well thank you everyone thanks for coming out welcome to the May 2nd 2024 City Planning Commission uh meeting uh we do have a quorum I'll take rooll uh lanterman here brummond here uh hard Greaves here uh kazii here Lynn here uh all present please uh rise and join me in uh saying the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge alance 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 so before we begin I I just want to thank everyone for coming out it's nice to see this level of participation so thank you we we appreciate it you know we're volunteers here and we we we listen to what it is um you know you tell us uh so I do appreciate the time that everyone has taken out of their busy schedules to to come here tonight so thank you uh Commissioners and and staff uh are there any uh amendments or other changes to tonight's agenda Mr chair there's no amendments to the agenda staff does not there was a a bit of a a mixup the agenda for some reason had April 4th when we do indeed mean today May 2nd and the minutes had May 2 when those are for the April 4th meeting so those Corrections will be made um just wanted to call those out thank you I thought it was me any any amendments from Commissioners no uh could I get a motion to approve the agenda I'll make that motion I'll second it all in favor I allos thank you um I'd like to uh open the floor to you to address uh the uh Planning Commission on any item that is not already on tonight's agenda is there anyone that here who'd like to address us on anything that is not already on the agenda Bueller buer anyone okay thank you uh let's see pardon me chair I think we have to approve the minutes from last meeting yeah that's the next item on the on the list sorry uh can I get a uh can I get a motion to approve the uh April 4th 2024 Planning Commission uh meeting minutes I'll make that motion I'll second it all in favor I I oppos thank you uh let's see oh yes I did Skip ahead to uh public comments you know what actually chair we were just chuckling because it's listed in a different order on the enhanced agenda than the regular agenda so they just aren't matching so it wasn't you you're just looking at a different agenda than I was well I'm not so sure that it's not me but thank you you're you're very kind so with that um I'd like to open the public hearing for Natalie what is the number on this uh 6A I'm sorry 6A for Heather Meadows Third Edition okay so uh I'd like to open the uh public hearing Heather Meadows Third Edition this is City file number 24-2 Natalie so I will start with the staff report Mr chair and you already gave a great summary of the application so we'll move on to the next Slide the this first application for Heather Meadows Third Edition is proposed by Mark and Marcus Lee of ml unlimited it is an open space and preservation preliminary plat there are a special set of rules that apply to something that we call osmp uh and it's on 8822 Acres and it's near Oakdale Drive and Heather Lane The Proposal includes 12 buildable lots for single family homes and then we'll be putting two open space outlots in a temporary conservation easement totaling 44.8 acres and the sub the subdivider will continue farming those outlots the application also includes a conditional use permit request this will allow for agricultural buildings exceeding the byright footprint on a lot less than 10 acres and then it includes three variances one for uh lots that must front an internal paav Street which is an osmp requirement but there are two lots that are existing today that would remain on the front Oakdale Drive there's also a osmp requirement for a 100 foot buffer yard that's planted on the perimeter of the site where it abuts an existing public Street and again there's existing structures along Oakdale Drive where that is would create a conflict and then a 100 foot setback is required for agricultural structures and there is one structure on The Farmstead lot that would become 91 feet away from the front lot line with the new right of way required so for some context the plat consists of three existing properties and I'm going to turn on my pointer so we have laser pointer so we have uh The Farmstead right here which has five assigned development rights there is an existing house and several accessory structures located on this lot we also have an existing house right here on a 39 acre parcel this parcel was carved out and had a house built on it long before development rates it was built around the 1960s so the development rate is implied and then there is This Outlaw that was created as a part of Heather Meadow's second edition in 1999 currently there are no development rights on it it was created as a unbuildable outlot when they exhausted their development rights in the 1990s so for the open space and preliminary plat these type of plats allow development rights to be doubled in exchange for a paved public Street to serve the development with curb and gutter as well as 50% of the gross acreage of which half must be Upland is set aside as open space under a temporary conservation easement until Municipal services are available to the area this area is nowhere near our Musa it is not in our 20 240 plan for municipal Services it likely will not be in our 2050 plan uh but so this would be several several decades out into the future if ever so the 12 residential lots are proposed and they range from 2. 3 acres to 4 acres for the osmp there is no minimum lot size but each site must uh allow for two septic sites a primary and an alternative and there is a maximum lot size of four acres in this District the there are primary and alternative septic sites shown on the 10 New Lots the applicant did provide me with an updated exhibit showing the existing septic sites for the two lots off of Oakdale however they will also need to confirm a alternative site that will be allowed based on the soils for that and that is a condition of approval uh Heather Lane will be extended to the South and will move Southwest and that will serve the 10 Lots uh that are proposed on the previous outlot two open space outlots are proposed the main one being outl a right here and then outlot B is over here on the northwest corner of the outlot and ownership of the open space would be that it at this time it's proposed that the subdivider would remain would retain ownership of the Outlaws there is a restrictive covenant that would be required in favor of the city and it would call out that the open space Outlaws in the future if they decide to uh no longer Farm it they no longer want to retain ownership they can dedicate the open space outlots to the city if the city accepts the open space Outlets can be sold to the owner of lot one block four the idea being of another farmer wanted to buy both the residents and the outlots to continue farming that does make sense it's someone that would be a part of the neighborhood the open space outlots can be dedicated to a homeowners association that comprises a majority of the homes within this development or the open SP open space Outlaws can be sold to a developer once Municipal services and water is available the setbacks for an osmp uh are pretty much the same that you would have in the rural residential the principal structures more than accommodate those setbacks we run into some issues with the existing agricultural structures that long predate our zoning ordinance so the the all all the structures on lot one of block four this one right here and oakdale's right here are used for agricultural purposes they're so they all are subject to a 100t setback from all property lens these two sheds right here are about 50 ft away but this property line isn't changing as a result of this plat so that is going to be grandfathered in as a legal non-conforming there there's no variance that needs to be granted for for that uh cuz nothing's changing however again this Northern shed right here uh is going to be about 91 ft away once the right of way is taken for the new plat that is a change and so a variance would need to be granted uh for that to remain there are four design guidelines listed out for the osmp they are explained in detail in the staff report this plat does satisfy those guidelines except for the the requirement for the 100t perimeter buffer along Oakdale Drive that would be required it would conflict with both the existing houses as well as that structure that's only 91 ft away from the property line uh so the applicant is requesting that they not be required to put in that buffer and we'll talk about that more in a second then there's also design objectives that osps are supposed to hit they're supposed to satisfy as many that are possible they have satisfied quite a few including arranging Lots around a central focal point with the argument that the open space the farmed area is the focal point uh they've located the Lots so that at least 50% of the Lots above open space on at least one side they preserve views from each building unit and from offsite Vantage points to the maximum extent possible they've located lots to preserve farmland and then they've located septic systems on the most suitable sour soils and one of the standards that really would not be applicable to this proposal is the requirement to locate or objective to locate neighborhood recreational Open Spaces such that they are integral part of the neighborhood because they are going to be retaining the Farmland in their own ownership it's not going to be a recreational open space uh the one item that is not satisfied with the current proposal is the objective to provide cover to create an architectural theme within the neighborhood and it the two objectives were it's possible that it could end up satisfying but it's just unclear with the information provided is locating the houses and garages so that the garages do not dominate the streetcape and then the Landscaping of common areas in right of way with Native vegetation with high Wildlife Conservation value so the Planning Commission should discuss whether they believe enough objectives have been met with what's proposed osed or if some additional uh conditions need to be added to uh maybe hit these last two to three that could be applied as far as streets uh again Heather Lane will be extended to the South and Southwest and where they are going to be extending the roadway they will be required to put in a minimum roadway width of 25 28 ft face to face which will allow for one-sided parking the existing call back on Heather lanee will be removed and those existing driveways and culs will then need to be modified and extended as necessary and then a temporary cacc will be required at the end of the new proposed extension and um the the engineering memo does go into quite a bit of detail into what this would all entail including telling the city that we would need to go out before c instruction starts to document the condition of the current Heather Lane and then the developer would be responsible for any damages that can be contributed to um their construction project uh once their project is has moved forward so the there was a ghost plat submitted to show how Outlaw a could be further developed in the future and it shows a future public Street connection from Oakdale Drive which would ultimately connect to Heather Lane between the two lots that um I don't have a very great visual me back up here it would come down here before connecting West to Heather Lane down here and the only issue with that is they where they're showing that road uh would it would not be permittable due to its location near Wetlands so they will need to move the lot line at least 15 fet West for lot one block five to be able to accommodate a street in the future so that is a condition of approval and then we get into the conditional use permit so again lot one black 4 currently is proposed to have an accessory structure footprint of 7,428 square ft uh but one structure of less than 200 square F feet is exempt from what the city calculates for their final footprint so the conditional use permit request would be for 7,236 Ft they are proposing to remove a couple of buildings that uh are not currently being utilized it's this building in this building actually uh but there's still going to be about 7,200 Square ft of accessory structure space and they're all used for agricultural purposes and this is