Um, all right. So, we're workshop number four here. Um looking at the last section is where we left off and the schedule number 11 here the subdivision and platting regulations um which is chapter 151 section 139. So
151.139 thought we were on page three already. >> Well I'm sure we're on page three. It's us this last step here. I just went by these numbers. >> Um I sent out an email today. I got back from Evan a couple different things. Um
been working hard. We got the revised uh based off the recommendations from council during the workshop. We got the revised zoning codes. Um those were sent to you all. Uh kind of shows one of them. The the word document shows the red line items. So things were adjusted and then the PDF which is the clean
version of that. So you'll all have that for reference. Um and then also Evan sent out a map. Evan, did you want to talk a little bit about the map that you sent out real quick? >> This? >> Yes, the one. And Marie, you should have it in your email.
>> Yeah. So the map is >> basically a concept of the step down zone that we had discussed a couple times at the last few workshops. And I just wanted to make sure the council kind of understood visually what that would look like on the zoning map for
one. And then two, um, if there's any discussion of where that zone would be placed or applied on your zoning map, we can definitely go through that tonight. Obviously, if there's any changes or questions on that, we can get into that after we go through the subdivision section. But I just kind of wanted to
visually show you guys uh what we're discussing, what that would look like on your zoning map. And then obviously once there's any questions, we can go through those tonight. And then once that's um settled, we can then finalize and make sure that language meets whatever you guys agree with tonight in your
ordinance. >> On the on the map, Evan. >> Mhm. >> Okay. I'm looking at that step down the buffer thing that you had there. >> Yep. >> I think you're missing like one, two, three, four other properties that there
are. And I'm trying to put my uh I guess I need some new glasses off of that, which would be actually to the south of where you're at right there on on the curve
because those other four properties should also be part of that step down. >> Cedar Drive. >> Yeah. Is that what it is? >> Cedar Drive. >> Yeah. >> Where about you pointing at Jim? >> Right here. Down in here. point.
>> Cedar Drive. Yeah, >> Cedar Drive. Okay. >> Yeah, you blow it up in here. >> Yeah, that >> because it it goes as as like a part of an arrow, but that should go encompassing those other four.
>> Yeah, that should that should buffer a cedar drive as well. And then I other ones that you've got question marks on that those pro those those also need to be buffer zones. >> Was there any other ones council member
spring that you had or no? >> Um no I don't think I think the gap between the two is the park right? >> Correct. >> Yeah. Actually, >> the ones that you had, Daniel, which were the ones that you were looking at,
>> was that >> that weren't on there? Which ones were they? >> I agree with the ones that the one that you were saying, but the are >> ones that are questioned. I say yes to those. >> Marie was trying to say something. >> I see the other part of the squiggly
things that should be in there, too. That's >> I thought Marie was trying to say something. >> Go ahead, Marie. Yeah, Dan asks about the the one from Sunny View over that to that pink one. That's the drain edge field
at a park. >> So, no houses will be built up in that area, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Just a question. So for that that agriculture that we're putting in that zoning that's technically township
should we be at I mean I know we talked about we should label that there. I just wondering how do we differentiate that? Well, right now in your map, it does have the boundary of the city limits. And then what we could do is
your zoning map one could show the buffer zone. And then we could also update your future land use map within your comprehensive plans. That was one of the maps we had at the last workshop that we were referring to. And if we include in there, that might be
>> also further delineate for everyone, you know, what's kind of identified for future development that wouldn't necessarily be as dense as other areas of the city. >> It's also on the other side too that there is coming down Minnesota Avenue.
>> Mhm. >> Would you want to add buffer zone on that side too? I don't know if you want to do a buffer zone because well I'm just saying for being township is what I was referring to after that
you l that agriculture is township because our house butts right behind it. There's there's no way to add a buffer zone. >> Yeah. So I think the best strategy for some of those areas outside of the city limits would be your future land use map. You would add a layer onto that
basically correlate into your buffer zone and your zoning ordinance. So once it does get annex, the idea would be that would then apply to that spot moving forward again once it's annexed. So that'd be kind of a future waiting
until it happens type of deal. That clarified things already. >> Yeah. Can you remind me what's a 20,000 square foot lot? >> Is that a point4? >> That's right. >> 43 and some change is one acre.
So 20,000 square foot would be just over or just under >> half acre. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So we were thinking or discussing at one of the previous workshops the the buffer would be about 200 feet in depth
which if you make the minimum frontage or width of your lot as 100 ft that would equal out to your 20,000 square foot lot size that we've been discussing as well. So you basically one >> row of lots that would be that one size and then um obviously outside of that
buffer you're going to have those different lot sizes. >> Yep. as a suggestion on the map rather than showing any of the line on the egg or the township, can you do like you did in River Park or Riverwood
Hills the hash mark the the diagonal line just go properties um and then reference the the note that you have of being 200 feet from adjacent development or something like that. Yeah, I think once
we I just wanted to kind of conceptually show this to you guys without spending too much time on different areas, but once we have all those areas finalized here tonight, we can definitely go in and spruce it up for you guys a little bit. So, we'd have it all each of those buffer zones would look the same. Um,
it'd have the same, you know, symbology, same coloring, and then you'd have in your legend that' be updated to know that that new symbol correlates to that new buffer zone. Well, I think what you did um helped explain the um step down areas
just a matter of the best way to show it on the map and I think some good ideas there already. So, >> any other questions there? Then over on the um on the right hand side the codes at the hash or the slope lines that have some type of definition
there explain what it is. Any other comments? Um, shall we start with our 139? >> Yeah, let's just start plugging through this last section here, the subdivision and platting regulations.
Uh, 139 again. 151.139 is where we're at. Hopefully you guys have all everybody's had enough time to kind of look over this last section here the last few weeks and kind of a bigger chunk but um you know a lot of it's kind of
straightforward with the stuff there's a lot of definitions especially as you get towards the back end um after that so >> feel like I lost your link Jason you want to send that to me again lost my link somehow once the bureau
>> today's documents your this afternoon. >> Oh, yeah. I'll see you here real quick. >> Yeah, if you need I can I can get it over to you. >> You can also click on the city calendar. They're dropped right on the meeting. You want to click in through there. >> That's a lot of work.
>> Orco.com will be a race. So, I guess moving in. Do we have any questions kind of in the first few sections here? The 139 through before we get to definitions of 146 through the definitions.
Page six 148 section 49 150 151 152 is That's between on page nine had a question about the
this is kind of I believe it carry over from our other discussion about a tree preservation plan item B under subdivision three on page nine. Is that something we had talked about earlier to leave in?
