that's kind of the indirect but we don't have the letter like you were talking about but that's where we got kind of the feedback on i think both both options and then at the august meeting where council reviewed mayor mckee's proposal we had either four or four or five or five say this is a good concept i personally felt option one was cleaner but i could live with either um so the the council appeared to take the stance from what the city attorney said on the 24th there weren't residual concerns about legality of the approach you can take that you're you're a law professor so you know more about this than i ever will but that's the conversation that's happened to this point okay thank you yeah that's really helpful thank you mr chair yes commissioner baron camp i i with with the things that have been talked about the last thing i want to do is spend more money on legal fees those kind of things when our staff has a good feeling about it and then council mayor have good feelings about it and everything's recorded those kind of things while i would love to have something in writing i've got some things to go and watch when i leave but i did we depend on our staff and and everyone that's worked on this including the attorney and such that we've got two options in front of us again i i still think about that third option of leaving alone in just resisting the cups and puds coming in front of us and follow our ordinances and that'll define it i still think about that but the the the time that's been spent on this and coming in with option one or two as a recommendation from the council mayor i think it's something that we can talk about tonight of doing it but i think it would be one of those things we would really like to see the detail and and sizes and all that stuff one more time in front of the planning commission before we would make a recommendation if if we choose option two again we've got a couple of folks that are are going to hang out one for sure and i don't know if mark has changed his mind but i just that's my thoughts on this i just i'd rather not spend more money more of our our money ours not citizens money not cities money our money everybody to get more eyes dotted and t's crossed unless it's some kind of recommendation that could be put together formalized and then come back to us for yeah that works i mean i listen to you and talk about 500 foot setbacks and then commissioner wu is is the gears are turning over there and she's drawing like crazy and stuff i love her resources and uh i just i'd like to see a little bit more formal stuff to present to council before we just kind of give it up and and say yay or nay on something thank you okay um kendra so a lot of these standards um came from [Music] surveying other communities and i appreciate the the breadth of you know um size would it be too difficult to maybe just summarize in a table some of those just to get a feel for i mean because again i i you know when i calculated the the the eagle brook at 550 feet and yet in the in the ordinance it's suggesting a max of 750 feet i mean i i'm looking at my lot and i'm going man my my back southern property line is 600 feet and i'm i'm trying to imagine you know what kind of what kind of issues are you know but but i'd really like to maybe understand a little bit more about how other communities put these things into action and if there are maybe just some examples i'd love to drive by and just see what is a what does a 500 foot setback look like for a big church so a couple things in there just to unpack just for the record um our proposal does not have a 750-foot setback we do believe that that would be a taking and we are not recommending that so a taking under the law um mr chair i think would be challenging and that was in the end that was in in my draft as essentially a placeholder number to work off of the philosophy okay because it does say capped at 750 feet so i just i was like oh man i know i know i was so close so we started there and we had conversations with the attorney and looked at other things and so we pulled it back to a 200-foot setback right um is what i did it on and i think natalie used a standard number rather than the scaling feeling like it was just a clearer standard that people could easily understand as opposed to tying it to building size or building height that's certainly something we could look at scaling what i would say is we cannot find a city that has anything close to this for a setback for these types of uses so that is unusual but we could do a table that took these cities and said what are the setbacks for these and what are any additional performance standards and we could put that in a table i had a small version of that in the october one and we could add the things that natalie found but the short answer is this is more restrictive than uh most we've seen the 50 percent impervious did come from a city i forget which city she pulled that from but we didn't know that i believe so okay i was thinking duluth but it could have been medina and then um the parking lot landscaping example pulled from plymouth so if you've worked in plymouth that's where that language came from all right yeah the access options came from a couple different cities i think both duluth and minnetonka in particular have those so we she pulled from different cities but we could uh do a table for the commission if you wanted to table and ask for that info just so you had a sense of where that came from it did get a little confusing we probably should put some tables in this for the council or headers in it so it's clear that this is option two from the mayor and option one example but and some page numbers but