an allowed use through a conditional use permit for Parcels less than 10 acres if they are adjacent to an actively farmed property under the same ownership so staff went through the exercise of comparing the cup standards to their request and the cup standards are satisfied and then staff does recommend some conditions of approval including removal of the two buildings agreed upon by the applicant and staff and then and then should Outlaw a no longer be farmed and or the accessory structures no longer be used for agricultural purposes only the footprint must then be reduced to the Buri limit for a 4 acre parcel at that time and then there's three variances um essentially The applicant's Narrative explains that these are all three of them the Practical difficulty is these are existing conditions and it's an existing farm that they've intend to continue farming so that's where the Practical difficulties for all three of them really lie um so the first variance again is an exemption from 100 foot perimeter planted buffer zone along Oakdale Drive and the the standards for the variants appear to be satisfied and staff proposes a condition of approval is to plant the buffer area as required where it will not conflict with existing structures so this would require an amendment to their or a a change to their Landscaping plan because that buffer yard's currently not shown uh and the the Planning Commission can certainly discuss whether they believe that condition should be added or if there's any other condition that would make sense as well uh variance two is the exemption for all open space and preservation lots to front and internal pave Street um again the standards for the variants appear to be satisfied the a potential condition of approval is to close one of the two driveway accesses on lot one block four that was discussed in the staff report and that is included as a condition of approval in the draft resolution before you tonight uh since the staff report has been distributed to the applicant in the Planning Commission the applicant did come in to speak with staff and they request both accesses to remain as the Western driveway access is used for primarily their agricultural vehicles and trucks and then this Eastern driveway is what they use to access their residents uh so the they would like to be able to keep the different types of traffic separated and so that is definitely a discussion point for you tonight and the applicant is here tonight to be able to speak and answer question questions to that effect as well variance three is a 91t setback from the front property line for an Agricultural structure um again the standards for the variance appear to be satisfied particularly since the setback um would not be needed if we weren't taking additional right of way uh so I'm sure if the applicant could keep that additional 9 ft they would and then a proposed condition of approval again is to plant the buffer yard as required for the osmp where it will not conflict with the structure so uh you should open the public hearing and take testimony and then staff recommends approval of the draft resolution so we have the draft resolution approving the preliminary plat the draft resolution approving the conditional use permit and the draft resolution resolution approving three variances they are all separated out because theoretically you could approve the preliminary plat and and decide that you don't agree the standards have been met for one or more of the other components and the preliminary plat um resolution the way it's drafted is uh if they don't get approvals for those components they have to revise their plans accordingly that's what I have for you thank you so with that uh I'm going to open the uh the public hearing now Natalie I know normally members of the public have this opportunity to address the commission and then often they're followed by the applicant I'd like to flip-flop that if we could I'd like to hear from the applicant so that the attendees can also hear from the applicant and then have a an opportunity to uh to address us is that okay absolutely okay is the applicant here're both here where are you hi would you would you step up do you have any comments for us or would you like to plead your case state your name and your address please uh my name is Marcus Lee 22901 overdale Drive um thanks Natalie for presenting that was real nice um the only thing that I I would like to talk about my dad maybe has something else he'd like to mention is that uh horseshoe driveway that we have um we'd really like to keep that um just because you know we just earlier this week I had a a semi from the West Coast bring a delivery of trees and getting in and out of there you know it's just it's just critical if you have a big semi so um you know that's that's something that we'd like to keep it possible so what what's unique about that driveway that makes that critical or what makes the other driveway um a uh uh an option for you well just if if you if you're on site it makes a lot more sense but when you pull in off of Oak deal Drive there's you know especially earlier this week there's nowhere to turn around you know the it's if you go off the driveway you get stuck um so you don't want to pull into there and then have to back out you know there's traffic whatever not a lot of traffic but it's just it's really nice to be able to go in one way and you know build the oh I see what you're were saying so you pull in one way and then you pull out of the other Drive yes sir okay thank you for educating me on that um other than that everything everything looks good to me so okay sir my name's Mark Lee same address uh but regarding this second access it's been in place and operational for well before you know we bought but uh we we have farmers at rent land for tillage crops and then we also have he on the metal that is cut twice or three times a year but the combines and everything come through here and that equipment comes down through here and there's a drainage ditch here that a lot of times uh is wet so you can't get through there but that's an Ingress an egress for Implement equipment farm equipment this is a better driveway for the house and we improved the house renovated it and you know we'd like to have this asphalted up to about here but we don't want to destroy that and right now it's not asphalted but if we did we'd have to uh you know like St Marcus when he mentioned about the semi that came in for delivery uh those are isolated circumstances but most of the equipment for farming comes goes through here and then this is like more the residential you know nicer driveway yard and everything so we'd like to keep that okay for that purpose for agriculture very good thank you that's the only thing I had uh that we talked about earlier in the week that was just a bullet point that I wanted to address if possible understood thank you Natalie do we have any cards yes we have one card if anyone else filled out cards feel free to pass them up this way but the uh first card we have here is for Mike savitzky if you'd like to approach the podium for any comments sure and Mike if you can just state your name and your address please my name is Mike Seitz I live on he drive 10322 ha drive thank you been there for 45 years and can we go back to that picture um can you get me a notebook please so I can write down not yes they move too quick for you Mike I know and you know what sorry thank you that H you dway is the best thing you guys should allow it there's no way you shouldn't I actually own on the other side of the road I own the farm 10 and 12 acres on the other side of class from them and that property is beautiful and that horseshoe is totally a safety thing with what's going on I do believe they should be allowed to have that I have a few questions otherwise uh as far as drainage can we go back to the the the plot itself I just need to understand a little more because we have the drainage from that side goes back behind my farm and then it heads back uh I to between me and my neighbor and right now we've got a lake there because the drain tile is an operating and I don't know if this is the place but I just let throw that in there but so now I'm understanding that there's going to be another E easement here off of Heather somehow and you're not able to get it because of the wetlands is that right so typically we ask questions and then I write it down I can answer it um so it's up to you if you want me to answer the questions as we go can you or so it right now it's uh it would be an outlot so it would be entirely covered by a drainage and utility using while it's an outlot and then we have a ghost plat that shows a road going from here to here so it'll have another road someday when it's developed right correct yes and then de seasment here would also be critical I'm not seeing it drawn somewhere between them for to excess the back or I don't know maybe I'm I I've never been back so there's no Road easement um proposed like on drive over here if you went over to here we have an easement out of our neighborhood going both ways and we did that 45 50 years ago we had the insight to do that so I'm just letting you know that making ease here to De to develop this later might be a thought okay and then I then I'm kind of wondering what's going on with the drainage and stuff but that's all that's way God made it so we're going to live with it sounds good Mike right but that's kind of what I wanted to bring up here love the property you guys are doing a great job yeah great thank you for your comments y have any other cards I don't have any other cards so if anyone else would like to approach the podium please feel free to do so okay uh this is your opportunity to address this on this application uh would anyone have any comments yes may iove please thank you thank you and if you could please state your name and your address thank you Lor casmer I'm at 10265 Heather Lane in Edition two I believe um and my husband and I have been there for 25 years I have a couple questions so I'm not sure if you want me just I I apologize I didn't realize we were supposed to sign up ahead of time yeah so hold on what's the best way to address questions I'm just concern that we'll be here until they should go ahead and use their five minutes say whatever questions they have I'm writing them down and then that it's helpful because especially if someone else has a similar question then I can address them all once the public hearing is closed before we get into public the commission discussion that makes sense so if I could ask it you have five minutes if you have questions say them she's going to write them down we're going to let everyone else have an opportunity to ask questions and then Natalie will do her best to to answer them sounds good okay thank you um so my first question came from your description about uh realigning the culdesac that I currently live in I wasn't aware that that was um on the plat plan so if I we could get some more information on how that would uh affect our properties the three houses that currently live in that culdesac um and then I guess my question is trying to understand what the current owners want to do with the existing Outlets that they want to keep for their tree farm it is a beautiful tree farm um and then the Farmland behind and and then trying to understand the intent then to develop 12 additional Lots like if you own that property what's the intent of breaking certain acreage of that off and building the 12 additional Lots instead of just leaving it all the beautiful tree farm those were my two questions thank you for the opportunity thank you for coming out anyone else no one else yes please I just have and maybe I'm just looking for clarification here and if you could please state your name and address my name is Dan gry I live at One z3000 Sun welcome so I guess these are questions you can probably just ask for answer for me right away so do I interpret this right that this is the hay Drive development now here y okay and this is the current Heather Meadows is here so you're looking at adding this road and then this is my property right here right it's all I want thank you that was easy I know what and Mr chair If people could avoid stepping away from the mic it makes it very difficult to get minutes later on thank you no it's it's