>> So, we're looking at 151.152 section 3 subsection B draft tree preservation plan. So, we >> older trees, right? No trees,
right? That was my understanding. Back in 151.120 we talked about tree preservation. Um um just looking at um Evans document. It's
still in there. It says shell standards during construction or grading. What's the problem with this? the plan having that in this section. >> I'm sorry. >> What's the problem with having this in
this section? >> Um, it's just a question. I went back and look and see what we had before. But the other question is a point number C. It said submission requirements. See if requesting developing flex zoning. The concept plan submitt should include
setbacks, proposed home styles, and examples of elevations. Um the proposed home styles is what caught my eye. That's something that's really needed. >> Yeah, I think it is because um you're
going to have to to put out the full plat of exactly what you're doing in there. You can't make any changes at all. So, they have to come in with what the home styles are when they do that. that you know for them to have that for
the flex it's got to be everything included that's a whole purpose behind it as you know exactly what's going on there with the flex >> well well on once the uh plat's accepted there's no changes at
all to it >> no but the flex part of it that's got to be in there with that be back in flex then well the request This is number C that you're looking at. That's in there under
>> the 151152 C. This was under the B. We were looking at the tree preservation plan and then look at C. >> So that gets back to whether the developer using development flexer is doing one.
>> Exactly. Again, I think that we're not looking for floor plans. We're looking for this is going to be single family homes on slab homes. Yeah. Yeah. Twotory category. >> Yeah. It's it's not saying that the
washer and dryer is going to go here. It's just 94 lots, right? It's saying >> it's not going to be um >> row home. Is there a better word that could go in there? >> No, I think that that's the right way to put it as proposed home styles. I think
that that you've got to have that so we know exactly what the flex is going to look like. >> I think that's just going to be a staff training thing on what that verbiage is actually intended for. And I I mean I we can put
>> somewhere maybe back in the DF the intent of that or under a definition or something, but I think that's a staff training thing to say, no, we we don't need we don't need specific floor plans. We just need to know that these aren't going to be
>> you you know, you're saying single family homes, but now we're going to try and put in quads, right? That's fine. Thank you. Page 11. Well, that subdivision platting
>> under which under which one are >> No, I know. But I mean, >> there's still one. >> I'm in I'm in that, but you said page >> Yeah, there's another one at page 11 that is which goes to
>> I'm on page 11 of it. I just wonder what what what your concern is on that pave. you're just going through. We were talking about the proposed home that was on page nine under >> right
>> page 10 page 11 just asking if anybody's got anything on this pages as we go through page 123 page 14 words. >> Oh, got to go. >> Page 15.
Page 16. Page 17. I have a question real quick. I want to clarify this more towards Evan. Um you're looking at our our document here still under that 151.152. Evan on
page 16 there. Um right before section C the final plat if you go up a couple to uh >> number eight via it talks about a CAD file of the proposed preliminary plat. Is that something we currently have
builders providing to us? I've never had anyone submit a CAD file to to us or CMS that I'm aware of. I could be wrong. It could be given to CMS and you guys >> I don't know if it's typically requested, but it's not necessarily
uncommon, especially if you're having a subdivision with streets getting installed. It would be good to get a CAD file at some point, especially for Joe and engineering staff for >> easier to follow on the CAD file nowadays. What's >> I don't disagree. I just want to make
sure that we as staff are making sure we're, you know, getting the correct stuff here as part of the preliminary plat. We're getting that, you know, CAD file if that's something that's being requested. And um and if builders in the area are used to doing that, I'm sure
big big projects. Yes. But, you know, >> I think nowadays it's almost if you're in engineering, you don't get a draft table out anymore. It's all done computer off a CAD. >> Oh, no. I 100% agree. I'm just saying the stuff we get is not that. It's >> Yeah, I Well, I think that they print it
for you, but I think the CAD is >> is a CAD file a proprietary program or is there a generic term for >> No, CAD would be the generic term. So, >> okay. You might have a specific program that does CAD type work, but CAD would
be the >> generic name for that >> tissue. >> Yeah. Thanks. >> Yeah, that's just one question. I just want to quick >> question. >> Yeah, I I think it'd be good if you guys ask for that and then if for whatever reason it's simple enough where they
don't have a CAD file, we don't have to get one, but it'd be good for our records moving forward. That's that's something that we would do on the final plan also, wouldn't it? >> Correct. Yep. >> On page 17,
um, subdivision D is is subdivision one, spinal plat. Final plan procedure one subdivision D talks about staff upon receiving a complete application as determined by
staff review. By staff review we mean Evan and Joe they're part of the staff review. >> Correct. >> Doesn't need to be called out city engineer Joe Landers. >> Okay. Uh further down on E,
city council consideration, uh editorial, that first sentence that the manager should be replaced with administrator. >> Okay. Where you at? Sorry. E I >> E I think first I one
page 18. So Evan, from your perspective, under uh subdivision 2 application requirements, um the requirements go on for over four pages. Is that really necessary to have
everything like that shown >> from your perspect? I think you'd rather have more details than less just in case someone isn't providing the information you want, you can point specifically to the section of the ordinance and >> make sure that they're submitting what
we would want for information. >> I think it's also helpful too that we can make staff training um materials from something that's really explicit like that and >> it's more clarity on Yeah, we could also simplify it as a you know a checklist or a how-to guide moving forward. So
obviously the more you know experienced or nuanced professionals might go straight to the code, but if it's more of a, you know, a property owner doing a lot split, they can work with staff on getting like a how-to that's more simplified than just having this long list of items.
>> Well, most of the engine most of the engineers that are going to come here are going to already have have looked at this and understand what their requirements are to >> correct. Yeah. >> Forward. Is there anything in those pages that is something new that you haven't done
before as from an injuring perspective? Honestly, most of this is pretty standard. Um, say I'm just reading through it again, but this is pretty similar to I'd say 99% of communities, especially in
Minnesota, you're going to see maybe some minor variations on they might have a different scale requirement or distance requirement on how, you know, much information is shown, but by and large, this is typically what a lot of communities are are going to be
requesting for a Okay, great. Thank you. So, >> yep, >> if you keep your finger on page 18 where it talks about application requirements, that's under C. And if you look at page 22,
um C is repeated administrative subdivision. I think that should be a D. >> Yes, you are correct. on page 22. When I was reading through this, it seemed like it it was duplicated. I
think they meant to have to say it was a D. >> You corrected it already. Okay. Has it? >> Never mind. >> Why does that not >> It's already >> I do have one. >> You must stop >> not to go back, but I do have one
question. So on page 10 under section D under preliminary plat for the public hearing notice it talks about a 350 ft of the site. I thought it previously referenced 500 ft. Is it
>> I think that's I think that's what we talked about before here >> last time around. >> It's currently 300. >> Okay. >> And then I think when we talked about this last time you guys were saying 350. >> Yeah. We increased it from whatever it was. It was 300 or it is 300 right now.