page five is what um staff is recommending as a starting point um yes we could provide more information if you felt like that would be helpful for the discussion we could table and direct this to provide that table well real quickly then while it's on my head on my brain um i saw that when it came to the height uh 35 feet but do i i think i read that the steeples were were exempt from the height requirement what about gymnasiums would they be no okay now um there was also um [Music] in there uh under the discussion points on page 12 you know that the setbacks would be tiered relative to building size and you know kendra i i always want to make sure i understand what we're talking about when we talk about building size so are we talking about gross building area or are we talking about footprint so that was again from uh the mayor's discussion i believe and not from for natalie's recommendation i think that the tiering on that page um was about the number of spaces is that where you're looking at five no number one building height primary structure setback under number one on page 22 sounds like footprint for number i guess i got confused about the last number one a one number one um yeah so i used it based off of um square footage usable square footage of the building so um you know with the 35 foot height that you talked about previously is what the code currently allows so that's not actually a change there so with that you're talking about depending on the type of use if it's a gymnasium or an auditorium that's just going to be the one story so going off of the square footage of that and then the rest of the building okay but but here's the difference here's what i'm trying to get at if a church comes in and says we'll build a 10 000 square foot church okay but it could be two stories or any some other assemblies but they got twenty thousand square feet that has everything to do with the calculation of setback parking lots and everything else it got a footprint of 10 000 square feet but it's got usable gross building area which is a which is a a definition of 20 000 square feet so what are we what what would our what would our our tiering be based upon well it's a footprint or or square footage i would say the latter the square footage the total square footage is what i was thinking initially but that'd be a good discussion point for the planning commission i think i mean obviously a building is going to have to be limited because of the 35 feet nobody would be able to get more than two stories under 35 feet yep um but i could see where it would make a difference in what somebody built and how it was measured a church obviously would have you know one level you know for the you know for the main area of the church but then they have offices and schools that might be two-story so how how are you gonna how are you gonna determine what the gross building area or the the building size is then it would determine everything else relative to its setbacks that that's what i just want to make sure that yeah and we aren't pro staff is not proposing that tiering of the setbacks if you did that cities um often um increase setbacks as building height goes up that's a very common tool that cities use we we just again wanted to make it easy for folks to understand i think which is why she went with a standard setback but you could do either option if that's something you wanted to do meaning you could tier the setback based on the size of the building or you could tear the setback based on the height of the building okay so the the proposed okay i'm sorry this one got by me red ink so we're not proposing a tiered setback staff is not okay the council would at least a couple would prefer that however so that's certainly a con for discussion well my personal opinion is i would fully support a tiered setback i i think that's again i i think a lot of these arguments about this type of use relative to its its proximity to you know an existing residential area could be could help eliminate that discussion the bigger the building the farther back it is and maybe we don't have an issue that's just my feeling but i i think uh a setback should be tiered if this gets passed you know yeah just point of clarification that so with that we do feel that 200 is the max of that tier so if it were to be tiered it would start at a number smaller than 200 and tier up to 200. why why a max of 200 that's a discussion that you had more than i did right well it's a discussion that the city attorney and natalie had um but that is beyond that it becomes a taking so taking is when the government restricts the use of your land in such a way i'm oversimplifying it i know but when the setback gets too restrictive too big that's a taking of the land without compensation and we cannot do that and so we listened to a webinar where the speaker said anything more than 100 feet is it taking we think we can in talking with the city attorney we could go up to 200 feet for a setback but beyond that would be a legal challenge that he could not i don't think support okay now kendra i think we could all agree that most of all of our recent developments are you know when it comes to setbacks well you know we you we'll give you instead of 100 feet we'll give you 60 feet but then you have to give more more more screening more trees that's allowed by right yes okay in this kind of a situation though with only 200 feet if that's going to be our maximum could could the ordinance be written that there is no relief for 200 feet whoops i'm sorry well right now the ordinance only gives relief from that hundred foot setback front yard setback along arterial roads by reducing it to 60 feet for buildings