not just that's okay that's that was my fault I should have I should have yelled at you when I had the chance uh anyone else have any comments yes please state your name and your address hi d f 10211 he drive I don't um understand a lot of this but if you could go back to the first slide I'd like to understand what the outlot that backs up the he drive means yes I'd like to understand what this means do this mean that will not be developed for many years or it will be developed I'd also like to understand why we would allow a development that maybe doesn't meet our corporan covenants don't we have so many acres that we need to have to build new country homes isn't there a three or five acre limit why would we allow something less of what our covenants are that would be another question the other question that I have is I know Mike mentioned that we have uh an easement coming off hey Drive I'd like to have assurance that that's not something they would break through to develop in the future so those are the things I'd like to understand please okay is do you have any other comments or just those questions that's all for now [Laughter] Mark well thank you for coming out thank you for coming out did you get all of that okay anyone else yes and if you could please state your name and your address Mike Saha 10315 Drive hi Mike you could flip back I just want to see question is and if I could just ask you to please stay by the mic because they have to there you go question creative problem solving agriculture based my question is will they still access these back fields off of Heather Lane as they have been doing in the past okay did you get that MH I I appreciate your creative problem solving with the microphone M anyone yes welcome and if you could just state your name and your address Jeff halter 10480 heatherlane great question I have is uh where you come out here why is there call here and not access to Cony Road 19 one question I had uh second question I had is some they're talking Road that's coming in here to here right from the street out is that correct potentially or no he that right so there's not going to be any streets off o that comes back to this development not currently notr sorry I'm just answering not currently the city requires goals PL for future development an engineer draws up it's just whatever got and that's draw but it's it's I don't know need to explain yeah I can it's all requirement they require for the future that meets whatever they require but there's no we're going to farm all that I was just wondering about that could be potential down the road understand like this area down here that these areas are going to keep farming is that correct I was just question I live in this Cor this is all land and I was just wondering if there was some time that there was going to be something done there because that existing home that's there is like a quarter acre real small we're we're changing that to like a 4 acre parcel this property here yeah okay does it show that anywhere it does but Mr chair the public hearing they should be addressing the commission and not the applicant directly okay good point so if if you could if you if you have questions ask us don't ask the applicant directly but I appreciate your your your your willingness to field questions so those are the questions I okay thank you did you get that yeah okay thanks for coming out tonight one more one more okay let's see maybe we'll get two more I don't think there like me for this uh we'll like you that's okay we're all about sharing ideas this is pretty wet right here what are the odds where they can if they probably got to get the NR removal but the build or to dig a big enough Pond a to help water irrigate their their trees and B to alleviate the problem on the other side of Oak only question okay did you get that only question of be question probably it it probably is but okay I like putting Natalie on the spot so we'll see if she can we'll see what I can come up we'll see what she can come up with uh any other comments anyone else how do we find the folks in the back it's close hi thank you did you guys have some comments that you wanted to share with us my teacher in high school used to call me out when I talked in class too I've always wanted to do that sorry for putting you on the spot any any other comments anyone if there's no other comments I would make a motion to close the public hearing and I will second that uh All In in favor say I I all opposed and that will close the public hearing uh so Natalie before we begin I just want to say uh something about the uh the packets uh for this week um I really liked the um discussion points at the end and I I thought that they were very helpful I I know that they helped me I don't know if they helped everyone else so I just wanted to say say thank you uh who would like to start off with this conversation do we want to give Natalie the opportunity to address uh any of the questions that feel appropriate to be addressed at this point in time would you like to do do that now or wait for us to uh we can do it now just so that um alleviate perfect so the as far as how the realignment of the existing call to stack on hea Lane is going to impact the three lots that currently front onto that culdesac uh that would be something that needs to get um I believe our engineering team will have to help with the applicant to get that finalized onto what that act process will look like the applicant will have to work with property owners to make that least disruptive as possible to get you access onto the new road so that is something that uh will be further fleshed out and if you would like to um take my business card I would be happy to connect you with our engineering team and start that process to get what that would look like as far as the intent of the two Outlaws and the intent of the development um the applicant does have uh alog together six development rights and the the idea of the development rights program is to allow Farmers to um to be able to continue farming as an option as well as be able to sell off some of their land uh to make things workable for them and as far as the developer specific intent that will have to be answered by the applicant if they so choose and then the development of Outlaw a again they are put into a temporary conservation easement that is uh for the open space and preservation plat it is temporary so at this point it would not be removed until Municipal services are available to the area Municipal services are not planned for this area in the as far out as the city goes in our planning documents we do a 20-year Horizon uh so our current comp plan is 2040 next year we will likely start the process for a 2050 comp plan and I I I it's not going to be a part of the area that would be served by Municipal Services I am confident in saying that um so I can't say that it'll never get developed but the idea is it would not not be able to be further developed until uh there are services that would allow for a denser development in that area uh corkran covenants why do we allow smaller Acres so our minimum lot size in the rural residential acre uh rural residential district is 2 Acres again the development rights program is what helps offset it so that we're not exceeding a density of overall one in 10 there is some flexibility from the Met Council to when we do an open space and preservation plat to go to one and five uh but the overall goal is 1 and 10 so our development rights were assigned originally to keep uh based on one in it's changed a couple times but essentially it's one in 10 and then we have a minimum lot size of two acres and again this allows people with acreage to decide okay I have three development rates I have 30 Acres I'd like to continue farming most of it but I'd like to carve off a smaller acre of to someone who's interested whether that be a family member or otherwise so the it's supposed to provide some flexibility but actually um they are showing 2.3 Acres as their smallest minimum lot size uh so they are meeting that even though there is no minimum lot size for this type of plat um so that it is in line with the acreage that we would expect in this area and then easement coming off a so I didn't show the um the ghost plat so I I pulled it up here one second see oh I have to pull out of what she means by ghost plat is this is the city requirement to show what could be developed in the future when services are available to the area so this is that time frame that she's talking about that is way down the line yeah for some reason it's not showing up I don't know it's doing that okay so there is a ghost plat in the packet um and I apologize it's just not showing up on my screen so I'm going to go back to the logo um which does show how the property could be developed in the future should uh Urban Services become available so again it does show that there would be a public street from Oakdale that comes down to uh between two of the lots that they're proposing down here and go to the Southwest where um link up with Heather Lane and it also does show that easement I believe that that gentleman was talking about from Hig drive to allow for a connection there as well because the idea is you do want connectivity overall um so there it does allow for future connectivity they're not proposing that now they're not proposing that in any immediate future scenario uh as you heard from them their intent is to farm it for the long foreseeable future to see that little picture yep if you want to it's going to be available in the booklet it's going to be available in the bookl that's right outside the room here if you want to look it was also available online I'm sorry it wasn't pulling up so I was I I don't have that option at the moment um so but it is in the packet and then let's see here is coming out Pig so access for outlets on hea as far as farming access for outlots on Heather Lane I don't know how the uh how that might change for the applicants that might be a question they'd be better able to answer if they would still need to access Heather Lane for Outlaw B and the south side of Outlaw um Outlaw a there is a very um fairly big Wetland wet area that might make it difficult for them to always come from Outlaw a uh from the north side of Oakdale so they might still need that but I'll let you speak to that if uh the commission would like that answered and then um called toac no access to County Road 19 it is a temporary culdesac uh right now there it would eventually connect should those properties to the West also start to develop so it is a temporary call the sack um to be able to turn around is the idea because you can't right now uh turn it's would not be easy to turn around without that a temporary call to sack but that would not be a long-term uh solution it'd be a fairly long-term solution because I don't know when the West would ever develop but the reality is um should it develop it would be solved at that time where it would further connect to ultimately um County Road 19 or some type of front Ed onto County Road 19 um I don't I think that's regarding the streets on oale I think the host plat talks about that and then as far as requiring ponding to alleviate existing drainage across the street um so the project is required to meet the storm water requirements of the city of corkran as well as the El Creek watershed management commission and they have rules to address rate control and water quality standards for all developments they are developments cannot make an existing situation any worse but they are not responsible for correcting uh situations that are outside of outside of their property um that are outside of their control so basically we hold them to an extent of not making anything any worse ideally better but um we as the city are not able to require them to put an additional ponding to alleviate a situation on outside of the property um on the but yeah so I would say that they will go through not only a city the city Engineers process there are some additional standards they have to meet for the engineering with the city and then they also have to go through the Elm Creek Watershed review to confirm that they're in compliance with those rules and that is what I have at this time thank you and uh commissioner brummond can you refresh my memory we close the public