>> Well, you said it was at 500. >> It references 350 here, I guess, is what I'm Is there a difference? >> I'm sorry. 350. It is 350. It is 350. But you guys did discuss raising it. >> It's earlier in the document. It's 500. It just lists 350 here. Does it need to be consistent or is it
>> You should be consistent. >> Yeah. So, this that needs to be updated then. >> Yeah. >> It's on page 10. >> It's on page 10 under under D. um go back. >> It's okay. >> No, going back to the city manager versus city administrator
>> there city administrator is referenced three times in the document. City manager is referenced four times >> should be city administrator because we don't have city manager in our >> Right. Right. So I don't know if we want but manager can be a generic term. It
could be. >> No. Is if you do a city manager, it's set up as a city manager. >> Completely. It's completely different. >> Oh, yeah. >> So, I imagine I imagine we need to have that >> a city administrator >> all across.
>> All across. Yeah. >> Yeah. We can update that for you. >> But I didn't know if we wanted to put a definition in instead and say that's that's in statute. You can't play with that. Okay. Right. That's passed in stone.
>> One of the difference between a city manager and city administrator. City manager can hire and fire. >> Okay. >> Versus is my understanding. >> That's one of them. Yeah. >> The biggest difference. >> Usually just the city manager falls under more like a charter city. So there's just a lot different regulations and Yeah. So
>> it's a whole different set of guid. So yeah. So there's inconsistencies >> in the two of those. Okay. Uh 22 pages 22 point
the administrative subdivision which is lot splits as we know it. Um on page 22, page 23, the application requirements from Evan, from your perspective, do you
see anything in there that's different, same, something new in those application? one deal. >> I would say this is pretty standard language. The only thing that was missing that I
had requested in the original draft was something pro some time period between lot splits um to get around um actually doing the development process versus just slowly splitting
lots. Um >> I don't think lot splitting should be considered a development. >> Yeah. So if you have a 40 acre parcel, how many >> 40 acres is the lot split? >> Yeah, but you could split it twice and then you could split it twice more and then then in three four years you've got
a you've got lots. So we don't have anything in there prohibiting somebody from splitting lots multiple. >> I think on the previous page, council member, it does have a requirement on a time period and that
>> is subsection 2A. I believe so that page 22 it should be towards the top of the page there. Yeah, that's a good comment about lot splits and timing because we experienced
that over on the northwest side. We had >> one big area that did one lot split and ended up doing the second lot split >> which is bit of development from the beginning but I don't know what we could have done different >> 2B on that one. >> Yeah.
>> 2B. No 2B >> on page 22. >> On 22. >> Yep. >> Yeah. So 2A notes that parcel land has not been previously part of a administrative subdivision. So if you were >> in your situation had a 40 acre lot
split it into two and then try to do another administrative lot split under that requirement you would not be able to do that again >> you could still go through I suppose this normal but you would be able to straight away
>> correct this is new okay >> yeah she this she might have actually put it in when I asked her too and just worded it in a way that I didn't recognize. >> No, I think that's good and a good point that you're making.
>> I think we have a lot of big lots that be coming up that could fall into that on the periphery of the city >> four acre >> like over in Woods View. >> Yeah, there's a lot of four or five acre lots that are over there. Yeah.
So if you look at um administrative subdivision see oh point uh administrative subdivision
number two and then subdivision B. If parcels are residential, the subdivision will not result in more than two slots. I think that's either through the subdivision. >> I think that's what uh Evan just mentioned. >> Yeah, he's just clarifying for my
question. >> Thank you. >> 24 from page 23. 24 development contract and required improvements. Page 256
27 back on 26 the bottom of 26 financial guarantees. Uh and this gets back to what's being proposed with the combination of letter credit and cash sold. Um and for the next
to page 31 there's just there's a lot of detail though about the financial but a lot of that is written in between our current cost security agreement and development agreement. I believe there's a lot of overlap of
what we have already in our system and how we've not system but what we used before and it just seems like we're adding a lot to something that we have in place already that's covered with our custo cost
security agreement as well as our development agreement. So this will just give our developer agreements more force behind them because it'll show that we're following current city statutes, city ordinances. So that's why you put these in place. You have the development agreement still explains all this that
they signed to, but this is kind of that this is the development agreement. This is the stuff from city code that you have to meet and move forward. So that's why it's good to keep that in there as a reinforcement action for that contract. Yeah, this basically gives you the
option if in the future you want to use a different sort of financial guarantee or tool, you can use that and know that it's already in your ordinance, but you can still >> operate as you're doing now currently. >> And that way we don't end up with
a subdivision that didn't get the second overlay of black top on it. >> Yeah, exactly. Been there, done that, right? Exactly. We're in the middle of doing that. Yeah. >> So, when we talk about escrow, um,
so are we looking still having a cost security agreement or is that going to go away? Are we going to keep that? >> So, we went, um, Mr. Mayor, we went and changed the definition back way at the beginning of the ordinance for escrow since that was
already a defined term. That should have been one of the changes I made in there. And I added in cash or cost security agreement. So >> I think we put cost security agreement in parentheses beside that. >> Correct. >> We did.
>> Okay. I just want to make sure we're not only what we put in place already and when it comes when it comes to something like that is that something that the city you know for for finances on that to make sure it's there shouldn't there be some kind of a performance bond
you're required to have a bond for that in case if for some reason the the developer themselves go belly up way >> I think the developer has to put up a format for their financial aspect I understand that, but it's not meant to perform.
>> It comes into the development agreement and it's usually on what I've seen from the city as so far as the bigger projects um where those have come into play. We haven't had one in the time I've been here. Usually just the development agreement or the cost agreement are enough to cover the costs.
Um but the bigger housing developments is where you're going to see those and I know I've seen them in there for that. So they're written into the contracts. >> Yeah. So, these financial options that they have listed here in the page 26 and
27, those would be those um financial tools you're looking for, council member, that would they put up cash to make sure if they don't finish the installment of a street, for example, or um water, sewer pipes for whatever reason, then you the city would have
some sort of financial fallback to finish installing it. if for whatever reason they can't finish the project themselves. So these are basically just just the different options that your attorney could require they submit money to us
for doing those installations. >> And that's actually listed in section G here. The warranty maintenance guarantee bond line of credits cash has grow up to 25% of the original amount the cost. So
for the various improvements. So looking back over this, the code security agreement is to cover our engineering work. So the city's not having to pay for that work. The developer is paying for that. So is that written into our development agreement
or we have a cost security agreement that covers our injury work. And >> the cost security agreement is kind of the first catchall where we're doing that initial work. you know, you look at like >> Hamilton development, right, with that first one where it ultimately didn't come to fruition, but we're able to
recover some cost because we put in a work to get to the first steps. Then once all that initial platting stuff gets approved and we moved into the next phase of um you know where we're going to go like with Dragons that'll be coming as the development agreement as they start to come in before they start
building to move into their final stuff. So it's like a it's just a stepping stone into the development agreement. >> But the cost security agreement is I I don't think we have an under agreement to put it in these codes or is it necessary to put in the codes?
