We'll call the meeting to order. And is there a motion to adopt the agenda? >> So move. >> It's a tie. >> Okay. >> I'll second. >> Great. Thank you. And uh all in favor say I. >> I.
>> I. Any opposed? That passes and we will have the council on up to update please. Good evening everybody. I hope everybody is settling settling into this nice mild
fall that we're having and looking forward to Halloween coming up the end of the week. Uh for my update uh final plat for Viking Metals second edition was approved by council.
Uh the site plan CUP drainage eats vacation for Atlas Villa's memory care was all passed. So that is going forward. Uh the zoning change from industrial to residential for the three
or four lots on Johnson Street was passed. Uh council may be reviewing an ordinance for shortterm rentals in the coming months. That'd be like your Airbnbs. Uh we discussed it a little bit at our
work meeting last night. Uh and it's it it was brought up because of call it one problem property that uh we're it's a larger house that facilitates lots of people
and um has lots of activity and neighbors were not exactly happy. So that that's what's spurred this possible ordinance. We're not sure if uh possible ordinance would be the cure or if there's another
route, but just to let you know that this might come up in front of planning in couple months maybe. Not sure, but uh council set out a RFP to have a
facility study done for all city buildings. uh 13 different businesses responded to that RFP with proposals and ultimately uh council did choose is ICS W to do the study.
So that should be progressing here in the next couple months. We look forward to getting a a report back to see how our facil facilities stand and what uh potential new facilities we may need to
start planning for based on population change and services that are required. Uh we reviewed an ordinance change to allow alcohol at the senior center. Uh and ultimately we sent it back to staff
for changes. This is spurred by the East Bethl seniors rent or rent out the senior center next door. Uh some inquiries have been made as whether uh if a wedding
were to be hosted there, for example, could alcohol be brought in. Um short answer right now is no. Um any another answer is possibly yes but more expensive. Um so the ordinance that
we looked at last night was the first um draft of this that was too far expanding that would cover all city properties and that was not the intent that we wanted. We wanted to just
be for senior center. So that should be discuss more in the future here. Uh fall town hall meeting will be on Thursday, November 13th, starting at 6 PM in the senior center. It's uh almost
November already. Uh that's ultimately it. Do you have any questions, concerns you'd like to bring up to me? All right. Well, as always, thank you for your service to our city and I hope
you have a safe and happy Halloween. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, Brian. >> Okay, now we'll go on to the approval of the minutes. Did anyone have Does anyone have any corrections?
>> I'm looking. >> You got nothing. >> Me, too. >> Nothing, >> Cy. Nothing. No. Okay. I guess they were perfect. So, do we have a motion to approve the minutes? >> I wasn't here, so I'm going to abstain
completely from this. >> Approve the minutes. >> Okay. Corey has >> a second. >> Great. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. And opposed? >> I'll abstain.
>> All right. So, that motion passes. And the next thing on our agenda is a public hearing. So, Grace, are you going to go ahead with that? >> Yes. All right. Good evening, commissioners. This is a public hearing for a planned unit development final plan for Cliffs Anderson Acres.
Sherico Construction has applied for a PUD final plan for a three lot subdivision called Cliffs Anderson Acres. Uh, this property is located north of County Road 74 or uh 217th Avenue. Property currently is 20.35 acres. It is zoned rural residential and
guided rural residential. Surrounding properties uh property to the south and west are zoned rural residential. The property to the north is part of the Gordy Mickelson wildlife management area and the properties to the east are a subdivision within Lynwood Township. This property is within the significant
natural environmental area overlay. Um, as a reminder, this overlay district is applied to properties that Met Council and Noa Conservation District and/or DNR have identified as containing native vegetation or natural resources that contribute to the health, welfare, uh,
and, uh, quality of life of East Bethl residents. Uh, this application probably sounds familiar to you because this was brought before you as a concept plan on at the May 27th planning commission meeting and the June 9th city council meeting. This was also brought before you as a PUB preliminary plan and
preliminary plat at the August planning commission meeting and the September city council meeting. Uh during those reviews, no conditions were recommended pertaining to that overlay district. This request is for the approval of a PUD final plan as required by section 59
of the zoning ordinance for all properties within that SNA overlay. The city has a relatively high level of discretion when reviewing a PUD. It must meet the comp plan standards and the PUD also must meet the standards established within section 56 of our zoning ordinance or the PUD section packet
contains an in-depth analysis of each of these standards. Uh the purpose of a PUD is to allow flexibility and variation in exchange for higher levels of design, environmental protection, landscaping, pedestrian access, all of those types of things. Uh really the major point here considering that this is brought on by
the fact that this property is within that environmental overlay is probably environmental protection. Uh staff finds that there's a relatively limited environmental impact associated with this development. The homes are being built on land that's already bare and agricultural. Um there are a small number of trees being removed, but it's
really the minimum that's required for driveway access for these new lots. And there's overall a pretty limited site disturbance. Uh during the previous reviews of this item, no conditions were recommended pertaining to the SNE overlay um during the planning commission meeting nor that city council
meeting. The city council is also reviewing this item um and then the additional final plat at the November 10th meeting. The final plat is not up for review tonight because that only gets reviewed by the city council. Staff has found that the proposed plan unit development final plan meets the standards established within the zoning
ordinance and is consistent with the PUD preliminary plan previously reviewed. Again, this goes over the primary purpose of the plan unit development. I'm not going to get too into that. I do want to emphasize though that because this PUD is required due to the presence of that environmental overlay, uh you
are welcome to make any recommendations, but especially recommendations uh for conditions conditions pertaining to environmental quality. So that might be something like requiring a certain number of native plantings, requiring a tree preservation plan, something like that. Um but again we found that this has pretty minimal site disturbance and
none of these were recommend recommendations were made during previous reviews. Uh this project is also not asking for any PUD flexibility. So there's nothing in our zoning code that's being uh violated or ask asking to be waved as part of this development. It complies with all standards in our
code um that any other subdivision would be held to. So um something to note there. Uh recommendation is for the planning commission to open the public hearing and recommend approval of this item. based on the applicant submission, contents of the staff report, any received public testimony tonight, and
other evidence available to the planning commission. Uh, the draft resolution of approval has been created for you, the findings of fact, and conditions of approval. It's been included in your packet. You are welcome to modify that if you would like to suggest any conditions um on that approval resolution. On the other other hand, you
may also recommend denial of this item. This is not recommended by staff, but if you find one or more areas of the city code that are not being met by this request, you are welcome to recommend denial. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. So,
I'll open the public hearing for this item. And does anyone want to speak? No. Okay. So, there's no one that wants to speak here. I'm going to close the public hearing and then commissioners,
do you have any commission comments on this? >> Any questions for Grace? >> Looks pretty cut and dry. >> I agree. It looks good. So, I don't have any questions. Nothing sticks out to me. >> Nothing.