hearing correct we did close the public hearing than you I'm getting old so sometimes I need some promp something so don't mind me um Natalie thank you I I know that you worked very hard on this uh report now Natalie I just want to make sure that I understand uh just to help me kind of organize uh our discussion preliminary plat cup and variances do I have that correct correct okay uh with that in mind if you know if my colleagues think that it would help to kind organize our discussion based on those three buckets we can do that otherwise uh not so uh who would like to start off I'll start off I have a general question and that has to do with the development rights and the osmp and this this is primarily for my edification but if we're us if if the applicant has six DRS development rights and then to to elevate that to the 10 or 12 Lots we're using 200% of the osmp how can that area that's reserve for the osmp be developed in the future because the city is not we have to work with the Met Council as well and the idea of the osmp the whole reasoning behind it is you're clustering houses uh because you either want really large lots for eventual sewer or you want really small Lots um the me like the five a 5 acre lots having a ton of those is actually what's really makes it really difficult and um so the idea being you get an additional bonus for clustering the housing here and retaining an open lot because those are the situations we want to see to be able to put in efficient and effective infrastructure later on and the me Council my understanding would not allow us to put it into a permanent conservation easement so it's a temporary conservation easement with the caveat it would have to go this area would have to be identified as part of our Metropolitan Urban service area our Musa um and at this point there are no intentions to do that so okay I will piggyback on what you said because that was actually this is the first time that we've had the opportunity to really see how the um open space and preservation impacts a plat and so that this was a helpful exercise cuz um I was under the impression as well that it was to preserve open space for as long as we possibly could right like um in perpetuity but obviously we can't do that um because we're governed by uh another level of um of organization so that was helpful to understand um I don't mind tackling all of this as a chunk um but if you would prefer to keep it separated I can just talk about the preliminary plat what would you prefer I I would prefer if we keep them in buckets keep it in a bucket okay I'm I'm simple that way and I like to keep things simple sure then at this point in time um I do feel like uh after really looking at the osmp objectives it that this plat meets those requirements and so I would be in favor of making a motion to approve that preliminary plant um it would be awesome if we could tag in just uh the proper seating with Native vegetation um but that would be my only comment on something that was specifically called out for the commission to discuss can I ask a question before we move forward with that motion sure oh I didn't make an official motion no I was just weighing in got it um and Natalie sorry if this is duplicative to to your point earlier but why do we have a maximum lot size in the OS like in a because again it's to the idea is to Cluster small lots and so you want to have a maximum size in that situation because you don't because it's the five acre lots that make it really difficult to put an infrastructure later on um because it's just simply not cost effective uh it's really expensive to have a series of 5 acre lots um and and put that in later on so the idea is to keep it under that threshold and keep the Lots clustered and smaller together where why we have that no minimum lot size you do have to have two uh effective septic sites and then we have that maximum cap to keep it a cluster essentially despite the fact that this is maybe a lot that's not going to be you know developed in the longterm future Sor I say that again never mind it was a thought okay um is this now the time to talk about HOAs or would that be in another section that would be PR well you could talk about it but I think it'd be under the conditional use permit it' be under this part the plat oh this part mm okay so thoughts on that so we obviously have quite a lot of development proposals happening even this evening many will have HOAs we've approved a lot uh recently you know these types of 2.3 to 4 acre lots are where you know people coming from the city want to come here and possibly have chickens okay maybe HOAs a lot of times may not allow that how do we try and it isn't indicated if there will be an HOA or not I think in your notes it may be said you'd probably want to do that earlier rather than later to find if there will be an HOA was that in the step notes so the applicant's narrative states that they do not want to have an HOA they do not want to the concern being there are limited options as to what they can do to divest their interest in the out Lots in the future so if there is a chance that they would want to divest it to an HOA because they no longer want to continue farming or owning these areas or a future family member might have that it's going to be a lot harder to establish a homeowners ass Association Within These Lots later on that could reasonably take over that ownership for the outlaw than it is if they were to start it now so we're leaving it up to the applicant as to how they want to handle it we're just trying to call that out uh so that they're aware of that potential complication in the future okay and only from my view but like that makes a big difference to me on the application and like the the types of um activities and the culture of the neighborhood and is is it possible to have that as a condition or not in in the approval have what as a condition no HOA we uh so that our code says specifically the open space can be owned by the subdivider the city or an HOA so I don't believe that we have the authority to tell them they can't follow city code but what they're saying is that you can't make it a condition but right now the applicant is not stating that they would want right now okay right for right now okay that's all thank you and the reason it would be difficult to bring in an HOA later is because the homeowners would all have to have to agree to that and they' already been there normally they'd agree to it when they purchase the property that it's part of an HOA absolutely and and we have other open space areas open space preservations and even unbuildable outlots that are owned by an HOA and that is seen as the basically that is the HOA uh common area is the outlaw and so it's not unusual for some of our neighborhoods in the rural area to have an HOA specifically for maintenance of that Outlaw so what is the purpose of the outlots if they're and who maintains them if there is no HOA the subdivider or the city are the other two options so the the owners probably going to maintain them and intent at this time he's going to farm them probably okay um I I I guess I'll just address two as far as the preliminary plat I don't see any problems with that it would be kind of nice to have the native mix up in in the public right away I think that would be nice if that's possible at this time if they're getting a little additional money from selling property and then they've got some money to put into that um I think that's pretty much it for the preliminary plat as far as I'm concerned okay thank you for your comments uh Natalie as it relates to development rights and the density calculations I just want to make sure that I understand things uh correctly so uh for this application there are six development rights on the parcel uh because uh this is an open space preservation plat uh the city code provides under Section 97.7 that the applicant is allowed to double the number of development rights because it is an osmp with an urban street section which means that there are 12 development rights and uh could you remind me what an urban street section is it is a paav street with curb and gutter okay so basically a roadway with Curbing and and gutter yes okay all right and for the osmp design objectives and and having read them uh I think that the guidelines here uh are met uh being uh the four that are required by uh code 94.0 and for the other guidelines the applicant only has to design uh such that as many of the objectives are met as possible and that it's not necessarily that every box needs to be checked correct correct okay um let's see but you did draw our attention in the packet to seeding the right of way um do others think we should recommend a specific requirement that the seed there is native with conservation value I think I heard someone mentioned that a few of us mentioned that yes we were in favor of making that a requirement okay all right um I don't have any other questions uh as it relates to the preliminary plat um discussion on the conditional use permit who'd like to begin I'm going to back up for one quick second because we forgot to talk about the deferring the Wetland buffer plantings um until it's no longer farmed and I would agree um that was the last discussion point that as long as it's actively being farmed there's no reason to require those plantings okay yeah and those would be along where would those be just around the wetlands yeah so the wetlands that are on the residential lots those buffers and Monument signs would need to go in now but on the farmed out Lots those areas would um not have those buffers and monuments quite yet yeah that makes perfect [Applause] sense who would like like to start the discussion on the conditional use [Applause] permit I will um so I think that this meets the requirement because it's being it's an adjacent parcel um so in terms of being able to exceed it uh the footprint for agricultural purposes it meets those requirements so I would be in favor of approving the conditional use permit I agree I have no questions or concerns there okay so uh based upon what I reviewed in the report uh I do not have any concerns related to the cup for the accessory structures provided uh what the code says but uh but it is specific and I just want to indicate my strong support of the condition that if the adjacent Outlaw is not used for agricultural purposes the structures that exceed the footprint allowed must be removed any other discussion on the conditional use permit okay uh who wants to start the discussion on variances I'd be happy too um and that is is that I knew I could count uh and in this case I also feel like there that I would be in favor of just approving um all of the variances um the conditions [Applause] um I'm trying to think the only thing that really was a concern and I'm obviously in favor of it because of the safety trying to back out onto Oakdale drive from a one um a one driveway it doesn't seem practical or reasonable um at all and so I would agree that we should allow them to continue having both of that uh the u-shaped drive so there'd be those three access points from um Oakdale Drive and um I'm trying to see if there's anything else we need to call out specifically but I don't think so um there was a point and I think that this was talked about in the preliminary plat but I thought it was um one of the other two where uh you had mentioned that the covenants weren't satisfied um in terms of it was on your bullet point with um I'm trying to think of the page preliminary it could have been um but I was just indicating oh because you were saying that it was related to the HOA for in terms of like the likeness of all of the buildings oh and I'm just indicating that at this point in time I would agree that I feel like in keeping with the uh the agricultural feel and culture of this area I don't feel like there is a need to have those covenants satisfied in order to move forward with us so that was the only thing I wanted to call out specifically otherwise I would be um ready to approve the Varian system I agree if both the variances were reasonable agree on keeping the Dual different purpose driveways um yeah I think it's good I also agree I don't think there needs to be any conformity in the looks of the homes I think everybody usually gets their own builder out here there's not a