>> We just said that was mentioned earlier in the definitions. >> Yeah, I think we can further change it to just get rid of the reference to escrow and put C cost security agreement in there as well. So, um, kind of what Jason was saying, you know, with development agreements basically
contract between you as the city and the developer and that language on making sure that any expenses of the city's end are covered is standard practice that Mike obviously is, you know, wellversed and included in there. So, we can
certainly remove the reference to escrow and just have cost security agreement in there, but it would be standard practice even if it wasn't in there for your attorney to reference some sort of way for them to pay to cover you guys' expenses. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yep. Page 2930 is 154 design standards page 30 29 into 30 31 32 page 32 it talks here about back on the page 31
one when one right at the top of the page he says lots of budding water is don't we have to do something when it comes to that stuff don't they have to do an environmental assessment worksheet on that or how does that work
for for a certain for subdivisions of a certain size they'll do some kind of environmental impact statement or something like that >> well I think this goes back to in that at the end there. It references the different zoning codes that it's subject
to the provisions of those ones in the flood plane. >> I know they had to do some of that stuff when they did River Park and when they did parts of Riverwood Hills because it was so adjacent to the water. >> Yeah. So, you look at here it says the platting of those lots within that flood
plane are subject to >> it's in your land or I'm sure >> the previous >> Yeah. So, a lot of that's already going to be ordinance. an overlay district. >> Well, a lot of that's in the state statute though, too, isn't it?
to page 312 33 is 151.155 streets general requirements page 34 four under daxs. We took out the section XX that was redlined out.
Heaven has on his cheek six under 151.156. Six design standards under B, street surfacing and improvements
editorial for guidelines. It's missing a U red line. And right above that was section I under one right above the header 151.156 it has developer shall create a
homeowners association to be responsible for street maintenance repair replacement. Um so like in River Park uh when we were our development um we took a vote among homeowners and
there's only well there's like a 60 two3 said they didn't want a HOA. Yeah, that's under alleys and private streets though, Ryland. That's >> okay. That's only referencing alleys and private streets.
>> Yes. If you have private streets, >> if you have private streets, >> you have private street set. >> And that would be in the new development that we have coming in >> because there's going to be private streets that are going to be associated with that.
Thank you. They're going to have an HOA. He had talked about that already. So that's already part of fees 37 36. >> Can I ask a question about 157 sidewalk
and trails? Page one. >> That's on 39. They're not that far yet. >> We got a couple more pages to go. >> We'll be right there. >> We're working our way. >> And the top of page 37
closer. It >> talks about a railroad rideway. We can probably take that paragraph out >> on page 37. >> Number two. >> Number three, it says number principal arterials. It's on page 37.
Point number three. When streets parallel to the railroad rightway intersect a street. I think that paragraph can come out. >> Number three on that one. Okay. >> Did you not want a rail to go through down? Is that what you're saying? I was just I don't think we're gonna get a
railroad in our in the future. >> The light rail comes from St. Paul. We'll take a look at this. >> I was going to go right up the middle of 52, though. So, >> they're going to do it. That's where it should go. >> Don't talk. That was proposed. >> That's how they do it in Seattle. It's actually kind of nice. On the top of
page seven, number one, you got an extra space down there under minimum right away between the hyphen and the way. >> Where's that one at? >> Number one, top of page 37. position space between the hyphen and wave for right away.
Bottom there on the width requirement in that chart. Yeah, right there. Extra space between the hyphen. I don't know if it's written or not, but if you read it, it's listed correctly above in that same section at the top of it. It's just on the last sentence that there's an extra
space. >> Oh, I see. There was a way. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's like where we I see >> it's it's minor, but if you're cleaning it up, it might be >> under right here. >> It's like right away right away. like
where you want to be looking at >> everyone. I'm finding >> number one. Yeah, >> I got it. >> No, right here. >> Last last bit of the sentence of number one. >> Y don't see that here. So maybe you clean
it up. >> I'm not see >> 37. That's on 36. I'm sorry. 37. It's on page 37. This is
38 question, Evan. I I haven't been able to find it. Never deep dive into it. Um, I'm talking about roadways here in town and designs and standards. I know there's a few areas and one that comes
to mind that's a gravel road. Um, >> isn't completely >> We don't know about that one. >> So, >> I think I know the one you're talking
about. that somewhere in the uh the codes to address that because you know is that is that obviously something like that may be grandfathered in but allowed but standards that the city's held to maint maintaining that kind of stuff
thoughts um we should probably address that in here because a lot of the section is going to be new streets it wouldn't necessarily be retroactive to old ones, but
>> that may be more question for >> I do think it might be good to add something into here in case >> someone were to bring up if you need to do something and you as the council maybe have other ideas on >> a unique situation like that. So, I
think we could add something in addressing that for >> Okay. I mean, not that that would be coming down the road, but I'm sure >> No, but it it'd be easier to do it now instead of later. So, >> you know, something's either grandfathered when we need it, >> right? And uh
yeah, just um I guess too, I don't know if there's anything in here about minimum maintenance roads or keeping anything like that. I don't know. >> I didn't see anything on minimum maintenance. Um, I know most of the language in here
refers to, you know, either a urban lane or roadway or a >> roadway, but it also talks about pavement no matter what. So, that might be something we might want to >> Yeah. When I think >> another option of a
>> I do feel like that's important, Evan. I >> No, that's that's a good thing that you brought that up because I >> as pavement everything has to be paved and and if we don't give ourselves options to I don't know redesate it as an alley or private drive or something and it's
named a road, are we going to be forced to pave it? >> Yeah. And that that's obviously why we're going through this tonight. So it's a >> if we have to bring for now >> my experience in other towns if you you know have a a gravel type road in an
city limits it's often designated as a minimum maintenance type road for one you know just being able to get to it later on down as far as maintain it during certain times of the year as needed but also for a city kind of to
help cover legal liabilities as well because there's a lesser standard um that those roads are often held to. So, I don't know. I just think that's something that the should be in there. Maybe the city you you council members should consider as that comes cuz that
may or may not arise in the coming year or two. So, more to come on that. I I know there was I know there was question brought up when they first blacked topped the roads because they went halfway up Cemetery Hill and stopped and that wasn't black
top that was intended for other places that didn't get done. >> Yeah. So anyways, that's something we might I don't know Evan we can look at trying to get I don't know where. >> Yeah, I I I think that's a good idea to add that in there. So it's good you
brought that up. and council that might be something to get added for city sake. So, but we'll make sure that gets noted. So, on page um the 39 item J
subdivision one. This is right before the 157 sidewalks and trails. There's a All streets within a subdivision shall be dedicated as public streets on the plat except for private streets as approved by section 75-93
which I think is an old code. >> Yeah, I don't know what that >> Yes, that is definitely a typo there or someone copied it and didn't change it before they finished it here. I mean out
>> now when we don't want to talk about that anymore. Okay. Well, >> Marie had a question on page 39. So, while we're here, >> sidewalks and trails, I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I had a question on A4. So, it says sidewalk and trails shall conform
to current ADA guidelines issued by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Does that mean that all trails, even existing trails, because I know many of our trails are not ADA um up to kind of legal standards.