>> Nothing. >> Oh my gosh. >> Then I'd recommend a motion for approval as read. >> Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? >> I second. >> Great. And any further discussion? If not, all in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. And opposed. >> Being none, that motion passes. All right. The next item is a review and recommend any updates to section 66-165 sidewalks and trails.
>> Yes. Uh we have public works manager Nate Ashford with us tonight. Um I will be providing a brief presentation on this item, kind of a high level overview and then some legal and planning considerations for your discussion. Um and then from there he can answer any questions and kind of help guide your discussion on this topic. Nate, please
correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. Um, so at the request of the city council, city staff has initiated the process of re-evaluating the city's park dedication fees and creating a possible trail dedication fee. Section 66-165 of the city code requires developers to install trails and sidewalks in new
developments dependent on the development zoning district. Uh, this has been in our code for a very long time, but since 2008, uh, the recession in 2008, this has largely been waved or ignored with new new subdivisions. Another element of that is that our city has many large lot rural subdivisions
and it doesn't always make a ton of sense for trails to be created in those. Um you might end up with trails that go nowhere um or don't comply with our trails plan if those are actually created as required by that ordinance. Um at the October 14th park commission meeting, the park commission recommended
an increase in the park dedication fee and then a new trail dedication fee of $1,500 per unit in lie of trail construction. So this would be charged if the development is not constructing those trails. Um this trail dedication fee does require an update to the city code uh to add that language and then
also to establish a fund for collecting that fee into. Uh we currently do accept park dedication in lie of land dedication for parks. Um that's often done when a park is or a development is proposed in an area where there's not a park in our plan or it's not feasible to create a park. Uh the topic of
discussion tonight is that trail dedication fee. uh not that park dedication fee. Um currently the city does not have a trail dedication fee. Uh trail dedication and park dedication is a bit of a legal topic. Uh there was a case in 2003 or not 20 2023
uh for the city of Burnsville or involving the city of Burns Burnsville that kind of delved into these legal nuances of park fees. So I just want to give you an overview on those. Um cities are allowed to collect a park dedication fee according to state statute uh 426.358
in lie of land dedication. Park dedication must be based on a few factors. Uh first the market value of the unflatted land for which the park fees have not already been paid. Park fee must also bas be based on a rough proportionality uh to the need to need created by the development. So you want
to think about the number of residents living in a development. need to reasonably be saying okay these people will be using a park um need to base it on that uh the fund must also be held in or the money must also be held in a dedicated fund um if you create a separate park and trail dedication fee
there has to be a park fund and a trail fund uh and then this uh fee and this fund can only be used for the acquisition and development of parkland so it can't be used for the maintenance of existing park facilities including trails uh our parks and trail fees do need to be justifiable based on our capital
improvement plan and open space plan that's included in our comp plan. Uh this is a look at our comprehensive trails and open space concept plan. Uh that's in our comp plan. As you can see, that includes a number of trails. Those are those uh red, blue, and yellow
dashed lines. Um those have not yet been constructed. I would like to highlight that that the city has not done a park study. Um, a park study would be the most comprehensive way to get a definitive number. Uh, that would be an accurate park dedication fee number or
dollar amount. Um, nonetheless, many cities do not do a dedicated park study. A park study would involve looking at our current acreage of parks, what's recommended based on the National Recreation and Park Agency, uh determining what that gap is, how much of each density of housing we're
projected to have, what the average household size is based on that density, and then determine the acreage of parks required. So, this is something cities can do. We have not done it. Many cities don't do it. Um so cities end up charging a flat fee essentially for parks and trails which is what we have
been doing and what we are going to continue doing. Um basically saying this dollar amount is required for this type of housing. Um public public works does believe that even if we do charge a trail dedication fee, the fee will not be enough to cover
the full cost of constructing the trails in our capital improvement plan. Uh so future transfers from the general fund will still be required. Um but this will reserve a chunk of money for those trails. Um there are some pros and cons of collecting a trail dedication fee. Uh a pro of it is that it is dedicated
money for trails. Um doesn't go to other park development is specifically reserved for trails. But one con of it would be that um instead of having a larger park and trail fund, uh our park dedication fee would account for trails. Um instead you kind of split that into two different funds. So you don't have
that larger sum of money. You just have two smaller pools to pull from depending on what you're doing. Um that's kind of a high level overview. If you have any more questions, uh Nate is here to answer those. Uh you are directed to provide a recommendation on the city code section 66-165
and recom uh and the recommended of the recommendation of the additional $1,500 per unit of trail dedication fee in lie of trail construction for new developments. Uh so we're just looking for some input on this. Thank you. Okay. I can add just a couple things there.