developer Builder coming in and doing that I think the driveway makes perfect sense you guys have been using it for decades might as well you have a big truck coming in doesn't make sense to make him trying to turn around so still a rural agricultural area out there so shouldn't be a problem yeah I'm okay with it okay well for all of these reasons offered by my colleagues i s I suggest that the commission recommend approval of this um application uh and I'll make the motion to approve can I get a second second all in favor say I I I'll opposed [Applause] congratulations well it'll go before Council I saw that look Dean you you made it through us I'm somebody finally is everybody as everybody ends up leaving they think it's approved it's got to go through five more of us guys that were elected so we'll have and Natalie has something to we'll have other inut and I I will note the pl uh city council meeting as for was scheduled for May 23rd and it got rescheduled this week to May 21st because there was an attendance conflict yeah attendance conflict with the council so uh this everyone isn't thrown off by that it would go to Council on Tuesday May 21st yeah I have okay so uh with that I'd like to open the public hearing for agenda item 6B this is and I'm am I pronouncing you want to give the neighborhood a minute to leave if they don't want to St oh sure was it was it something I said actually we could lock the doors and you don't all leave at once folks thank you for coming out all right everybody in the back row you got to move to the front now [Music] [Laughter] too oh my goodness well it's good to see you have a good [Applause] night we volunteer before AG so we served and cleaned up dinner oh I was know them had the opportunity there's some seats up front too yeah I don't think that's a lot one night yeah let know I don't understand why it work on screen but it don't forget I'll try not to but it depends on right am I ready to try again yeah whenever you'd like I'm ready to go I can hear so I'm ready you you let's keep it all moving all right yeah thank you do we want to move the screen you guys see the screen so uh we're going to keep going here I'd like to open the public hearing for agenda item 6B City file number 23-34 this is the and forgive me if I'm mispronouncing this is it chastek chask chask uh Farm preliminary plant preliminary PUD and resoning this is an application to Plat 116 single family homes Natalie thank you Mr chair the applicant for this request is Che real estate and development and hemple real estate and they are doing business as Emerald Rose LLC and again it's 116 single family residential lots that they're are proposing in addition to seven out Lots the property that the subject property is 7600 Maple Hill Road it is north of County Road 10 in Bass Lake Crossings and then Maple Hill Road here is on the west and then Maple Hill State in addition to the residential lots an off-road Trail will be provided along the North Boundary of this project in compliance with the 2040 parks and trails map and it will eventually connect to the existing trail system at fassle real as part so there are a few components to the application as noted by the chair the first component is a resoning request currently the property is zoned rsf2 this is a single family residential district and they are requesting to be rezoned to planned unit development or PUD and the staff report goes into detail the standards that the Planning Commission and city council need to consider whether or not the resoning standards have been met a staff find there is reasoning to support the resoning request uh but this is ultimately a policy choice where the city has a high degree of discretion so the Planning Commission is asked to provide feedback on that question um and then we can get to really the heart of the Pud request uh the preliminary PUD development plan is subject to several standards the city adopted a new PUD ordinance last year uh that requires several design standards to be met of any PUD um most of those standards have been met with this application however there is a little remaining question of how the open space fits in with our guidelines we do require 12% open space for 55 foot wide Lots or it's under 65 but as low as 55 foot wide lots are required to have 12% open space however the city council does have the authority to deviate from this standard when there might be some site constraints or the public benefits ex uh outweigh the reduction in open space requirement uh the open space space must be upend but a large portion of the open space proposed in this uh proposal is a flood plane Andor will be inaccessible due to the slope it's uh mostly noted here as part of the hydraulic green Corridor they did provide an updated exhibit today that uh showed that there is more technical upend than um than what I estimated in my staff report so uh but this area right here is the hydraulic green corridor and that would definitely be under the 100 Year ordinary high water level yes can I interrupt you is the applicant here I have a question I've never heard of a hydraulic green Corridor did you get that from like chat GPT or something or where did that come from develop it's like Creative Marketing I I like it I'm not being critical I like it okay all right that that's okay why don't you sit down we'll keep going I was just kind of curious it is actually I'm sorry to derail you um so this area here of the of the corridor is under the 100e um ordinary high water level and they do have another density exhibit that also shows that this outlaw is also under that or within that flood plane as well the rest of it does technically meet Upland um so staff with that new information staff's calculating that outside of the flood plane the proposed up and the proposed open space is 4.34 4 Acres so that's about 11.3% so they are much closer than what I originally thought in my staff report however there is still the matter of these are very steep slopes are they truly accessible um so the Planning Commission and city council will need to um discuss whether the view of that open space because it is intended to be planted with some wild flowers um is a view is that enough or did they want this to actually the open space or can what exactly do we want to do in terms of potentially deviating from open space requirement uh so that's definitely a point for discussion tonight and then the requested flexibilities are primarily from the dimensional standards for our rsf3 district so the Pud ordinance states that the underlying ordinance will be based on the proposed lot Dimensions the whatever's closest so that's why it turns into the rsf3 that we're deviating from uh they are proposing a minimum lot area of 6,00 875 sare ft rsf3 requires about 7500 or does require 7500 the minimum lot width is 55 ft where it's was 65 ft in the rsf3 and then additionally they are requesting a 7 and 1/2 foot side stepback uh this will allow for a 15ot minimum separation they it's this is a request that we're seeing over and over again it's prob it is a sign that our code really needs to be updated overall uh but working with within the framework that we have uh that's this is one of the ways to handle that request uh and this is the instead of a 10-ft living 5-ft garage setback which also it has a minimum separation of 15 ft uh the they are asking for a rear setback of I had in my documents 20 ft uh again the applicant spoke with me since the packet went out and has said that really they can meet 25 fet except for maybe a few Lots uh and so I'm hoping that she'll touch on that more in her presentation today and uh other than that there there's 20 lots that would have to have the lot width measured at a minimum required front step back we do allow this for Lots on a culdesac these lots are more on a curve and so they're not technically on a cu the ACT they're mostly on a curve um and so we would have to specifically call that flexibility out for the impacted Lots every other lot would have to would be measured per normal and the other deviation is they're requesting a 60% maximum garage Frontage instead of 55% where we have required it in our architectural standards for single family homes so again here's the open space um they are proposing a significant amount a 60ft setback essentially here of open space along Maple Hill Road um this outlot G it's not all Wetland it is for the most part all uh flood plane but it's not doesn't necessarily mean it would be unaccessible it's just that it is a flood plane area um and then um so we have these view corridors that they uh have tried to incorporate here and here and then all of this would be planted including the hydraulic area all that would be planted with Prairie seating and then we also have some additional upend around the trail um that would count towards the open space as well as well excuse me so for the proposed PUD public benefits this application came in as a concept Plan before we adopted our PUD public benefit policy so that's why it's handled a little differently in the staff report than the next application that we're going to see they are not subject to the policy although I do call out a couple areas where they are voluntarily complying uh so their proposed PUD public benefits is their storm water management design includes off-site drainage they're attempting to improve a situation that is very difficult uh for not just them but surrounding properties and then a variety of home exterior designs are proposed uh we require at least five styles to meet the minimum standard of a PUD they are proposing 12 different exterior designs um and then there is uh an internal private trail sidewalk system they're proposing that provides the view shads of a hydraulic green Corridor and then an improvement of Maple Hill Road and the Maple Hill Road County Road 10 intersection the reason why this is listed as a benefit is because while it will benefit their development and it's being triggered at this point because of their development and everything that's happened to this point it will be to the benefit as well of the existing Bass Lake Crossing existing Maple Hill estate as well as the future to the future benefit when the downtown area to the West develops because this will this work has already been done so that's why it's not just benefiting their property it really is benefiting the larger area again a 60ft step back from Maple Hill Road is an open space area and that is proposed and these are the areas where they voluntarily complied with our PUD public uh benefit policy there was significant collaboration with the adjoining land owner to the east as they've worked through how to manage that shared property line as these developments have moved forward and that was a significant effort and I think it was painful for both applicants and they have made a much stronger application because of it uh exter extensive internal Landscaping is also proposed they have it's like they've almost doubled the required Landscaping with what they've proposed in some areas the the I believe it was closer to triple and I'd have to look up the exact numbers but I know I was pretty impressed they have a lot of landscaping and they are proposing predominantly native plants in their landscaping and they're also proposing primarily use of our Northeast District preferred trees list and this is in the Southeast districts they do not need to comply with that um regarding Landscaping there we do have a buffer yard ordinance and when the when an area a boundary for the project abuts a property of the same district you don't have to do a planted buffer yard you have to maintain uh the rear and side setback of of the rear stepback of that District it's it's a little confusing I give you that um but you have along those shared property lines you're supposed to basically maintain the rear saback of the district what's makes it super confusing is it that ordinance really didn't call out how to handle puds so far we've been treating puds as rsf3 because again it's the that's the underlying District that we're deviating from the rear setback in the RS three is typically 30 ft however Bass Lake Crossing where they have a shared boundary to the South is 25 ft uh Fairway Shores which is the next application we'll be looking at they're requesting a 25ft rear setback chastic is arguably