>> I think similar to the streets, this would apply to any new sidewalks and trails, but maybe something similar to what we discussed with the streets. Maybe there's something where you'll be grandfathered in. Yeah, you may want to specify that this applies just to new
ones. >> So, does this need to be specified by anything that's put in before a certain date of this adoption? >> I mean, yeah, you could put in a tagline at the end that that talks about anything built prior to April 2026 is considered
grandfathered in under, you know, the old clause. And where usually where you'll see it is, okay, we're now we're going to replace it now. It has to meet that new standard >> if you go to replace it. >> Yeah. >> Well, that would be at the front of everything that's in here anyway, you
know. So, it should be everything that's in here. >> Yeah. And that's I guess that would refer back to Evan and even Mike on that because I know a lot of times that's just kind of considered >> grandfathered. grandfathered in. But it's tough to tell, too. Okay, when was this built? When you know, you get that,
you know, if it says this ordinance was done in 2026. Well, clearly if the house was built in or this was built in, you know, 1957, we know that that existed before this code. Um, but where it gets tricky is 50 years down the road
now, you know, having that. So Evan, I don't know what your thoughts are on that, how to kind of work that in specifically this, but overall the entire code section. >> Yeah. So typically kind of what you were mentioning before, there's a catchall
statement that notes this is, you know, applicable to new development moving forward. Um, I think, you know, maybe for this specific line and general, you could state that new sidewalks and trails shall conform. Um, something else to keep in mind, I
guess, if you once you do adopt this, you could add a line either in the footer of the document or the header noting when the ordinance was adopted. So, you'd have that date in there. So, if it's adopted, you know, April 1st, 2026, you'd have
that in there for reference. So, like you were saying, Jason, um, if something was built, you knew in the 50s and the date of the ordinance says obviously a different date, you would know that it's non-conforming there. And then if in the future, you know, get it hosted online,
your ordinance, they can also add those, you know, date references in there as well for you. Any other questions on sidewalks? >> Page 40. Um, page 40. Go back to patient 139.
What does the BMP mean in number two? Oh, best management practice. Never mind. Okay. 39 40 drainage water quality sewer and water facilities. So on page
41 um under a general requirements point number three. Oops. What happened here? 151. Yeah. Okay.
Point number three. Any existing homes proposed to remain on well and septic at the time of subdivision shall connect when the current system current well or septic fails um >> within the subdivision. I thought we had
an ordinance where you have to connect if the latter of the if the lateral line goes down the street in front of you. You need to connect. This makes it sound like you can stay on your septic system till it fails.
>> Yeah, I think you have that covered in your utility code already. So, we could remove some of those requirements from there. Says shall connect >> in the utility code. >> No, shall connect to sewer and water.
>> Shall connect. It doesn't say should or it shall. Yeah, but he's getting to the point of when the current one fails, then that's not the standard. It's you just have to connect as we're going through, I think, is what he's getting at. >> So, when the current well or septic
system fails, I think we should remove that. >> I would look at removing that whole section because that just talks about >> it's already utility code. Why does it need, you know, does it need to be >> Yeah, it's already covered. that we're not giving them the option to remain on it.
>> Yeah. >> So that whole I would say that hole number three would be removed. >> It makes sense. >> That's even better. Yeah. We'll remove section subdivision two.
>> That's a 161, right? No. 59, right? Water facilities. 42 homes sales offices. 63 is park dedication.
Um, and it goes on for >> where's your park dedications? >> 151163 >> 151.163. Now, is this where the 10% comes in on that? >> Well, there's a Yes, it is. That needs
that needs to be changed. I would that's way too much >> today. It goes on for six pages, I think. >> Right. But under residential dedications in the uh graph here on page uh 43,
it shows the 10% subdivision area. So what we've done in the past in all of our first of all residential today our parkland dedication only dedicated is the res for residential
plots not for commercial plots. So within our current development agreements and the last one we did was River Bin. This there was a paragraph in the development that identified the calculation for the
parkland dedication from a financial standpoint. um based on the number of acres the market value of the whole development divided by the number of acres. >> Yeah.
>> The difference between taking out lots then it takes 10% of that. >> Well I think that I think that number should be reduced considerably. >> I don't I guess I don't agree with taking an algor developer comes into town and shake them upside down by their bootstrap. See what it falls out.
>> Yeah. because that's all their profit that they have that they have that's involved with it per developer. >> I think 10%'s awfully high. I guess >> that's what's we don't because we definitely don't need more park land at this point.
>> That's why we >> change it to be land >> to what >> that it does not have to be land. No, but I'm just saying it was that's 10% there. Excuse me. Was it wasn't land to start with. >> What's that?
>> It wasn't just land to start with. >> I think that 10% needs to be reduced considerably. >> So, I like keeping this on here because this allows us to um give credits back when they're making
improvements to their areas that benefit people outside of the immediate development. like the walking trail that's going to go around the outside that will have a price tag put back on it and it will
count against that 10%. If whatever that whatever that paper comes out to be like that's still to be determined but like that's on the table with that 10% and that encourages developers to to do things exactly like
what's what's being done. Well, it says subdivision. Well, isn't it considered a subdivision? You get to fill the lot and you want 10% of that. >> Splitting lots technically subdivision. So, that mean you get 10% of that lot, too.