with that planting or the front yard setback for parking with the planting so we we do get people asking for that flexibility it wouldn't apply in in the areas where these types of uses would have bought against residential that's not an option today and it wouldn't be an option if this were adopted i haven't reduced that okay so but even along arterial roads then could it be could it be restricted again if we're all going to try to go down keeping a rural feel i i really it's hard to imagine anything simpler than going you know what we're not going to make we're going to allow you to build 60 feet off the road you're gonna have to keep a hundred feet you could change the ordinance you couldn't change the ordinance just for churches okay but you could eliminate that part of the landscape ordinance across the board for napa or ravinia for tavera okay that's maybe a different discussion for a different day i mean i mean but you could i mean you could ask a question mr chair yes sir so how would that apply to a 200-foot setback then it doesn't that's insane this would supersede that right okay this would take that away as a tool essentially gee i'm i just my one of my suggestions was actually inserting that as a tool because it was it provided incentivizes developers and and institutions to to increase the amount of greenscape in it which is also you know provided it's done carefully can promoter help promote a rural feel i don't want to see 200 feet of lawn i'm sorry i just don't it's not healthy i think that if we can you know reward developers and reward them break up the noise have training some kind of credit for the preservation of existing quality trees uh some kind of when we talk about the total impervious surface coverage not exceeding um 50 what about if they were to try pervious surface designs with it in rainwater storm water control on site which i know the swift makes them do or what if they were to do more sustainable you know incentivize them in it is in a more sustainable way such that they can increase some of these things so increase of of pervious where they leave landscape in a natural state they have to prove that it can be engineered to be sustainable so it isn't just we're going to leave a bunch of box elder trees and and and so forth they have to prove that it can be sustainable but it is you know it rewards them so i was thinking actually the opposite to what you were okay and and and that's fine i mean yeah i mean we're all it's a different yeah all over the place which i think is just fine you know well okay so let's um let's look at this thing from the perspective of the four options that we had i mean i would certainly love to see you know more of examples and and the data that was derived to come up with some of these i'd really like to maybe just give it more thought um if there were you know we've had in in past situations um i believe uh beth houstad gave us you know a list of properties that we could go look at you know for the residents you know the the senior housing yeah you know if if there's if there's a couple of examples that we can look at or we just go take it upon ourselves to go look at it um to see you know how we feel about some of these these issues and maybe even talk to a few people i don't know um we have we have um i think we do have a need to maybe see a little bit more of the of um you know i i trust the what what was said here by uh the uh staff about the the uh attorney's thing and i don't need a you know to require a full legal dissertation on it but um if if we are all right now at the point that we would like to table this what kind of what kind of consensus do we have for doing that for further thought mr chair just before we get to that point for those listening or that will listen i assume there'll be a significant amount of interest since everything is online setbacks that we're talking about are for building only correct that includes parking lots and everything else i wanted to get that on the record for everybody so they know and understand that the setbacks include the parking lots and those kind of things um so again it it was very well thought out and i want to thank the mayor and jeremy and the council member nichols for for doing what you've done and starting this and getting it going but i wanted to add those things too so people knew and understand i love what commissioner wu said about uh still the give and take on the on the setbacks related to screening um berms and obviously trees shrubs and all of those things i i that's the last thing i want to see is a massive yard and stuff while they're pretty but i'd rather see things to break up noise and and traffic noise and those kind of things but it in that instance if if you're asking for i think it would be wise this is something way bigger than just a quick meeting and talk about and go if we table this to get more information does that we've closed the public hearing on this subject does that limit public input in a formal setting like this going forward and it's all about the planning commission talking about it before it's um recommended to the council you know what i'm saying i mean there's more public hearings those kind of things done i'm asking though well if we table it would that require would that require another public hearing at the no i mean this is the public hearing that was held i will say that typically every meeting has a public comment opportunity for people to comment on anything okay so i think it's really up to the commission if you're comfortable keeping that moving forward but we've created a packet where people could comment again as tonight though that's open to anything other than what's in