also requesting a 25 stepback so staff leas we should allow them to have just a buffer yard of 25 ft uh we think that makes sense considering the surrounding areas uh and then staff is also recommending that that the Pud approvals handle the setback in this area as a uh part of the district instead of having a separate conservation easement because we're not requiring any plantings in this area and that's how typically we would handle it outside of a PE we would have a conservation eement uh for the preliminary PUD development plan uh one thing that came up during staff review was the their they have a couple areas on here where they have a sidewalk and then they cross and there's a sidewalk and there's this internal private trail that they've proposed to link The View corridors uh staff said that they would prefer to see really the one side because you're supposed to have a sidewalk on at least one side and they think it might be a better alternative to just have the sidewalk loop around this internal block it would minimize some of the pavement in the area um and then they don't need to have a separate Trail but it would provide more connectivity with less Road Crossings uh so that is a right now a um a condition of approval based on the staff recommendation for that and but the Planning Commission can certainly discuss uh the trail right now is shown in a couple areas where it actually conflicts with Wetland buffers and you have to be at least 5 feet away from Wetland buffers uh so and then also this private Street there needs to be a 5-ft separation between the street and the trail to be able to to for maintenance basically for maintenance to get in there so there's going to need to be some shifting of possibly the street and as well as the trail will need to Shi to be outside of the wild down buffers uh so it's likely that the trail is actually going to come down right about here before connecting to the East and then must go up to it must go up to the east property line so it can connect to the trail easement that will be coming for Fairway Shores which is again the next application additionally the applicant would like to put up a fence along and that's firman fence kind of highlighted in yellow here that's where they'd like to put up a fence to provide screening for their residents um however there were a couple concerns that got brought up by staff including the long-term maintenance of the open space area and then also Walling off the trail in the open space and so staff did confirm with our Wetland Specialists that they would be able to put a fence uh they would have to get approved by and a fence could go over that wellend area which would allow them to if they wanted to really put that fence all the way up to the north property line to take care of the screening uh we would prefer to see Landscaping in that area but they do have the option of putting up a fence so that's where we would like to see it we would also like to see that the fence does not go any closer to uh Maple Hill than this West property line here uh so that the trail is open and accessible ible to the public um and it's not it's not hidden away so uh once we get through all of that if all the flexibility requests if the resoning and the Pud plan are approved then the preliminary plot will comply with the applicable ordinances and requirements there may be some changes to the lot layout and the design in order to comply with the conditions of approval between preliminary and final plat but that is expected um and so staff do does recommend that we open the public hearing and take testimony we do recommend approval with the draft ordinance approving the resoning to PUD draft resolution approving findings of fact to support the resoning draft resolution approving the preliminary PUD plan and a draft resolution approving the preliminary plat uh the Planning Commission can make adjustments to the resolutions including the conditions of approval or additional flexibility or additional public benefits or how they want to scope that discussion that can certainly be changed or if you find that the standards of one or more components of the application are not satis satisfied then you do have the option of recommending denial it is again most of this application has a high level of discretion with the city um but if you do recommend denial then findings of fact should be provided to staff to forward to city council that's what I have okay thank you oh and I'll say the applicant is here and she does have a brief presentation to share as well okay so very good please I'm [Music] sorry and if you could just state your name before you um my name is Ben kresnak with hemple real estate and co-developer with B hou and track development um yeah Natalie great presentation really appreciate um all of that I'm sorry I'm trying to pull this it it does not like Adobe today so hold on um are you able to pull we'll have him pull it up on his computer can you pull it up you go to um the it's in the agenda file I apologize you're probably getting hacked oh do you do you have oh you that this one's sorry about this D yep all right take a second Jo um so I guess we'll start with kind of why we're here um obviously we're trying to build some houses that's the the obvious part but um you know we're kind of running into this um issues with our site versus what your city code requires for density and so we're just barely at that just over three per um acre density and so we had to go to this PUD route to get some 55 what Lots in there because of our wetlands and because of this um all the storm water you're job yeah all the storm water that we're were taking on from um the adjacent properties and so obviously been the chastic family property for 100 years or something a long time right uh the green houses have been cleared off um some of the foundation been taken out um work through all the environmental stuff and all that um so yeah I just have some some notes that I think natal did a great job and covered most of it I just want to kind of explain what like what we're asking for and just a couple things about the site um because Natalie pointed out this is going to be a 60 foot um buffer along Maple Hill and that also happens to be where there are just a few lots that are like that 6800 minimum that we're proposing um which are like these four lots and there lot 100 have the smaller um Lots but for the most part those are in back up to that open area so there's going to be actually it's going to feel like a pretty big um home site for those people that live there um and then on the the cell side for the most part those are all 65s um there's a few as you get over to these um it's kind of the road curvs get a little bit um smaller there some 55s and I think um there so as we're talking about um minimum Flex sorry minimum of 55t lots however 53% are actually going to be 65 foot Lots it's not a small lot development um and we're looking at a minimum of 6,800 foot lot but our average lot is actually going to be well above 7500 it's going to be um 88,200 so like especially like those lots on the South Side there's a lot of eight nines and tens in there there's a 14,000 foot lot so it's definitely not a small lot situation um this is cool that I can control it uh so just going back uh 20ft rear setback there's only two lots that we need that for and that is um these two that are lots 28 and sorry 28 and 87 because they're on the that curve um there's you got a setback from the street so by time you do that you end up with a little bit smaller building pad than is ideal so we're just asking for flexibility you guys said absolutely not I think we would figure it out we just have a little different looking house um that has maybe a garage that's more of like a L-shaped house versus um a lot of the houses are going to have garage and then the house to the to the right or left of it um let's see 60 foot uh garage Frontage this is really for the 65 um foot lots for the larger Lots we want to try to get three car garages on those and you can't do that with a 27 and 1/2t garage um so on a 65t lot we're going to end up with a 50ft wide house and so we'd end up with the 27 1/2t um think so up with two car GES um which is kind of silly and then the seven and a half 7 and a half you guys understand that so I'm not going to talk about that um it's not a huge deal to us you want all rightand garages just do that but it doesn't seem to really say anybody um so when we talk about the city benefits here um you know the big gotcha is hey there's this huge road we got to build and it's not even on our site we don't own any of that property um it's it goes way past where our um site needs to enter it goes way past you know where we um you know even a butt two it's all the way down to the county road and it doesn't seem fair um and we were told this kind of kind of late in the process um we're providing double Landscaping we're doing all this uh storm water stuff um he said for for what you know like what is the flexibility we're really getting here we're just trying to hit um your three for thousand or sorry three lots per um acre so we got the increased setback and obviously we're we're collaborating we're creating sorry I'll go back here so we're creating connections um here and here for the joining development could you go back which uh go back yeah yeah benefits so I just want to make sure that I understand this you're so you're building a private trail in the sidewalk system yep yep how's that a benefit to to the city it's a public Trail and it's connecting to other but it's really a benefit for your homeowners right I think we're mostly time with the one on the very North End it's in um it's over a 65 foot high or sorry 65 foot wide like stor sorry is that sewer seor the side of the property so the sewer Interceptor can cross the property to the major city center area and service the West the property to the West so um that's a that's a big but we're also the the private trail will be in the right of way so it will be Public Access and people will be able to use it and they'll be able to walk to the view it it'll be connected to the neighboring Basset Crossings and potentially to the project to the east of us so people will use that and that's the point of having some view stations so people can stop on their W and continue and because it's in way everyone will have say and then we also have that on Maple Hill right and so there's new sidewalks on on Maple Hill not on our property um it's all on city property okay thank you so we talk about the road construction here so this is the Goa where it's like okay you got to build from from here our entrance is here um so this is our our proposed site right so we're supposed to build from here to here which maybe that's could be typical but then also we got a build down here by the way we don't even know when where the intersection is going to go they say well maybe maybe we want you to acquire some more land and we'll move the interchange and it seemed like a huge project for one developer to take on when all these other properties around here you know there's huge land owners here that are going to benefit um it's obviously going to connect through to here this property these properties down here there's the Maple Hill States there's the golf course sorry and it's one developer paying for all of it um it's you know truly a public good we understand we should pay for our roads through our site like that's typical got houses on it we're connected so you can create a street grid but to build this huge infrastructure um for the city um seems a bridge too far to me talk about more Packy stuff hydrological Waterway coming through here um this is a to take on um water from I think all the way over to Shamrock Golf Course and my civil engineer is here to talk about that so they've done the water studies and all that and so we got water coming across um is it through a culvert underneath that y so coming through a culvert going through um Mi homes development to the South and then flowing into our site so we're grabbing all that water and we're um filtering and um retaining it in addition to our own water um in addition to the water to the east from the bridon um lure parcel we're putting in the storm water receptor um pipe um on our site at our cost to capture their water um we're