>> It's not administration requirements. >> It's dedication requirements. Yeah, exactly. >> That's what you're talking. You're looking at 10% of the land should be dedicated when you have less than nine units per gross acre
designated to in the residential area to park dedication whatever that may may be. So if that's green space, that's trees, that's my re understand that right? Walking trails. >> The trees isn't part of that's in a
whole different that's in a whole different >> Sorry, trees is a bad word, but the park space, the walking trails, the green spaces. >> So where are you getting that like a lot split as >> well? Because because right underneath
number one in residential dedications on page >> 43 number one that says residential dedications and in the in the chart there it says 10% of subdivisionary. >> Yeah. But you got to have dwelling units per gross acre. So that you know less
than >> you're still talking subdivision area. That's what I'm that's what I'm getting at. >> You split a lot. That's a subdivision. I think what parks and trails would like is really to focus on D. So that cash
contribution in in terms of land dedication versus parks because again Paul to your point we don't need any more parks. We have parks that are underutilized that need work. And so I think again I think we would be looking for cash contributions in in lie of kind
of that park dedication area. I think I still think 10%'s high, but that's kind that's kind of more my point than anything. >> Yeah. The straight profit that's coming out of a developer, >> we required lot splits that contribute
10% in the past. >> I don't I don't know that to be the case, but we have. >> It's just that it's written that way. I think it's written a lot would be an administrative right versus a new what development
>> this is planning or planning of development. >> Do you guys want to exempt administrative subdivisions from park dedication requirements? >> I think it definitely should be. Yes, >> I do too.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So, I think we could maybe add a line into >> I think >> 15163 subsection A. We could specify in there that >> administrative subdivision would not have to >> dedicate land or pay
>> 8% here, but we still got 2% left. >> Yeah. I we need to change verbiage or put something in to make that clear that this is for developments, not lot splits or
administrative >> or not or I should say not including administrative right actions. Yeah, good point. >> Like kind of to Marie's point, I think, you know, having this in there along
with you see the other options really gives the city a variety of tools they can use during negotiation with these project groups to go, hey, you know, we'll forgo the the 10% of the subdivision area and move some cash or,
you know, maybe we need some new playground equipment. So instead of dedicating land, we can you could purchase new playground equipment for this park or you know stuff like that. Um it provides a lot of a lot of options which I think are beneficial to both the
city and the developers. So >> I just guess I see this is a good place to debate the 10%. >> What's what's your thoughts? >> Five. They get to five. You're still getting you're 10. >> What's wrong with 10? Well, it if if
>> it's a lot of money. >> 10% of what your profits are is 10% of your profits. Okay? I mean, you get developers coming in going, I can go to another city and not have to pay 10% of my profit up front because that's what
you're really asking is for them to give 10% of their profit. >> It's not 10% of their profit. It's 10% of the value of the land. >> But but it still it still comes down to profit. get bill comes out, but it's not 10% of their total profit. There's a major difference there.
>> Absolutely. >> Huge, huge difference. >> You're talking 10% of the whole $80,000. >> But I'll I'll look at it from the citizen side. You know, they talk about how much they want sidewalks and things like that. That was a huge win with with Dragon's development is able to say, "Hey, let's have them put in sidewalk."
Because they didn't need to put in a sidewalk. That wasn't part of the code. >> It was very wellreceived. >> And we have to remember we don't have other sources of revenue here like we don't have streets and roads tax. we don't, you know, so that the the source of revenue for us to be able to do and maintain some of these other projects
that we're so many years behind on has got to come from somewhere. >> Then I then then maybe what they should what we should do is we should make sure it's real clear when somebody buys a lot, they spend 80 grand for a lot, 8,000 that's going for parks. They need to know that upfront.
I'm just >> Or or or or do you or do you put down on or equivalent which allows them to be able to to do >> playground equipment or something else that might >> that's kind of what you get into with the cash contribution down below under
that. I mean there's or you can do a a a combination of cash and land dedication and the city has the ability to play with this stuff just because it's 10 11 whatever you know the size how many units per gross acre you know the the city has the ability to to play
around with these this is kind of the the starting point for the city and developers to to start with and work with and to go from there. Well, let let me ask you on on this one, Jason. What What are existing local communities doing? Are they doing
a 10%. >> I don't know off the top of my head. I do know that there is some zoning. Um I think Byron's got something in there with theirs. I don't know what the number is. I'd have to reach out to Al. >> Would you find out? I mean, I think that that that would just be for us to be
competitive as a as a city to know what our other communities around are doing. >> Yeah, I can certainly reach out to them and kind of see what they are. But I do know a lot of them are kind of in the same thing where new parks. They're looking
for the money, you know, that say we'll take in the money so we can offset some of our parks and equipment and things like that that you know to >> to do that. So, I mean, I like this. This goes this goes straight to the community. This goes straight. >> It looks like Cassen is doing what our
proposed ordinances are suggesting. Cassen is doing that the same options with cash or land >> 10%. >> Byron, it says negotiable. >> Okay, that's
>> Byron, Cassen. Those are the two nearest by I can find that are offering a similar negotiable. >> Pine Island, >> that one didn't pop up for me. >> It's a quick Google. >> I would say 10%'s fairly common
area. And >> to me, you put negotiable in there, you're opening yourself up for risk. Yeah. Yeah. At least when they come in and they know what that 10% is, it's laid out versus >> Honey Island's Parkland dedication ordinance in city code chapter 12
mandates developers dedicate land or contribute cash in lie for parks and open spaces to serve new development typically requiring land dedication or fees to be handled during the platting process. That's what we're saying. City council determines the negotiation and
any dedication of land cash or mixed base of development needs. >> It doesn't give us >> well it's again it says negotiation. It says >> but I'm saying that maybe it's said but you could save five. >> That's right. >> That's that's the thing is you put
negotiable and it opens up yourself for risk because you could walk away with nothing. I guess is >> at least if you put that 10 there's a line in the sand of this is kind of the paytoplay type of deal. >> Section E right there where it talks about combination of cash and land that is the city's negotiation.
>> Yes >> that is their option to say okay we'll make that >> and take a little cash. >> Many of the cities is 10% or higher. >> Mhm. >> I'm seeing 10 to 15.