the notes kind of like tonight it was time for public comment on anything with the exception you had to wait for the public hearing to talk about the specific topic is that kind of the same thing or public comment it would just depend whether there's any formal public hearings on the next agenda i don't think there's any planned public hearings on the next agenda so with that case it would be just the typical public comment opportunity the difficult part is really bless you um for items that require public hearing we kind of have to we do have to follow the statutory guidelines which makes it a little wonky for people who don't understand the rules we have to work with um if there's no formal public hearings it would be just a regular public comment opportunity okay it would be open if somebody if the commission would like to continue that past practice and as always people can email can write letters and we always include anything we get in the packet you don't have to come here until 9 22 pm on a thursday evening to get your pointer and you can email the counselor myself or anything and we put it in the packet as part of the public record um you know the other the other use that has not garnered a lot of discussion here and some of the particulars is schools um you know for instance setbacks and now it says um of all structures what would a what would a ball field with a grandstand would that be a a grandstand's a structure a ball fields not okay but a park but a parking lot a parking lot for okay so um and would it matter if it was public or private no okay i mean because a public school would be tax exempt but i don't i'm not aware of any rules that are that they get to bypass certain requirements because they're public we don't have any schools here so i i don't i don't really know you know if there's anything that would be particular to them that would that would exclude them from any of these there is st john's that's a private school in corcoran but they've been there forever i mean we i have no idea what what conditions that was built under that you know would but it would apply to them they couldn't you know if we took it out of that district if it wasn't a residential district i think it's actually in a public institutional district but if it wasn't residential um you know they wouldn't be able to expand and they'd be subject to this ordinance okay but that's the same of all of our existing churches once they were in they were approved in residential districts but in um the 2030 i think round of comp plan updates they were rezoned to public institutional it might have been the 2020 round i don't know but if we rezoned to public institutional for all those i believe okay all right any other comments or questions discussion before we decide what what it is we want to do mr chair i'd like to make a motion to table this issue or a future meeting okay there is a there is a motion to table it do i have a second i'd i'd second it yes any other discussion i would like to give guidance to city staff and what us as a planning commission is looking for on the tabling obviously we've got some requests i know we've all made comments and they've been writing feverishly and stuff but to table it with obvious direction to the council or to the city staff on what kind of things we want to see what we want to look for unless we've spoke enough and they've got good notes and they've they know what we're looking for yeah i i mean obviously we all have various opinions i i personally will take it upon myself to you know try to better educate myself relative to this um and i would suggest any other commission members to reach out and to seek whatever resources they might have available for you before the next meeting because again i think there's a wide enough discrepancy here that you know hard to consume all of this into one one precise here's here is the planning commission's recommendation um to the city council um it might come in a wide variety but that that's the way i'm going to handle it yes i have one clarification i think we're pretty clear with everything other than where you're standing looking with christian lanternman with the city attorney would you like him present at the next time we discuss this and directly ask questions would you like um a written letter in the packet based upon what's in the packet what's the comfort level the commission on that i think it'd be great if you could be present i know when i've gone to minneapolis city council and planning commission i think even at the cow committee of the whole they have the attorney there um so for me it would be great to just be able to have them interject i don't know that it would be a great resource but but i agree i think that that would be money well spent as my colleague referenced i'm sensitive to spending money with the city attorney but you know if we spend money uh with the city attorney to determine if someone's roof is too high or not we should certainly include the city attorney in this discussion which i think is very important and as the chair said we should get it right and i'm not sure right now if it's speaking for myself if i can get it right i i have additional questions that's and i'll so we'll work with attorney for what meeting makes the most sense that he can attend the only thing i would say or add on to that is if you're looking for a really specific black and white response the best thing would be to email questions in advance because it's hard for attorneys on the fly to really give you a black and white response to something and you know what i think it i think it's it behooves us to be to prepare in that manner so that we have an efficient meeting