Good evening, planning commission. Uh Nate Ashford, as you mentioned, I'm the park public works uh manager. I know a lot of you uh have met some of you, but um the plan the park commission has been looking at this going back for quite a few years. This ordinance was put in place in 2007 and it's never been
applied to any of our developments. The idea was to make it fair for all developers that come in that if we do have to apply this this uh city code to a developer that they're all kind of on the same page just like we do with our park system. So they came up with the idea of a park or a trail dedication fee
to kind of offset that. So they would look at each development the same way they do with park dedication when they bring it before you guys if they decide they want to take cash in lie of land dedication or the actual trail construction. um from 2008 till 2015, we never had a
development that showed up in here. So when the first one came in 2016, they were a little bit hesitant to apply this because they didn't want to make it an obstruction to development at the time. And since then, it hasn't really been applied. So one of the options that the park commission, like I said, they they would like to see a $1,500
per unit. So each lot would pay that in lie of the trail construction. Another option would be to just to remove this completely from our city code. The uh the requirement to build these trails. U we did require them for Elivage and Capstone, but that was a little bit
different there. They those developers wanted those trails in there and we gave them credit from their park dedication land in those instances. So it came off of their total park dedication. It wasn't a trail requirement on there. But so that kind of brings us up to where
we're at and how we got to this point. The Like I said, the city council had discussed it at at their work meeting there. Kind of sounds like they're in favor of it. They haven't voted on it uh yet, but we're going to bring it to them in November along with the increase in the park dedication fee. So, that was
$2,000. The park commission bumped that up to 3500 just for reference. So, between the two, you'd be looking at $5,000 per lot for a new development to come in. So, that could affect developers that come before you guys with new developments and stuff like
that, too. So, Didn't once upon a time we had somebody in here talking about trying to make our our city and again get grander scope but trying to make a trail system that basically ran across multiple cities like throughout in Oak County.
>> There is a there is a trail connection planned. It's it's on that on that map. It it cuts across it's the blue dotted line kind of going west to east >> at about 221st right past city hall here. >> Okay. I thought that's what it was. I just I I remember that being a
>> being a thing where maybe it was when we did the last comp plan review, which was still >> a decadeish ago. >> Yep. And that's that's been on their plan for a long time. And that it's going to be a while before it's constructed. They're kind of working their way north through the county. You see it when you get down into Blaine and
a lot of in Andover. They've when they redo the roads down there, they build those trails as part of that long-term trail plan. But the the nearest one we're going to have is uh actually going to be taking place next year right down the very southeast corner of the city coming into Lake Beach. There there's a you can see it on the map. There's just a little stretch of a blue
dotted line. >> Yep. >> That's going to connect Lexington over to Martin Lake eventually. So technically that's in the city but only for a few feet. >> Yeah. >> But eventually like all of our trails that this the park commission has been working on is to try and connect up to
that. One of the ones that they've been working on is going down Baton to connect city hall, booster park to the uh Fishlake Nature Area. The park commission would like to see this as a dedicated fee because at one time they did have a trail fee back in
2011. It was uh funded through the general fund. So it wasn't dedicated. It wasn't locked into trails and the city council took that money, shut that fee down and used it to pay for some other stuff at the time. >> A lot of things happened in 2011 that way. >> Yeah. So, it was
>> they'd like to see a feed just set aside four trails because they were going to build that trail at the time. It was pretty close to being green lit. >> Is it a fair statement to say that this would help in those endeavors? >> That's Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And it's not a lot of money. It's not going to get them not going to get a
long ways. The trails are expensive, but it's it's the number one request we get at the park commissioners trails and pickle ball courts. So, >> yeah. And I think it was just a couple years ago, I think we had conversations about parks and right now it feels we've got more than more than needed. So I I
know I wouldn't be in favor of any feasibility study for it by by any means, but if it helps if it helps the prog excuse me progress along in any sense and keeping it out of the general fund, I I don't have any opposition to that. And as always, I just like we hope
that the councils that we that we work on, you know, they like our opinions and our take our efforts. I'm going to lean the same on the parks and this is what they're they're looking for and that's fair and reasonable with what we're seeing in neighboring competitive cities that they'll put us out of the market on
things. I I have zero opposition to any of this. >> Right. I I um echo that also. But Nate, you don't think that this is high enough to to cover the costs? >> So, we built a trail on Baton. It was
one block, basically one block long. We did almost all the work ourselves with our public works department. We had to pay for the paving portion. And that stretch was about $20,000. Now, if you have a development with, you know, 10 10, say 20 homes in there, you're only going to get, you know,
$35,000. You're not going to get very far. building a trail that's only a block long. That was with our guys doing most of the work in house with our own budget. So, >> it's not a lot, but it'll be something, I guess. And it kind of evens the playing floor between the two
developers. If one actually had to construct it, if they required them to do what's in our city code, it'd be expensive for a developer put a trail in with a developer. >> And and the way it's written, it's it's a trail on both sides of the road. In some instances, it's a trail um I mean
there's a lot of trails that could potentially be enforced with our ordinance. >> Yeah, it's pretty intense >> commitment from a from a developer perspective. >> Yeah. >> So, have have the other bodies um
discussed the higher fee then or >> not as they've gone? >> No, not for the trail. to discuss hire for the park dedication, but this is kind of where they're sitting at right now, I guess. >> Right. >> I was wondering why the park dedication
fee cannot be used for maintenance of parks. >> The dedication has it's just the way the state statute is written. It has to be used for capital improvements. And that's part of the issue, too. If we build a lot of trails, eventually we're going to have to maintain those trails.