Well, the Minnesota statute explains the options of either dedication land or dollar figures that's negotiable. But, you know, if you're a developer and you've got like in the case of Riverbend, it states there's 17 lots
there and he had the option of either based on what this paragraph was $8,000 $19,000. So, he has the option of, okay, I want to make a part, but I got to give up three lots. The developer looks at the three lots and I'm that can't build
on versus the dollars he's losing of not building those lots versus giving 20,000 to the city. >> He's probably going to give 20,000 to the city versus losing those three lots to build on. >> So that's a trade-off. >> Your profit, the profit margin is different than market value. There's a
difference there. So that's something you got to be >> wrong. If this was saying profit, I would agree with you Paul that 10% of a profit is that's night and day. Let's let's take that same thing and go back to page uh go to page 44
under commercial and industrial the land dedication at 7 and a2%. >> Number two >> y number 2 >> 2a 7 and 12. So from the debuke stands our commercial >> from or local standpoint we've always
done just residential. We've never applied dedication to commercial and industrial that I'm aware of. >> I think we had talked about it with Linda King's development. I don't know about Dollar General that was done before my time. Um Two Sisters was kind
of done before my time. So >> we haven't had any landed in there too >> with the the newer stuff going on across by Casey's. So that's not something that's ever been done with commercial. I would think with commercial, you're looking at that going, you know, it's it's a smaller
area. They're not having the residential traffic. You don't need as much parks and recreation type dedication space for those areas. So >> Well, and their zoning is different. >> Yeah. >> They're in a different area. >> Well, the thing is even with Dollar
General, that wasn't actually a development. That's just a building permit put up that went in. >> Yeah. to fit within the guidelines. >> That wasn't a development. >> It's still a development. >> Well, >> fit within the guidelines. >> It fell within fell within the building permit. We It's not like they put in a
platform. >> Evan, from your standpoint, have you seen parkland dedication involved with commercial and industrial dedication requirements? >> It's more common up in the metro, for sure. Once you start getting away from the the cities, it's less common, I
would say. So, if you guys don't want to require it, that's >> obviously up to you guys. >> I look at Linda King's development and that was there was a lot of green space put into that because of the neighbors wanting that connection through there, traffic and
movement and patterns. You take that out, they're less likely, those lots of lands are less likely to be >> it'll be a concrete jungle. >> Yeah. C can I ask why we wouldn't want that money or land dedication? I mean, again,
we've been talking about we're trying not to impact our taxpayers. This could be money that we could use for other purposes to try to offset some of those things. >> I guess I just think it's high.
>> 7 and a half%. Well, I mean the residential part, the 10% I think is high. I I don't I'm okay with it. >> I would keep the commercial industrial as well. I fine with all of it in there.
I think it's just goes straight back to the taxpayers and that's what we're looking for is >> we didn't have the we didn't have the seven the seven and a half% plus 10 that wasn't in place when they when they did ch Robson
that stuff that's the first time I've seen this in here >> so if you look at Linda King's property and and she says okay I'll donate land for a park if that's what she decides to do and not develop it or whatever the case. But the
point is and all of a sudden that becomes city property for us to support >> maintain >> number of acres with playground equipment has or whatever it can be negotiated. So that's >> it's an area we're not familiar with at
the same time versus residential because that's use and live or live here. >> Yeah. It doesn't have commercial development. It's just people come and go. It can be the green space that's the buffer between residential. It can be the roads connecting to be sidewalks or
or walking trails through areas. >> It could be a courtyard. >> It could be Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It could be cash. Specifically with the commercial, I think of more like your courtyard areas, between businesses, those type of areas that are going to be inviting for the
people who work there that are going to bring those businesses in because they've got those >> It feels more like more of a community center, you know what I mean? Or >> Yeah. >> Instead of like a strip mall with just a bunch of concrete. >> Yeah. >> Right. Maybe there's a seating area or a
fountain or something, you know? I I don't know. like those are all good ideas for a commercial development the size of what Linda was looking at, right? So, it's going to be different when you're looking at jungies or um you know some of the just the single
building structures that are going on over there on single lots and larger commercial projects >> and we don't have to ever take over maintenance of those. Those are usually >> right a larger commercial project it certainly makes sense to have something like that in there. again negotiable, but to have it
or if we were ever get something big like a business park, >> that's what I mean virtually. That's what that was looking to be, >> right? And we put language in there saying that the land dedication must be maintained by the
commercial properties >> as opposed I mean we could do that in the development agreement as part of that where we're laying out the stipulations for that stuff >> because you know I think of most commercial developments I know like when they've got green spaces like that they
stay within those whoever is owning the properties you know when they're developing putting those togethers They don't hardly ever turn over the city. And even when if if and when a company does fold in on itself, it's not maintained by the city. It's still
maintained by the property owner. So, you know, you may lose the business, but the property owner is still going to >> still take care of. >> So, why would a developer offer to give X acres of land to the city for them to take care of?
>> They wouldn't is what I'm saying. Mhm. >> Like a commercial development, we wouldn't have >> you take the 10, you take the 7 and 12% or the 10% >> cash. >> Well, even still, you could say we're >> what you said. I thought you >> in a So, in a commercial, I'm think commercial strictly commercial development, we could say you need to
have 7 and a half% of your land is for parks. That's not on us to take care of, though. It's it's park greenland dedication for the city. We're not saying you need to build a park. you need to have that parks green space as
part of that and that's still on them to maintain all that. That's not on us to maintain. You know, um where you're going to see it in commercial or in residential is well, we want you to build a new park for this residential area to service these people. That's
where the city kind of gets into this. We're going to take over this park, this area um as a park and maintain it. So, so you're so you're saying, so instead of that, maybe it should say green space. >> Well, of course you're looking at other one, Jason, off of that. If you have an
HOA, >> the HOA would be responsible for maintaining where it would go to the city. It'd go to the HOA >> or a percent of dollars to the city. >> Yeah. Or any of those in le of in le of the green space. You know, park
dedication is a loose term. You know, I don't know. Park, green space. Evan, does it really matter how we reference it? >> Needs to say in cash in li that should be added. >> I think you have good language in there right now whether you want to
>> have it for parks, playgrounds, trails or open space. I think that gives you a broad variety of options moving forward. >> You just have it as parks for example. It would be hard to legally accept a trail as a
substitute for a park, but with what you have now, you can have a couple different options moving forward. And >> I think we can maybe add some language in to note that if you guys want to have a HOA, for example, manage a an open space or playground, that's allowed
within the ordinance. >> Sorry, but I didn't mean to talk over there. So, one quick comment there too on that commercial industrial dedication requirements that Paul pointed to under section A notice it says land dedication if required. So, there isn't out there the
decision was made not to require that for a business owner. So, again, there's some loose language in there that yeah, land dedication if required shall be 7 and a half%. But who's making the determination whether you require it or not? That's there's some
>> well I think you guys as the >> commission would review and see if there's a a need for a park in a certain area or not and then >> recommend whether there would be a park >> land dedication or a actual fee in lie of dedication and then the council would
get to decide whether they want to >> have a land dedication or money or as you guys were discussing earlier maybe a combination of both land and and Nash >> I think I think maybe >> required if required is what makes >> we need to remove the term if required
>> and then change it to 7 and 12% of subdivision of development or cash in lie of if that's what you're going to do >> that's that's loose right now the way it's worded >> if required >> yeah just calling it out >> my my thought on that is I look at okay two different commercial developments in
town so you have Linda King side of stuff right where you got the huge acreage bridges where they're platting this out to build in um and have that versus, you know, where they can put in green more green space or whatever the case may be. Right. And then you look at like
Casey's where almost like >> greeners >> Yeah. or or greeners where it's but I'm thinking off the top of my head like Casey's where it's like a dead end culde-sac. You've got almost like a you would think like a residential. You're just going to have these little plots of of land. It's not the same. But that's
again would come to a council decision. They'd have to look at that and look at the totality of the circumstances for the development and go yeah it would be reasonable to have the 7 and a half% or not require the 7 and 12% just based off of what type of area it is
>> and what else is surrounding it. >> Yeah. >> Or or if you want to have the green space that there would be from there up to the street or some of those things that that would be a part of that too. That's that's where I come in with it and look at that. You have two completely different types of building
areas, but that's a you know that comes down to council then too. >> Agreed. And I I get that because there's >> it's apples and oranges to your point. I mean you talk about greeners over here where there's not land for green space. I mean you know they could do something but at the same time
>> I'm Linda King. Why am I required to do the 7 and a half% and give up profits versus they don't have to just because of where they're located at? It's to me it's all or nothing and to me there's some risk of we didn't make >> is not fair. >> Well, you didn't make them do it but I'm having to do it. So, I don't know. It
just seems >> No, that's a valid point too. >> Yeah. I don't know. >> Yeah, it's agreed. Like in the greener situation, they don't have space to do it, but there's still required 7 and 12% payment that comes along with it. So, I don't It's just that if required
obviously opens up risk there to me. But >> I mean greeners could do something with the park right outside of city hall. >> So greeners had enough issues that there were to find ways to get run off that there was to have the ponds that there were
>> they did put in they did they did submit plans for a decent landscaping plan too. I mean they are going to be adding what greenery they can fit in. >> Yeah. No. >> They bent over backwards to try to do >> almost everything they can do.