because the reason why we're employing our time and obviously this person's time and everyone else is that we're trying to arrive at something that's got legs that will work so i think if we can get our questions together it doesn't mean we can't ask questions it just means we can think about it and compose something so we come to the meeting prepared because i mean i was just really afflowed by this there was so much in there yeah i agree i i would i would much rather have a well-researched sound response than just expecting the city attorney to just kind of shoot from the hip so yeah i i think it's fair to expect questions ahead of time yeah thank you it's going to save money up front yeah them being here and answer questions instead of us throwing it back and forth and every conversation that's had it'd be nice to put well not only will it save money that way it'll save money three years from now and it's litigated by someone whose application doesn't get approved i think it's money well spent then so we should get it right and again i don't want to take away from all of the time that's been put into this from city staff and the attorney the way it is right now but it's it's a big it's a big breadth of ordinance change and uh well and yeah and and i mean there's there's there's an outline and so my further review will be based upon judgment of the outline as presented i i don't want to recreate any wheel but i i can i i certainly want to you know consider what's been put out there and and suggest or discuss with you folks any changes that we might recommend to the city council so i also like the idea of tabulating the different resources that were tapped so that we can it gives it a sense of what's reasonable you know what are other cities asking for and if i know that medina has a certain setback i can go drive around medina and look and see if it's being exercised there's a good chance it isn't yet because madonna's not very urban but i think seeing that is a real help too and hopefully that's not running natalie around but i think it's just to putting where she pulled from yeah and i think in the interim you should uh given the questions you've had you should look at the october 22nd 2020 staff report that i wrote for the council and the presentation because it's got some images of churches it's got a table of different cities and she can build on that but in the interim while it's fresh if you're interested in looking at it's on the website it's still i believe from last year so that could be helpful and i would also recommend the video from the 24th june 24th uh council meeting as well with the city attorney present and mr chair if i could just make one final comment this is a big topic and you know i do want to say that i i appreciate how thoroughly researched it was by staff natalie kendra and brad this was a lot to get i'm certain this was a lot to get their arms around and i think that they did a nice job given you know given the fact how difficult of a topic this was and i i for one i appreciate it i may not agree with everything but i appreciate the work that went into it absolutely absolutely [Music] okay any other further discussion all right so we have a motion to table um do we need to set a date brad we talked about that i think ideally we it's probably best practice maybe october i mean you know we're asking for a lot we're asking for some consideration of of your time and kendra's time so i i want to be i want to be i know i want to be cognizant of that so i mean we're not under any time com constraints here is are we i mean it's a 2021 objective that the council set back in january sorry i'd like to get it done this year we can okay so um here's the question be it um commissioners lantern camp are you okay adding the october meeting to the motion as far as the table two yes october 7th yes i am i'll second that is there a way to get contents to the plenty commission before a week if you know what i'm saying if if if there's a couple of weeks for us for a council planning commission to travel testament as you've witnessed from all of us we we don't just read these things we make a lot of make a lot of trips checking around looking around trying to see things and and coming up what's best for our city so we'll do our best there is a bonus week in there so i think it's an extra week between the last council meeting of the month and the planning commission meeting typically is the one after the another after another and then there's another week in there so we'll try that'd be great all right so the motion uh has been amended to table to october 7th is that correct yes okay all right all those in favor of tabling um the zoning amendment for assembly uses to october 7th say aye aye aye aye opposed all right we will table that to october 7th and again thank you everybody and and to our city council members who have started this off and all the time that you've put into it so and i i hope that i can do the same and brad when do you think we should have our questions into the attorney by i know sooner rather than later but sometimes i'm gonna need to do a bit of homework first that's a good question so um the packet will need to be completed by staff really probably the 22ndish 23rd at the latest of september oh boy so september 15th and probably questions for the city attorney so he has a blue week turn around if you want them in the packet otherwise if you want them you know emailed out before the meeting not included in the package that's always acceptable too could i get that deed again september 15th would be ideal so that's the deadline for city attorney ideally now there's nothing else we can email after the packet goes