We don't want to take on undo maintenance on trails that aren't being used. if it doesn't connect anywhere or in a neighborhood that's similar to parks that are unused. >> I I guess yeah, that is my question is how much uh is our community using these
trails? Is this something that is our community has asked for and we like our our residents are wanting these trails? >> So, the park commission did a survey. It was it's been probably 10 years now, but it was the number one requested things was trails. >> Okay. So like our booster park out here,
that thing is used all day every day. We've added trails here. Uh John Anderson Park, I know there's a lot of people that walk out by by Cory's house. The new developments down there in uh Elvage and Capstone, the Standill Parkway and Viking Meadows. Those trails are going to be really nice. There's
already people using those that live in the Elvage. They're using the new trails on the Capstone home trails already. But the regional trails maybe not. They're they're they're more used in high density areas where people are biking or traveling to um stores and stuff like that where they
can just you know do that instead of driving. But >> and we have some shoulders in the city too that are acting as as the trail. Like normally the county would have just ended it right at you know your driving line or you know you're going over and we've paid for the extra width or the
parks has paid for the extra widths for that. >> Yep. Some of the some of the lines that are shown on this map that are existing are actually just wide wide roads with wide shoulders. So, technically an off-road trail, but >> they're safer than >> Yeah. And it isn't the biggest issue
with this is we build a lot of bike trails, but then we don't get support to maintain them in the winter. And people people go nuts when you don't maintain them. And it might even be one resident who walks that trail every day. But
they'll be at the council meeting every month. >> Yeah. >> Pounding that, hey, you built it. It's a trail. I walk it. I want to use it. So, I think that's the big thing that I'm all for building them, but we better plan on having them plowed.
>> And they got to be, I think, useful trails that that go somewhere, provide a service, not just >> Right. That's my also it's not just build trails to build trails like that they're meaningful. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> I think there are commissions on the
>> correct. They're in a place that people are going to be using them that uh they're utilized in a in a way that uh the committee is actually going to to to value from them. So yeah. Is that what about that? Like he's bringing up all this maintenance piece of it. Um the
workers to clear them, that type of thing. the $1,500 that doesn't seem like that's going to go very far to >> it can't be used for that. That that comes from our general fund public works budget. >> Okay. So, this is the gonna bring more cost >> eventually. Trails just like just like
more roads, more houses, more everything. It's there's there's cost associated down the road. Yeah. >> That's part of why I started my line of questioning with didn't we have someone who with intent, right? It's if there's something more countywide, things like that, and that can open up other doors to other things, but
>> was there intent and purpose behind it? >> And you said that this has not been implemented. This has not been something that any builder at this point has been >> charged or going back to 2008 when housing market
declined. Viking Preserve put a trail in in that development that gets used all all a lot, but that was their park dedication. So, they actually used their park dedication and constructed it. So, they didn't have to pay park dedication fees on that one. Same thing with uh I think it's called they're all selling the same
Prairie Ridge on Baton. Um it goes from 229th kind of back towards 221st. That whole first section there was built by the developer as their park dedication portion. >> Okay. Both of those were the first two developments that came into the city going back to the housing market crash. Like I said, it was
>> s wanted to not make it too much of an impedment to get some development going. So >> So staff is in favor of this, right? Or no, >> of the part we want we'd like to see just something that's uniform that >> we're not leaving a big gray area out
there for developers. Yeah, I mean I I agree with Tatter and that if the parks commission has discussed it at length and the city council has, I don't have any objections. I want to make sure that you're okay with it, too. >> Yeah, we're okay with it. Yeah.
>> Any other questions, discussions? >> Do you have the direction that you're looking for then from this body? There's no uh I think we should motion. >> Yeah. Um, so probably a motion to recommend the
park fee as stated by the planning or by the parks commission. >> I'll make a motion to uh recommend the $1,500 per unit dedication fee. >> Great. And any second?
>> I'll second. >> Any more discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. and opposed with none being that motion passes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for coming tonight.