grabbing water from you know across um April Hill too so I can show you all that in a map but you know and we're kind of at a disadvantage here because we are the low low spots and you can see the toal map it's a little hard to read we're at like 960 see see 990s 980s 970s so we're we're the bathtub where I guess all the water is going so we're obviously bringing our houses above um you know flood plane and all that and creating the Swale to to manage the water right and and you understand that that's why you're you're expected to manage that water it's not that the city's picking on you it's that you're I think you called it the bathtub sure right yeah okay I just want to make sure that we're clear that you you're not saying that the city's picking on you somehow yes on the road the road perspective yes this the um I'm from the storm water we understand hey we're about the low spot so we got we got a deal with it um it makes it harder for us to develop and that's why we're here talking about PUD you know because we can't get the density that's required by the city because of these site constraints yeah I think that was trying to explain the site constraints they're working with because that's part of the Pud analysis in terming of of what when we're comparing it to the public benefits proposed and especially for them the amount of open space that they're proposing um it's important to consider the constraints that they're also working with and this is a huge one so if if you could um why do they have to invest in that road I because they're they're the they're the trigger so there was a feasibility study done with um with our engineers and basically the they're the Tipping Point Bass Lake Crossing wasn't quite the Tipping Point to improve Bap Hill and now they are uh so it's just unfortunate in the alignment that it's kind of it's all falling on them at this point but it's they do need these areas to be improved in order to support the amount of housing they are proposing um but to their argument it is going to benefit much more than just their development okay and so our continue on that um the feasibility study did not take into account any connections to The Lure piece so it says 100% of our traffic is all going on Mabel Hill and I hate to say it but I don't think everybody's going to if you're going downtown Minneapolis and you live in the you know the southeast corner of that site I don't think you're going to go backwards you're probably going to go through um you know the fur laneway um uh let's see yeah and then I think the same thing with the trigger point okay that's fine why are we building you know this portion when our all of our cars presumably unless you're going to the the trailer park or the golf course you know this is a dead end Street why why are we required to build this set two our cars aren't using that there's no Nexus of benefit to our our people that would be living in this development take me to answer that Mr chair City policy is that you improve the roadway up to your property line because then you know if they were ever to have an abroad Improvement project tied to development to the West that they would make the same arguments and then you'd have patches of areas because well that's not our property we shouldn't have to improve it or that doesn't quite benefit us so we every project in the city has been that does Road improvements off site it's been to the property line okay thank you and then I think it said that the other got is we don't know what the design is yet it's hey pay us some money we'll design it we'll send you the bill um we're going to build the road we'll send you the bill when that's done we don't even get to build it with our own contractor um and then you want curb on probably both sides even though that's a farm field you want sidewalks on both sides even though said we don't own any of it so um and we're we're expected to take on this huge task that seems very unfair can I ask that can I ask the applicant question sure do we is no do we not well why don't we wait until discussion let's let them finish what what they want to share I think I think it's it's excessive as what we're really saying for for our site and it doesn't necessarily the feasibility study does not take into account the development to the east that you're looking at tonight and the fact that that traffic will potentially come if they're going to come to the city center and the major Center area they'll likely come through our subdivision and use Maple Hill Road and go to the to the city center area if there's activities and there's things going on there there's commercial I don't know that's what it's designed for and guided uh with some commercial properties so and and the intersection that we're being asked to improve is not not terribly unusual for I think M I had to do one and we had at um cook Lake Highlands but it was adjacent and abing our property this the difference with this is that it's offsite it's not adjacent to our property um but because we're building homes and proposing homes we're having to being asked to develop that in its entirety and so it's benefiting the properties that do ab it and are adjacent to it and the properties that that it will be it will benefit their private you know benefiting the public it's benefiting private land owners so um and there there is a a rental subdivision 200 units that currently drives down that road now and uses that road the road is in not good condition currently so we understand why they want it to be improved but we believe that the amount of the improvements is excessive so sure um we think it can be improved and we think there's a portion of our responsibility to improve that but we think fully improving it urbanizing both the east side and the west side of it is extensive and excessive so and it's going to get torn up when that side gets developed yes so maybe an urban section on our side and a rural section on the rural side so I hear you it's important to me that you know that you're you're heard and that you know we we understand that we simply make recommendations to city council so I think this this time would be better spent by you elsewhere we just make recommendations to city council council person is here oh I'm sure he's taking notes and hearing everything you have to say so yes we are not taking it out on the Planning Commission I get it I upset but it's just it seems yeah no no no I I get it you know what sometimes things aren't fair you know so well thank you are you guys also on Tik Tok you think I'm on tikt uh before you sit down uh commissioner did you have a question for the applicant I'll hold it okay I do just have one question if I could before you sit down and it's actually just a practical one so I noted that you have the site divided into a north and a South um and the north is uh what will be developed first or that's the plan right or is it the South the South South Excuse me yes I am confused cuz I was saying it flip-flop but it's the portion closer to to Bass Crossing and so it's that road the entrance Road and then will that full connection to fur Lane be completed when that first phase is done I won't connect to furlane because we don't we don't con you don't connect to furlane you kind of yes it's it's because the two are happening at the same time right so that connection comes from the adjacent East property really yes okay if not we have been asked to bring it to the property line and do a temporary call okay okay and I guess my uh my reason for questioning that is that often times when these developments are in the middle of their phasing we hear from so many residents who talk about construction um entrance and so making sure that there's more than one way in or out of of um of a development is a big deal to people even though you know they're buying in a new development but that just tends to come up often so I wanted to to see what the plan was for that but it looks like that main entrance is going to be both construction access as well as as people move in that will be the in andout to this neighborhood that's okay and yeah it's the only one we can count today okay I mean as a part of this proposal okay makes sense perfect Y and that was my only specific question um to be answered by you guys yeah the intent is the construction traffic would come through map okay thank you Natalie quick question if if I heard everything if I heard you earlier correct we're looking at resoning to a PUD and then a preliminary PUD plan and then a preliminary plant Y and the preliminary plant okay uh how would you like to organize or oh I'm sorry Public public oh I apologize please come forth and prosper please please state your name and your address my name is I live at 7494 Lane just have one question CU I'm saving the other ones for the counil but one question who is the developer I want to know who the developer is are you guys the developer so you own the land now are you going to be buying the land so that's all I want to know is who is the developer sir you can't address I just want to know who that's all I want to know is who the devel yeah I don't I don't know if you know if you're willing to answer that's fine but we're not going to ask them to disclose you know confidential business information right is that a question you want to answer or no it's in the staff report it's it's clear it's who yeah the applicant is is them track real estate and hemple doing business as Emerald Ro so they are acting as the developer as far as the home builder I don't believe that's been finalized right okay fair thank you all right so uh is there anybody anyone else no one okay with that can I uh can I get a motion to close the public hearing I'll make that motion I will second it all in favor say I I I'll oppos thank you and who would like to begin this discussion please rsf2 does it have density requirements yes is as so anything that right now the way that the verbiage is in for rsf 2 is it requires three to five units for acre by code um to change that further to match up with um some recent changes to our comp plan will be doing a quot but right now it specifically says 3 to five units per acre in the rsf2 as well and rsf3 is three to five units per acre rsf2 and rsf3 are the same correct okay um because I was going to say I'm trying to understand why rsf why we're going against rsf3 versus rsf2 if it is existing rsf2 because Here's my thought we do have a high level of discretion just because we're getting proposals doesn't mean we have to do them or at the level of um concentration because I'm thinking about it this way and I'm wondering what our density map looks like given we just approved significant increase in density on the Hope Community Church lot and what does what does that look like for the the whole composition of corkran and what our density goals need to be given the recent approvals we've had those are kind of the questions that are running through my mind that I kind of wanted to talk to the group about do we have enough information to make these kinds of long-term decisions Mr chair would you like pleasee so this area is guided for low density residential so they aren't require aren't requesting a comprehensive plan Amendment as part of their request um so they are and our largest land use uh on our comprehensive plan like talking thousands of acres is low density residential so while we are going to be able to depart from some of these areas potentially being able to develop lower uh it's going to be a limited amount of acreage that we can regu and we cannot deny a Project based on that component saying that we want this to be lower density when it complies with the density in our comprehensive plan so I would say that part is in compliance with what we currently have planned I think as part of our comprehensive Plan update we'll be able to better identify areas where less density would make sense where there is discretion in this application I'm not trying to confuse you the density is does comply with where our city ordinance is required so that's not where they're asking for discretion right yep understand that okay those are my questions for now thanks are we trying to take this excuse me chair as a individual uh components or can we address this as a whole you know I guess for this one use your discretion however you'd like to