of their preliminary instructions to all of the cities who have to put together their >> Yes. So, there's definitely information trickling in the 3.5 units an acre within the Musa. That is my understanding that is final. Um I believe there still might be some discussion regarding how density is calculated. I know the mayor went to a meeting January where there and he's on an advisory board that's not council um and there was some discussion about their implementation guidelines for density I don't know when that decision is final um but there's there's information coming in >> good thanks >> anyone else have any questions for >> question for you guys everybody get the compass in your emails >> yeah I love that >> everybody get the what's the other the newsletter >> quarterly in your email. Um, it's on Facebook, it's on everything. But again, that was the thing that I asked that it goes to out out to all of our commissions and uh such. So, you should be getting the same kind of updates. January's update came out today if I remember right, and it was very good. Fighting I think was first. Trails second [clears throat] council was third. Um, that's what's going on. So, it's kind of cool. If you got any questions, >> um, well, >> contact or any one of us. >> I do just have one um, uh, feedback, I guess, or followup from the, um, city property tax meeting as well as it came up again tonight and there is growing concern from residents that Henipin County employs the assessors that are assessing the property tax for Henipin County. And so I know that it has been like that that is the way that a number of cities do it um or counties whatever you have because people are saying that there is a lack of independent assessors available for hire. Um but it is just uh because there are people who are receiving non like they're not getting responses um from the assessor. Um, I know that it came up as a suggestion that you should have the assessor out to your house. And I guess I just want to I mean, no one's listening except for you. Thanks for being here. But I do want it um stated that you can request that and it will not be effective until two tax years after. So it doesn't matter. I mean, it matters, but uh whatever they can deem your your property is actually only valued at this, but keep paying at this for the next 18 months and then we'll change it. And so those are issues that are not just like, oh, she's a little bit upset. Um those are issues of of um those are like ethical issues to me. >> You don't operate that way. >> I ask I ask I don't know how many times why does it take two years for us to start getting >> city portion of property tax after occupancy take up to two years. And >> the answer we keep keep getting back is that's the way it's been. That's the way it is. Your comments about Henipin County tax assessor taxing all of our stuff. I'm not a fan of that, but there isn't another assessor around that has said I'll take it for this amount of money. It is something that Dwight or Natalie correct me if I'm wrong. We are not having to pay for assessors right now at the city >> anymore before we were paying a assessor in the excess of I forgot what it was coming out >> except for that we are paying for it because residents are just paying greater property tax. >> I'm not going to twist it or anything. We aren't doing it. We aren't paying for it, but I absolutely agree. My taxes went up miserably, you guys. >> I'm just saying the city isn't paying for it, but residents are paying for it through the process of how it's being done. >> If we paid it through the city, we would still be paying those >> taxes one way or another. If we paid an assessor, we'd still all of us would still be part of our tax. >> I think I can. >> So, it's one or the other. >> I understand what he's saying because if it's a part of the city budget, then as the taxpayers, we're paying to cover that. But what I'm saying is is that I haven't ever seen any numbers presented to me on on what that cost of an assess independent assessor is versus what is the uptick in charges being sent to residents for property taxes because sure we're paying for it one way or another but one way might be significantly less than the other. >> Yeah. Yeah. I know I wouldn't at all. It was it came up again tonight from another >> somebody that needs an assessor please contact staff. they will give that assessor's name and I've been told that assessor is very responsive to anybody that calls. >> I just had of someone pulled aside tonight and said they haven't been able to get a response back. Um so I you know and it's the it is the assessor the one who's at Mama G's. So, I don't know. We'll I will just continue to tell them it was more of passing along the fact that like this I want to highlight that this is a um something that I think needs to be re-evaluated. Um and so I was just ask making it it known. I know it's not a part of your current issues facing city council. Um but yeah, maybe I'll just save it for open form during a city council meeting. Anyways, didn't mean to derail. Do we have any questions regarding the planning project update? Anything that came up? I guess my only question is with that um Karanini property that is the orchard one. Is there any I know that has been in limbo for a really long time. >> Um is there any up like it didn't indicate any update? It said it was still just uh incomplete. That's kind of just still where it sits. >> Sure. Yeah. So when that memo was drafted, the application was incomplete, but he has the applicant has been submitting more application materials as of late and he from our understanding is intending to move forward with the development. And so since then the application has uh been made complete and so [clears throat] it's ten tenatively scheduled for the April planning commission meeting >> as a as a completed application preliminary. Okay. I I guess the reason I ask is that I just remember the original concept plan a few years ago now and I feel like that area has changed so much that maybe the comments on that original concept plan were not relevant. >> Yes, you don't have to do a concept plan for a straight class. >> Okay. >> Um you can if you'd like to. Um and we typically recommend highly recommend doing a concept plan for anything that's going to have a high level of discretion. there's known variances, a zoning ordinance amendment, comprehensive plan, something like that. Um, but with what's currently being presented, none of that is identified quite yet. So, there's still there's still always a chance that a variance comes through at the end, but typically it's um for concept plan, it's no variances right off the >> Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Okay, and then the if nobody else has any other questions, then the liaison calendar is on there. Just a reminder that next week on Thursday at 5:30 is the joint work session is with the council. Um so if you're able to make it um please be in attendance. Anything else or >> uh that one 5:30 the parks and trails one in March is >> 5. people beyond just coming up. >> Um, no, take a look at the work session packet online that should be available tomorrow afternoon at latest. It's not already up. Um, there there is um advanced homework for everyone. So, questions that will come up come up during the discussion. >> Great. And then if nobody >> think of it and email it to us. >> No, it'll be good to practice. You can pull up your iPad and it'll be convenient. >> Okay. Okay. I got to make a new password for Granny. >> Yeah. Right now I can't get in. >> I can't get into it either. >> Okay. Um well, we can get you in touch with um to help us. We can >> I can do it once I get the password. >> Okay. Well, if you if you are unable to figure out your password between now and Monday, let us know and we'll get you in contact with someone >> or Yeah. Okay. We'll we'll we'll be fine. >> Great. you will be good. >> If there is nothing else, then we will make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. >> And then we're journ.