>> Yeah. Good luck. >> Okay. The next thing is we're going to review the 2025 system statement for the 2050 comprehensive planning cycle. Wow. >> Yes. All right. I am providing uh just kind of an overview of our system statement. If you watched last night's
council meeting, I'm giving roughly the same update I did there. Uh just I think it's helpful for planning commission and city council to receive this information now. It's about a three-year long process and it's good to get everyone involved early on. So last month the metropolitan council published the 2025 system statement for East Bethl. This
officially kicks off our planning cycle for the 2050 comprehensive plan. Staff has reviewed the system statement and I'm going to just give you an overview of the most pertinent information included in that document. The full system statement is also included in your packet. If you've already read that or would like to read that, that's
awesome. Uh some context for comprehensive planning and the system statement because as Commissioner Felony pointed out earlier, last time we did this was about 10 years ago. So I wanted to just explain the how and the why. So why we do this is because the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, which was passed in 1976 and has been amended
many times since then, requires that all local governments in the 7ount metro area uh prepare and adopt a local comprehensive plan every decade. Uh this act also specifies which elements we must include in our comprehensive plan. At its core, a comprehensive plan is a vision for the development of a city. It
is a physical plan. It goes over things like land use, infrastructure, parks, all that stuff. but also when a comprehensive plan is made with intention and thoughtfulness, it should be a reflection of a community's values, uh, their social and economic values. Um, so I really like to ask, you know,
how do you want East Bethl to look for your children and your grandchildren who will hopefully hopefully be enjoying the city in 2050? Uh, how we do this is, uh, that we are required to draft that plan by December 31st of 2028 uh, for the 2050 plan. Uh, once this is drafted in
2028, it's up for review by the Met Council. uh they review it for conformance with the regional system or regional development guide which is known as imagine 2050 and was adopted earlier this year. Uh to assist cities with this process, a system statement is prepared by the Met Council for each community. The system statement is
intended to help cities develop their comprehensive plans by providing them with relevant data about population growth and jobs growth. It also impacts the or outlines the impacts of the newly adopted regional development guide, Imagine 2050, and what that says for each city. Uh so similar to my staff
report, I've kind of split this up into four different topic areas. The first area is our growth forecast. A large part of the system statement and that 2050 plan is to predict growth. Uh the Met Council's growth forecast is intended to help us anticipate which planning actions we need to take to accommodate the forecasted number of
people living and working in our community in 2050. Uh cities are not required to achieve the numbers outlined in the growth forecast. We are not penalized in any way for not reaching these numbers. Again, things like pandemics, recessions, those things happen uh that impact the number of jobs created or hous houses developed. So, um
we're not held to these numbers. They're just projections. Uh but by 2050, East Bethl is predicted to have a population of 15,400 people, 5,900 households, and 2540 jobs. What this >> What year is that by? >> Uh 2050. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. So, what that looks like is a population increase of 3,600 people or 1,600 households. uh of the total population in 2050 about uh 3,200 of those residents are predicted to be served by city sewer and water infrastructure. So we can anticipate
that a very large amount of that growth is going to be concentrated in those areas with city sewer and water or that will have city sewer and water. Uh as for jobs, this looks like about doubling the number of jobs that we currently have in the city. So right now we're sitting at about 1,300. This has us at
about 2500. uh staff does believe that this growth projection is generally appropriate for population, households, and jobs. It might be slightly high, but it's something that we can totally work with and plan based off of. So, we're not disputing that with the Met Council. Uh the next area that we look at is our
community designation, our long-term service area, and our municipal urban service area. These things all kind of work together. Uh the Met Council assigns each city one or many community designations. Your community designation establishes your land use expectations. So the big one being obviously your
overall density and this must be addressed throughout many aspects of your comprehensive plan. Uh East Bethl has been assigned the designations of rural center and diversified rural. Uh these are defined in your packet kind of as an overview. A rural center is a hub for commercial employment and housing
development. Uh and rural centers are served by a city sewer and water infrastructure. Because of this they are required to be developed at a minimum overall density of three units per acre. Rural centers are important because they support local economies and they provide services. So think your grocery store, your veterinary clinic, things like that
uh that support lower density rural communities that surround them. These lower density rural areas are known as diversified rural communities. So again, we have rural center and diversified rural in East Bethl. Uh these rural or diversified rural communities often contains large lot residential
developments and agricultural properties. So things that you see on the outskirts of our city. uh these areas are not projected to have wastewater or water service by 2050 though some of these areas are within the long-term service area for service development. So uh thinking beyond that 2050 horizon at some unspecified date
they may receive those services uh to support orderly growth. Diversified rural communities have a maximum average density of four units per 40 acres. So again diversified rural is four units per 40 acre and then looking at our um rural center designation that is a
minimum density of three units per acre. So two vastly different densities that we're working with in the city. Uh what this means is that uh these designations are consistent with what East Bethl was assigned during the 2040 planning cycle. But there are some small differences. So for example uh during the 2040 cycle,
our rural center designation was that entire highway 65 corridor and then extended all the way out on our southern border to Lake. Uh it has shrunk significantly this cycle. So now it is only the areas that are within our 2015 Musa. So those areas that will be served by city sewer and water hopefully by
2050. Um so it's a much smaller area uh because this has shrunk our diversified rural has grown. Uh another thing that we look at is our municipal urban service area or our MUSA. Uh this is the area that's expected to get city sewer and water by 2050. And this is unchanged. So our 2040 MUSA is the same
as our 2050 Musa. Those are those three zones in our city that will have this infrastructure hopefully. Um there is a small error in some of the Musa maps in our plan. Uh this is pretty typical. The Met Council prepares over a hundred of these system statements. There are bound to be errors and staff is correcting that later this week with our Met
Council representative. Um and then the third thing that we look at with this is our long-term service area. So this is the area that's expected to eventually have city sewer um but does not yet have it and will not by 2050. So this is far far in advance. uh before this long-term service area was that entire highway 65
corridor and then also extended out to Lake going east and 20 the 2040 plan we disputed that eastern extension of this uh we said we are not planning to extend that out to Lake. So the Met Council has come back and said we're going to flip that over to the west side. So now it's the entire Highway 65
corridor flipping over to the west towards and over and grove. Um so a small small change there. Overall, we believe the community designation, the long-term service area in the 20150 Musa are appropriate. Uh we plan to have a meeting planning staff has a meeting this week with the Met Council local
planning rep to get more context on these changes and discuss their implications and also correct that planning or that mapping error, but really uh nothing too surprising in this section. Uh the third topic is housing, specifically affordable housing. Um there are a lot of misconceptions about
what the Met Council can require as far as affordable housing development. uh each comp each each comp planning cycle, the Met Council determines a regional need for affordable housing. So by 2040, that need for the entire 7ount metro area is roughly 40,000 new affordable
housing units. East Beckle's share of that is 108 new units. So that's what we need to plan for in our 2050 plan. What this means is that our comp plan is required to guide an adequate amount of land uh using the Met Council's formula that could be developed at a density that supports affordable housing at our
area area median income targets. So 30% 31 to 50% and 51 to 60%. We have to guide land for that development. What this does not mean is that we actually are required to build it. So we're not penalized for not building this affordable housing. We just have to
guide enough land in our plan um in a manner that could facilitate the development of those 108 units. Um so we have to make the math work out. We have to have land that could be developed at a high enough density that it could be affordable housing >> if not already planned that way.