go okay thank you I appreciate that so first of all I want to say that this is the first time I in my recollection in my couple years here that we've gotten a PUD Proposal with the percentages um of deviation and that was helpful because I think that sometimes when you um are alerted to the fact that there's going to be a deviation the assumption is that it's on 100% of the properties and so to call out your specific percentages and then to identify the exact properties that there would be a slight deviation from is extremely helpful in understanding what the overall um layout and and um and look of the property is going to be so I really really appreciated that um talking about some of the specific well first of all talking about the road Improvement the one thing that I will say is that I hear you because I also feel like but it's part of a larger discussion and in my understanding as novice as I am in this area is that it requires actually a larger conversation with our Minnesota legislation and so um I would say that getting back to where we have something similar to like an area transportation fee or some way to distribute this cost would not only benefit um multiple uh multiple folks in your position but I think it would allow small business owners to have access to developing where they cannot afford to put in the road infrastructure and so um so I just want to say I hear you um and also appreciate the fact that that is a public benefit because that is um that would be a major public concern adding any additional um cars driving on that road in particular at that spot there's a bend in the road I know that a gentleman once served on the commission who was also in public safety and that was a concern of his so the fact that you are addressing that I know it isn't um a part of your plat but I do uh receive that as the massive public benefit that it is for our city um the one as far as the open space meeting that 11.3% versus the 12% um I I I tend to be in favor of giving land owners more land to own so sometimes I don't understand the open space that doesn't belong really to anyone so if it were to be up to me I would say that the 11.3% qualifies as enough open space even if it is just uh viewable it reminds me of a neighborhood in Albertville that's uh sort of has a boardwalk but really all that you're looking out at is um is a wetland but it's quite beautiful um so I would take that as uh as meeting the open space requirement um and then the last oh garage facing I don't have a concern over um I understand the 7 feet so in terms of the deviations they make sense to me um I certainly appreciated the um comments about the properties that would be affected by the 25 rear setback 25t rear setback um because the fact that most of them can hit that 25 foot um setback is um is notable so the last thing I had is just for that one tiny property well it's not tiny but the one parcel that belongs to what will kind of have a a semblance of a rural residential what if any is there there is no requirement for buffering because we talked about all the requirements where but adjacent land uses but that there is no requirement in and around that property there is I forgot to touch on that they they are doing it I think there's a couple areas where they might need to clarify on their plans um but I just didn't call it out but they are that's just as a condition of approval that they make sure that they comply with that standard so the question that I called out was how do we want to handle it where it's not quite clear but that that exception piece does need to be buffered okay okay that is um those are the things that I just wanted to address right now thank you yep no the only the only thought I had was with respect to the the open space of 12% and initially my thought was uh why couldn't you just get to the 12% but listening to you I think I'm okay with the the way it is so that was the only thing that I had coming into this meeting all right I've got a couple things um as far as the trail system I think the open space to me open space is really important because yes you have your proper I have 5 Acres I have lotss of open space but I I love the ability to walk on trails and go to different areas and see different things cross country ski walk bike and I think that's really important I think um putting the sidewalks on the interior I think as what was one of the recommendations here would be a great idea and that would eliminate the need for this additional Trail that's shown in red on on the plan here um I'm a little confused about the what what do you call it again the hydraulic yeah hydraulic green Corridor wait wait wait you mean the trench no it's not I'm teasing don't get upset I'm teasing my question is um and maybe it's not a question it would be great if there was an ability to put even you know a soft surface Trail or something through there but it sounds like it's either too steep or too wet I think a little really no opportunity to put a path through I think it's going to be a little too steep the way it's currently designed we like to clarify that that also does not count as open space if it had if it had a path would that qualify it's a great question we we actually thought about that but the comments are that the that the people feel the privacy and safety of people walking behind the Lots is less um desirable than been providing the view stations and taking the public on the RightWay walk connecting them to the other Trails where everybody else is walking and then providing some spots to stop and and spend some time there have a you know conversation plus it could be an area where their dogs eliminate too so maybe that wouldn't be great all that is my other question thanks for answering that my other question is for the trail that's on the parks and trails Commission on the northern part of the property is is that what's shown here in green you know it it's public so the it's there's been a few Renditions and I think the staff comments are going to mean that there's another rendition so I can pull up to me that's very confusing with the potential fence because it looks like the trail is on the south side of the fence it is over on the west side of the property B on staff recommendation it would be and then the fence cuts through the trail and then the the trail is on the north side of the on the east side I don't it's confusing here let me try to clarify or something where you can continue on the TR that's not your site plan is it that's my that's my background all right but let it doesn't want to work for I think I think what really changed it was that we were allowed to potentially go through the Wetland so we don't have to move end of the trail so much and we can keep it along the 65t heas that's there and open space okay and and I like that I think it's better than just kind of going in a straight line anyways yeah I'm just confused with the fencing option and I I would prefer to as I think there was a recommendation to have that as um a natural screen trees or whatever instead of a fence we' probably prefer to have both maybe a combination because it's a real high density neighborhood to the north yeah M yeah so the trail right their most recent plans show the trail coming around here uh around the Wetland and then looping back up here and then through what a storm water pond and a wetland but it's within the Wetland buffer so we're going to yeah so after staff review it's more likely it's going to have to come down here um before connecting East okay and then it goes on to the next property okay um all right yeah just some clarification but that that'd be preferable I I like that I like the internal Trail I like the views of the Wetland area I think all that's really nice I sympathize with the whole Road thing it's it's too bad you can't get the neighboring property to kick in some on that um the 60% garage Frontage looking at the plans for the homes I think they don't look like they're stub stub homes is that what they call them snout houses snout houses yeah I think because of the second second level and the windows up top and they have enough enough you know housing on the main level that even the three car garage it looks okay and I appreciate like the hearty siding and you know the really good materials that you're putting in different color choices I do believe too so I think that one might be Fairway shortes but they are I don't know exactly are you I don't know what building materials you're proposing on I don't think we we don't think we've been identif the color and anti monotonous yeah the anti- monotonous is really appreciated there's so many gray neighborhoods out there I mean I I like a gray home but the whole neighborhood much um yeah um I guess my first impression on the discretionary standards [Music] um I don't know you guys have probably already gone above and beyond especially if you have to do this this roadway and and the trails and everything so an HOA is going to be maintaining the Outlaws yard ordinance setbacks I think that looks okay um yeah I I think that pretty much covers my input yeah yes um and apologies I know this is a little less relevant specific to the specific development proposal but I'm trying to understand how we are factoring changing density as we approve developments I'm keeping track of it so we'll I have an updated table the problem is we can't really count our eggs before they're hatched everything's preliminary right now we kind of have to take everything in a bucket but right now we're we're about 3 10 or so in terms of the units per acre with what's been approved and I think Fair um Fairway Shores will bring it down to about 3.9 in the table um so we're we still have a little bit of room to regu some land but we're talking about potentially 500 acres of land uh within the low density area so we're not even talking about an area that is currently guided as medium density if they were to want to switch to the conservation residential District at 2 to three that would have a much bigger impact so um there's limited what we're going to be able to regu to that area under our current data so the 2050 plan will be our chance to kind of reset everything and really try to take a more proactive look at reiding some land cuz that makes like okay that was very very helpful and I think perhaps because I'm like we're approving these things all the time and we say We'll approve this one so we can have less development over here well we're we're developing everything so I don't understand keeping track of it and we will be once we have final plat data that will help them form our 2050 plan okay um I also love the greenway the corridor very cool um and the fencing I I understand it um I had another question on um timing so could would would Fairway and that would you guys work together to make the disruption perhaps less to the neighboring communities or somehow or maybe that's a discussion for later but um you know I just think that could be a really big disruption if they're going on at the same time and I wonder what what that means I'm just going to say it only makes sense to try to do that right for everybody so oh to do them at the same time yeah so that instead of it so it's more coordinated I we're taking on some of their storm water and we've got we've got we're supposed to having a shared storm water um rear storm water along the east property line but we're showing it on our side because we don't know what's going to happen right to their site so if they if they you know yeah braids and it's it makes the most sense to try to collaborate okay and so I know the other proposal I believe is Villas targeting a bit of a tied Community you know you guys mentioned three car garages that makes me think this is not that clientele at all so likely not competing well there is some of that there's been this particular area because of how where the Rockford schools are lends itself to a senior um or an older uh buyer but we don't know that for sure and there are a lot of seniors that want three car garages you would be amazed oh that is surprising to me because a storage oh because you have to have three or four trash cans in one garage that is that's surprising to me too yeah the third the third garage is the first shed where all the it's where they're B yeah and I don't have that so I don't know okay and