out to the day before is better than half the meeting mr chair yes sir i want to recognize the immense breadth of public comments and such this evening i know we'll get more but thank you mr cootes and then i forgot the name on the of the person that participated online thank you guys so much again i i was fully expecting a significant group of people here and it we're the public but uh thank you for your time very very much and uh love to see you more involved okay thank you um all right let's go on to item 7a planning project update is there any questions or comments uh regarding the update it always said [Applause] um item number two has that been resolved yes yeah i thought that was that was at the august 26th meeting yeah okay typically this is updated once a month before the second day of the month for planning commission we don't update it again for each commission so it's a little bit delayed okay that's fine let's take some reference to the next report which is the city council report so for example garages two that was removed from the agenda and pushed the september 23rd meeting due to additional information coming in from the applicant so which is in the council report it's not updated on years right but additional information they um they're making changes right wasn't there aren't they making some changes to their whole their site plan relative to security i what else i know the other issues that came up was garbage lighting those types of things were they going to put in thank you [Music] and stuff i i mean i don't know maybe you don't know what they're yeah they have until september 7th to provide us updated information then we'll know from there okay but that's not coming back to this commission okay just it seems kind of weird to me that you know we've gone well we denied or we we made a recommendation to deny the applicant uh the application to the city council on a three to two vote now the applicant is going to go around he's going to make some changes but this commission will not have another chance to weigh in on those just inherently in some it won't go to the planning commission but i think the council would love to hear your opinions via email or phone calls once it goes to the city council but if it's substantially different though if it if it if he were to change his application to the point where it was not the same yeah i don't think adding uh that's not good or a change no that's not substantially different if you were to come with a different building footprint and a bunch of different stuff right that is my understanding is that is not at all what what he's doing he's just tweaking some stuff right that's pretty much it right yeah we think if i could ask a question yes sir i believe i recall from listening to that meaning that the primary reason for denial was that the development was happening too soon in the phasing for the musa rollout was the biggest for me agreement no matter what the change would be the recommendation wouldn't be affected it and and that wasn't you know maybe i was we were it it just seems that the process you know when a denial or a recommendation to deny was made but then you know it's it's you know but then the applicant comes back with something different um we seen that right down here with the with beth houstead you know this commission three times recommended denial and yet without hardly any changes whatsoever it went to the city council you know and it was approved um now that is certainly the prerogative of the city council we all know that um and and i have no problem with that but it it when when something materially changes like and again i don't know that this would be material but it just seems somewhat odd to me that you know when when when something is changed and then it goes back it it just voids us i don't know how you fix it i'm just calling it out as i think it is the degree of change yeah and i disagree about changes for beth husted she pulled a whole building out of the pro forma that was after the first one i know but she we started with i mean she still did it well that's massive i mean well i know but yeah but i still yeah yeah yeah no she did some miraculous things and the other thing i'll say to that too is when an applicant hears what you say and makes changes to do what you wanted them to do i think it's appropriate correct and i and i can't argue with that either exactly so yeah okay but i did think i thought i saw somewhere that if an application gets denied you're supposed to wait six months before trying again and i am curious as to why that wasn't the case here because because they haven't delivered it they have they haven't voted i think that only applies to the city council right denying anything honestly not to our recommendation okay the council did deny it the first time it came before council for cook lake yeah and they asked the developer asked for us to grant an exemption to the normal ordinance required for a six-month delay which the council decided to give yep so normally yes if the council had denied it they would have to wait six months to submit substantially the same proposal but in that case it was waived okay any other comments or questions on 7a [Applause] okay let's move on to uh 7b then uh reschedule planning commission training oh uh i we drafted that then we had a conversation we're gonna we have uh an open seat coming up on the planning commission and we feel like we should reschedule that after the planning commission is full okay very good so at some future date natalie will reach out and rescheduled probably in january honestly has that opening been posted on the website or do people know to apply i think will be posted