>> Yes. Yep. So under our current comp plan, what that looks like is our mixed use land use designation that has a pretty wide range of density that's allowed in it. don't have it off the top of my head, but you can get pretty dense in there and that would make the numbers work out for affordable housing. Um, notably though, two of the largest
developments in that mixeduse designation are Viking Meadows, the Capstone project, and the Sand Hill Parkway Town Homes or Elabage. Um, those are two market rate housing developments. So, again, that land could have been could have been developed for affordable housing, but nobody approached us with a proposal for that,
whereas we got two market rate proposals, we went with those. Um, so again, we could build affordable housing. We do not have to. We just have to plan for it. And then the last topic I want to get into is climate. So this is a significant change from previous uh planning cycles. In 2023, the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act goes amendment or was amend amended and now requires that all comp plans include statewide targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, a greenhouse gas emission inventory, and then we have to identify mitigation and adaption strategies that the city could
implement. Again, we do not have to implement them, but we could implement them to address climate change. Uh, these must be included in the plan in order for it to be accepted by the Met Council. Uh, the Met Council is providing cities with a pretty comprehensive list of these strategies that they can choose from or cities can
come up with their own. So, once this list is received, um, this is something that staff will be looking at and we'll be discussing with you all in the council. Um, this is something that pretty much all planners in the metro are a little bit befuddled over. um it's a new requirement and all wondering how it's going to work. So, I'm confident
we'll find strategies that work for East Bethl. Um but it's just something new that we have to consider. So, uh looking ahead at next steps in the very short term, um myself and Kendra are meeting with the Met Council local planning rep later this week to discuss the system statement, uh some of our questions
about the maps, what's required in the plan, and then also go over our eligibility for a grant that would assist us with the cost of doing the comprehensive plan. It's about a two and a half to three year long process. It does get pretty expensive. Uh we hope to officially begin drafting the 2050 plan
in early 2026. Again, this is due at the end of 2028. So, it's about a three-year long process. The last six months of it are sending that plan out to review for other cities. We have to send it to all of our neighboring communities, our school districts, the DNR. So, it's about six months of just waiting for
some feedback. Uh so, it's about two and a half years of active work. Throughout the planning cycle, you can expect staff to provide regular updates on ongoing planning efforts and to seek input from residents, local businesses, and the council and commission members. Again, the goal of this entire project is to
create a plan that is reflective of the city's values and goals. That starts with engagement. So, uh, going out in the community and seeking feedback on what you all want to see. I think that's really important, and I'm excited to start this process and keep you all updated along the way. Please let me know if you have any questions.
So um with the three-year process that second year is the most active one then isn't it? >> Yes. So typically I mean this is my first comp planning cycle but typically from my understanding uh 2026 and 2027 >> primarily 2027 would be our most active
years when it comes to actually putting the plan together. Yes. >> And then 28 is just kind of waiting for everything to be approved. >> Yeah. So, we would want to send that out to neighboring communities probably by April of 2028 to get their feedback. It's that six-monthl long process there.
So, um that would just be waiting for things to get approved and finishing touches on the plan. >> It's kind of like prep, plan, polish. >> Is the three-year period. >> Been through two of these already. Glen, you're three now. >> What? >> Three of these comp plan reviews. You've
been through >> too many. >> Too many. So, do any of these Met Council members live in East Bethl? >> I do not know. I really don't. >> Has anyone elected them to their positions?
>> They're appointed, I believe. >> All right. >> This comp plan should reflect the city's values and aspirations. They have zero stake in those. They have zero accountability.