tomorrow what's on the website today i think social media tomorrow okay thank you top seat to fill all right item seven skinny person can do this [Laughter] uh city council report uh counselor nichols well i think you're all aware of what happened on the quick lake project um i think another major one you might be interested in i know a couple of you actually attended chair nichols if i can just talk real quick about clay what you guys did was outstanding and i'd love to see as much of the trees along 101 left of it all possible the no signage on the road and all those things i think that kind of goes in my opinion what we as plenty commissioners wanted to see is not the fronts of buildings not in your face kind of deal that transition i think was great if if they can save some of those trees in front of that house in the median kind of deal or in the ditch whatever we want to call it so thank you very much thank you the other one that i wanted to touch on was the work session on the 26th where the council heard some developer feedback on a conservation subdivision ordinance that kendra was kind enough to draft for us and present the feedback was very positive if any of you have any feedback on it uh i'm sure council would love to hear it i'd love to hear it now if you want to reach out later with any thoughts that you might have if you did follow the discussion or you're aware of the document we're looking to collaborate on that kind of material i think we actually did a work session with the council on it maybe three months ago four months ago but we didn't have any feedback from people who actually have to operate under it at that time so any any additional thoughts would be welcome i uh i was of course in attendance as you know um and i just was dying to just you know give them 20 of my own questions and the first one i was begging to ask was so why is this not happening in our in our community why why are you not buying up 40 acres of land or 20 acres of land and developing it and then selling it to builders large or small i mean you know we can't we can't control everything about it it has to be a free market type of system but i'm just wondering why why why are the only thing we're seeing here is you know well i suppose maybe with the exception of the bass lake the m and i but you know we don't but they bought the land they developed themselves they seemed to be on a kind of a different deal there you know like my neighborhood was owned by a guy he he had it he had it platted and he sold the lots first come first serve you didn't sell them to builders i bought my own lot and then i found my own builder i'm just was curious why is that not happening here and and i'm not asking you for the answer but that was one of the questions i really wanted to ask him is is why i asked brad that question once and what i think brad told me was uh it's because of the cost of utility installation in the early stages the economy of scale is just the margins are so thin you'd think that they're making so much money but they're not it's hard to believe but but i mean even though now though that we have sewer and water coming in and granted it's only in this this section or the southeast section of the city but um or i suppose it it came through the the downtown area but i mean was there any anticipation that would ever change i mean i i don't i don't really know i think when you get to smaller lots they're infill that's more possible or even you know a big i think a big helper would be actually legislation allowing the street improvement district um that would actually raise funds right now you have anyone putting eight or more lots in the county road they have to build 300 000 return lanes yeah who can afford that that's first one because we're not allowed to have the per acre trunk charges for streets like we are for water and sewer where someone comes in and they just pay a chunk towards a larger improvement so i think that would be helpful for example but it's hard we need so many transportation improvements and you've got to pull pipe just to get where you want to be it's tough right now in in what what body of our government seems to be pulling that string or requiring that is that a county government is it a state government is it the met council the turn lanes well turn lanes and and and how we charge for access and legislature could change that tomorrow if they wanted to their husband yeah you don't have a turn lane going into your neighborhood how'd that happen oh man i want to tell you you know how many times i've almost been rear-ended okay turning into my street scares me to death sometimes literally because people aren't going to stop and and they want to go right around you why not you know right over the in and i won't i won't get on that but well and that's there's all kinds of problems with things like that but i i just you know and that's a local control item the county and city dictate transportation locally but it's that exact discussion so if somebody comes in and builds a 12 lot subdivision we know from example there should be a turn lane there so they had who should pay for that should existing taxpayers pay for it or should be the developer putting the 12 lots and that adds huge cost to the developer yeah well i it was uh it was a an interesting session um i i i enjoyed the opportunity to to listen to some different perspectives and um that's all all right anything else counselor nickel not nice any other topics you'd like to discuss no anybody no okay well thank you very much thank you um um just if you haven't looked at the console pack there was a sketch plan also for the former or the royalty property it's known as the rohit