Why are we reacting to what they why does what they have to say matter to us? >> It's um I mean the crux of it is it's required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. I know that's not a great answer. Um city all cities are required to do it. Um
>> their original charter was to deal with water issues in the city of Minneapolis. Mhm. >> Now they are telling people what their growth is supposed to look like, what low-income housing they need to put in their plan. They're giving all this
data, the climate change stuff. Why do we respond to that? >> Again, it's it's what what's required. I think as a planner um we can accept that this is it's a frustrating um direction to receive sometimes from some
overarching body that gives us direction to the entire uh Twin Cities. But um we have to do it unless you want to sue them at council. We have to do it. So >> I want to make this process as seamless and painless as possible for everyone. I think there's a way to create this plan
that does take community feedback into account and create something that reflects the values we did in 2040 um or for the 2040 plan and I'm confident we can make an even better one this time. >> Well, last time that I remember the questions would be asked would you like
what would you like to see? Would you like to see grocery stores? Would you like to see this or that? But it never comes with a at what cost >> like do you want to see the population increase by 30% to so that you can have a grocery store >> would you or would you prefer to drive
15 minutes to the ones that are out there that can serve your needs. >> So it's not always balanced questioning where the implications are thought about. Mhm. >> So, like, sure, I would like to see a grocery store that was five minutes
away, but do I want to turn the city into Blaine to accomplish that? >> I was actually surprised at how little they thought there was going to be growth by 2015, 2050. And that's why I asked because they're just projecting
15,000 by 2050. >> Yep. Roughly 15,000. >> 15,000 though. 11,000. >> We're 11,000ish now. Yeah. It's not a huge increase. >> And I think with I mean with Elivage with the capstone project, we're already well on our way to seeing some of that
population increase. Um so again, this is just a process we have to have to do. Um hoping to make it reflective of the community through some of that feedback. Considering those factors that you brought up, I think there's ways to work with all of that. Well, you said we have to do it unless you want to sue Met
Council. But what why would we have to sue them? If we just >> made our own plan, ignored them, what are they going to do? >> We are legally required to send it off to them for review by the Metro uh Metropolitan Land Planning Act. So
again, that uh that was adopted uh in 1976 uh for all cities in the 7ount metro area. So we do have to comply with that. I don't have the statute number. >> This was who voted for that or who created that act.
>> I should probably know that. I do not. I just know it was adopted in 1976 and cities have followed it since. I I will do my research on that though. >> Okay. And I think that maybe um the city administrator is a good person to answer that or the city council who who is
going to be complying or not complying with this also. Was the last one all made by city staff or did they contract out? >> Yes. So, we contracted out in uh last time we had this. So, last cycle we did
contract out and we are planning to contract out some of this again. Again, I'm the only full-time planning staff that the city has right now. So, um in order to keep things afloat back in our offices, I cannot take on this massive task. There's a a 26-page checklist of
all of the uh requirements that are included in the plan. Some of them are easy. Some of them are include a map of this, but some of them involve an in-depth traffic analysis of all of the traffic deaths in the past 5 years in the city. That is a lot. So, we are planning to go out for RFP at some point
um in the next few months to figure out >> they wouldn't use who we used last time to just keep things fluid. >> That's something we've discussed. Um, we don't have an exact plan for going out for RFP yet, so that's something I can bring up with Binance and the city administrator. Um, I think it's worth
looking at the cost that other firms will will charge us um and going from there, but that's ultimately a decision that's >> Yeah, I know. I know they're pretty extensive. It it is not unusual for cities to >> It is not contract out, >> especially of our size. Yep. >> Has the city council discussed it yet?
>> Uh, we reviewed this last night. uh did not get into the RFP or who's actually going to be doing this plan. It was just that overview. This is something so again, we plan to start planning in early 2026. So the next few months are when we're going to kind of establish what that's actually going to look like.
>> Well, um I I don't want to dismiss your feelings at all and I going through this last time. I certainly understand. I do I don't think we need to be pressing Grace on this. Um so
we could um talk with city administrator or city council especially city council. >> Well just as an example here you're you said that we're required by the land planning act of metropolitan land planning acts 1976
this climate thing is from 2023 an update. Was that something that went before what body and voted on and decided that they needed to change this to require climate planning?
>> Um, >> who votes on this stuff? >> I mean, this is a state statute, so it was adopted by the state legislature. Um, I can do more research on this. Again, I probably should know this and I can get back to you. We'll send you an email later this week with all of that information if you would like
>> because for to me I mean not just to this city but they're pushing low-income housing and dense housing in rural areas and then they're saying how are you going to reduce emissions?
So they're creating the problem and then they're saying how are you going to deal with it? >> It will be interesting to see what their ideas are for dealing with it. because you were saying that they're going to give you kind of a list, right? >> Yes. Yep. Because this is a new requirement, there will be um there's
yeah going to be a list published by them of acceptable strategies and what the anticipated uh impacts of those strategies are. Um again, this is all stuff I will bring up to our rep. He's visiting on Friday. Um and I will bring up your concerns, Commissioner Terry,
for sure. Um um but yes >> and Glenn and I I echo some of your statements too. So don't don't take my next phrase as being argumentative in that too. I think some of the spirit of this though is not I sorry let me rephrase that. I could see someone at a
Met Council having a response somewhere in in in this realm of we're not trying to tell you that you have to do this. We're asking that you plan for the capability. It was once explained to me once upon a time that it was more about kind of the
ripple effect. You know, seeing from where that the heart of the city is and the growth that's happening, what happens when it pushes out. So, they're asking to help be planned in the cap or in the capacity that it could happen, not you have to build this, right? It kind of goes along that same thing of
and just like Grace had said to it said it well. It's kind of all in who the developers what they want to build, right? If we originally planned for what once was the city center, you know, two two comp plans ago to now that's being developed and is physically being done
as we speak and not done in a overly high dense. In fact, it was reduced even almost I think by half of what it originally was and they're still making it work. Doesn't mean that that's what we have to accept either. We just have to make sure at least there's parameters. Could or would it be
available? So, I hear what you're saying and I'm not saying I'm I'm advocating for or against. I'm just saying I could see a response in that realm being something of having it, not needing it instead of needing it, not having it. Maybe that's a more eloquent way of putting it. >> Yes, I think you said that very well. It's a guiding document. Um, it is we
are not held to it. So, um it's we need to plan anticipate for all of these things. Uh we do have to update our code in response to the comprehensive plan just to make sure that things align. Very typical. Um, but again, we are not held to any of what's in this plan.