property in the last packet if you want to look at that and provide any staff comments we continue to work with the developer on that so just to highlight that one as well oh you're right i forgot the roki property what's happening um it's a proposal for three commercial lots of commercials works and then there's the creek in the middle and then residential on the other side of the creek so if you go to the console package from august 26 you'll see the proposal there and i think um early feedback from the finance commission would be great on that as we talked with the developer before it comes to you that's that's pure concept i mean that that was it was neat but then it sounded like kendra you got caught by surprise i saw a new concept today wanted a little bit more involvement a little bit more and i hope it was good i didn't see sure it was an interesting moment it just looked like what is it it was it was interesting so we're going to bring that to the parks come if he settles on a plan we'll bring it to the parks commission on september 16th and back to council on the 23rd again an informal sketch plan and if he proceeds of course it will come to you for a plaque review okay well august 26th there's a sketch plan right right it was yeah and you're saying it doesn't resemble a new sketch plan well let me just say the new sketch plans changed a bit so um but if you wait till the 23rd then okay but is the is the general um i mean it's generally commercial right it's a commercial district no it's actually a residential site um that he wants to change uh the northeast portion north of the public works facility to northwest portion to be commercial so re-guiding and rezoning so the roki wraps around public works and that's all rural residential today so i'd like to do residential what he showed the council was as brad said residential east of the creek and commercial um west of the creek i think he's looking at some other options for more lots now why did you think that was all commercial okay what the north it is commercial it's gonna say i thought that intersection area it just it continues the commercial area that's already to the north farther it works the crux of the transition okay why was there no proposal for commercial uh on the southwest quadrant of that hole basically the south of the city works access hennepin county access onto county road 19. well why wouldn't they just wrap the road around public works they could i think it's cost of building a road as long as you need to so i think he's continuing to evaluate a lot of things so we don't it's just with a takeaway i think is that the council's seen a sketch and he's interested in developing the site so you'll eventually see something it might not look like what you saw two weeks ago but you'll anything else all right let's move on to item 7d other business i just want to take a minute to recognize our comrade mr commissioner varenkamp congratulations for your appointment to the city council thank you and this will most likely be your last meeting with us and uh we sure do appreciate all that you've been able to contribute this but you know now you're you know you're moving from aaa ball to the big show and and while you have served and us well here with your insight and and and whatnot i'm sure you will do equally as well at the city council thank you and we look forward to uh i got home and my daughter had was playing johnny cash ring of fire so it was kind of kind of an interesting concept but uh i've got the support of family members your guys's support and i love the time i've spent here um i originally had said i never wanted to get back into this with what i spent 20 years in a previous community and stuff but i evidently love it a lot so i just i want this place to keep being a great place to live and uh everybody has to kind of get along for that to really come through so i'll do my best thank you guys very much all right well thanks again any other business okay um moving on to eight so i notice um commissioner varenkamp is scheduled for october 14th um i we can we can fill that spot now or we could wait for a potential [Music] new nominee so the schedule right now i believe i'm going to talk to council about it next week i think we're going to accept applications until the 20th of october it would be after that 20th of october okay all right um well i'll tell you what i'll be glad to step in i you know i i'm hoping to get up fishing up north so i can actually catch some walleyes um and i was shooting for middle of october but that doesn't mean i'll leave on thursday so i i'll pencil my name in there for now and uh should it come to to be that i'll be out i'll reach out to brad and to you folks so we got that covered anything else anybody else got a potential scheduling change why why is 11 22 in red was there a significance to that thanksgiving yeah because i'm gonna be there not a thursday it's a monday meeting ah oh yeah of course thanksgiving yep okay i gotta just start writing that you guys asked me that every time and actually do we really we're americans wow it's usually so november 11th actually is a holiday so we have to move to november 10th as a wednesday oh the government that's your day so so 11 so that meeting is on 11 10 yep yeah okay thank you we'll update that for the agenda yeah we can't do business on a holiday good calling okay well if our council meeting or our liaison calendar is all squared away i think that uh concludes our business and the chair will accept a motion to adjourn this meeting i'll make that motion later man [Music] all right all those in favor of adjournment say aye aye opposed this meeting is closed thank you everybody thank you