>> So, the low-income housing, for example, we don't have support services for that. So, it's it's sort of a pie in the sky thing to say, well, you should put this amount of low even though you're saying we don't have to be
held to it, but why are we even we're spending money for people to come up with addressing all these things that are just thrown out like with no no understanding of what this city is or
what the residents actually want. And then something that doesn't make sense, like you're going to not have the services, but you have to show that you could do that without those services. >> Yeah, I think you bring up a good point
there, and I think it goes back to what does the market dictate dictate. I think someone who's looking to uh develop affordable housing might see, okay, East Bethl doesn't have transit. They don't have a grocery store that's accessible. Might not be somewhere that's feasible
for this type of development. Therefore, we might end up with things like Elvage and this the capstone homes. Um, again, we have to guide land for our mixeduse land use designation, which is where that affordable housing could be built,
has an extremely broad density range associated with it. So, something that we have to plan for, we do not have to build it. >> Yeah. One one could even say the expan the expansive area for the current apartment complex behind the movie theater would also still accommodate
that same requirement that they're bu that they're putting and we're already plotted for it just when when they're full and ready to have the other half of it and once upon a time there was also a temporary transit station there just to do feasibility study to see if it was being used and it's no longer there. So
again, yeah, the market may dictate where it goes just to to validate what you're saying, Grace. But again, I think we see what's happened and where it's going and how fast it's going and it's not at that speed that one could predict. >> And this really isn't much different of
a process from the 2040 plan process, the 2030 plan process. It is it is a big process every time, but there's nothing substantially different in this. So, uh, we've made it work in the past. Confident we can make it work going forward. Anything more?
>> I said my piece. >> Okay, I thank you >> for that. Anybody else want to talk to this? If not, um there's really nothing that we need to do right now. You're just kind of giving us a heads up on it. >> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Um the next thing on the agenda is the staff update. Do you have anything? >> Yes. Few quick things. Uh we did get a application for a new planning commissioner at the end of last week. So next meeting please expect to be interviewing someone for that open
planning commission seat. Uh we also have about three to four new applications for development for the or for projects for that November meeting. Um I'm predicting it may be a long one. So eat your dinner, bring your water bottle. It'll be a long night. Um, and
then as uh, uh, Council Member Mundle said, we do have a potential short-term rental ordinance development project kind of coming up to address, uh, what he was talking about earlier. So, uh, something that will probably be on your radar within the next few months. That's all I have. >> If next month is packed, can we please
push that one out? I I think the the short-term rental is slowing down at at the moment with the lake and it's not frozen yet. >> Yeah, that's probably a winter project for staff. So yeah, >> I think I know what that is. >> So there's one thing that I want to
address and that is we don't have a vice chairperson. >> So I was wondering if we could have we need to have an election, don't we? >> I think believe so. >> Typically and and it should probably be on the agenda. So could we put that on the agenda for next month?
>> Yes. Perfect. Yep. >> I am going to be gone the January meeting. >> Okay. So, I'll need somebody to cover. >> All right, got that written down. I'll put that on the agenda. >> Okay, perfect. >> And then we typically hold new elections
February post the January, right? >> Potential changeover and seats, which who do we what do we have? Do we know what we have coming up? >> Um, I will look into that. I'll send you all an email. >> We had a lot of kind of varied years with on and offs over the last few years, so it's hard to remember who's what where. Mhm.
>> Well, it it actually it's posted on the city website who's going coming on. >> It is. Yes, I can pull that up right now. Actually, let's just do that. >> And this the new person if we get one >> uh that yeah, the the chair that is absent right now that actually expires
in or that term is up in 2026, early 2026. So, um that would be a very shortterm um appointment. And in the past on those extremely short terms, I think we've used that to be we've just added it on to the what would be the next term. So
instead of 36 months, it'd be 38. >> Who's who's coming off in 26? >> Um actually none of none of you. I just looked. So that that vacant seat um that is the only one that expires in 2026. >> Okay, >> great. So if we could get a full slate,
then we could just go on >> for the full for 26. >> Okay. And maybe we could do a election for chairperson then in February. >> Um assuming that we'll get somebody the the city council to approve somebody.
>> Yes. >> Sounds good. >> If if it's the will of the council anyway, at least my idea. Exactly. If it's going to be two months for or you know if it's next month and then they're on in December, I guess I would rather see it for just add a month to the full
term >> to allow for that to not have somebody to have, you know what I mean? To just be on for a month and then have to reapply or >> Oh, yeah. Absolutely. >> Oh, absolutely. Yes. >> But that would be something for the council. So, if you could get direction from them. >> Yes. I'll have to look at that. I'm still pretty new to this process, so I
will do some research on that. >> Yep. I'm just giving you heads up. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Can I move? >> You could move to a journ if you'd like. >> I'd like to. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> I'll second that.
>> Is there any discussion? Disagreement? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. Okay. And opposed? That m motion passes. So thanks everybody.