>> So do we want to remove the word the verbiage if required and just have it at 7 and a half% of the commercial. Is that agreeable for everybody? >> Yeah. If required has to come out of there. You can't have that and shall right after it.
Yep. Okay. So, we have a consensus on leaving it and removing the if required. >> You could combine A and B honestly
there if required >> suitability and required >> you have to put in the the percentage at 7 and 12%. I mean this allows us to require payment and fee and fees li of land dedication is what B is
>> B also says if the city requires >> if the city requires payment of fee in lie of D landed so I guess that could be that could be cleaned up let's say >> I think >> land dedication or ash shall be 7 and a
half% >> I think it's best just left it separated like I guess it's long as it's as long as it's so one one question on that though too and I I'm curious now after reading that
a little bit closer Daniel the way you just worded that land education if required shall be 7% if the city requires payment in lie of that I guess end of the day though is if it's somebody's property like bring up Linda thing is it the city's requirement that we want your cash
rather than your land or is it up to the business owner or the owner of the property to make that determination itself because >> that's how I was reading it's the city is making that determination. I don't know that's >> you as the city would make that determination >> during the development agreement and so there's kind of a little bit of back and
forth where you work with them and go hey you know sometimes they're they're perfectly fine yeah we'll give you the seven and a half or the 10%. Other times it's hey we would like you instead of this we want to offer say you know you put forward this amount of money and we'll wave this percentage of land
because that's what we're looking for. >> Back to the Linda King thing she was also offering up some trail accesses you know for >> that was part of the future land use map. So it was kind of a requirement. >> So >> she was she was offered up as a tradeoff. Yeah.
>> Yeah. But it's things like that where it kind of goes in the negotiation during that development agreement. So >> So do you think you need need to remove the word if required out of a >> we need to do something and do we do do we change the language in B. It says if
the city ops opts in to take the payment instead of requires payment. No, I think if we're requiring payment of fees instead of the the land dedication listed above, I think that's fine. >> Somewhere I think somewhere I think
>> reading them together everything how it is kind of makes sense. >> Somewhere I think it needs >> one or the other is going to happen, right? It's somewhere I think in that B though we need to put in the word option is it's a city option at the city's option of something.
It needs to be clear that it's the city's option not the developer or the it says if the city requires. Okay. So it is the city's option if the city requires. So it gives us back to the city. >> But then you when you get to sea we're
talking about a combination of land and education. It just it just seems like the way it's worded is is fair to both to the city and also to the developer by >> require if if
>> if we want to reward it, we can reward it to make it clear. >> Can we can we look at kind of how it's done in the residential one with section D there? Cash contribution and lure land. Can we kind of word it similar? Yeah, I think we could
>> similar to how it is in residential one. >> Yeah, I think it'd be easy to do that for you. >> Okay, let's see. Finishing out page 456 page
standards for location under C subdivision C under three miscellaneous requirements and then there's C standards for location talks about the planning commission shall develop and recommend the city council for adoption standards and
guidelines for determining what's geographic locations for such development should reasonably be hard to be conveyed and dedicated to me that should be parks and trails making that recommendation
>> I would agree and or a partnership with planning >> wherever and planning commission is me mentioned numerous times and to me I think that should say park and trails
making the recommendations >> which one are you under >> off of page 40 >> six >> six it's called standards for location and then underneath that it talks about
um the planning commission does this and there's it's mentioned several times even on the page. Um there I think the parks and trails is the is where it needs to be to >> I think it should be a combination of
the two of them working together as Marie said. >> Yeah. Partnership is a good word. Yeah, >> planning commission really just deals with, you know, of developments from developers and as opposed to the city parks.
>> Well, the planning commission also does does the public hearings on all of the properties too, regardless of their parks or developments. Okay. >> All of all of your public hearings are for development goes through.
>> Yeah. I >> just wonder if we do that partnership because if if the offset right we want to have another park, it would be nice to make sure that we're thinking about it with that planning commission >> on where it needs to go and how it
aligns to zoning. But if we just want cash or green space, right, that would really probably go to parks and trails >> today. park land dedication. If there's any funding, it comes to the city within 90 days of the execution of the
development agreement. Um, and then the city can council can decide if it goes to parks and trails or to planning missionary. I'm not sure how where it goes when it comes to the city, but it usually it's a dollar figure just comes into
and I'm not sure where it went in the past. >> It has been used for streets and roads, I think, as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's a absolutely fair usage of that, >> right? That's that's the taxpayer, right? We save the taxpayers money by using that. >> Um,
and that's where that partnership I think really could come into come into play. There is >> so how about this Evan? This might work. So where it says standards for location um after that we could put something
effect of the planning commission and parks and trails and collaboration and partnership shall do the following and then it goes through each one of this list and we can just take out where it says the planning commission and each one of these and just know that under section C um those two will work
together to complete. >> Do we have five? Do you want to specifically name them because what if there are other what if there are other committees like streets and roads or >> but this is just for park dedication section we're in >> so
>> yeah I think including the parks committee would be >> but that way we can get it right there in the first sentence and we're not every paragraph having to say the two committees >> I have an outline >> yeah I agree then >> we can put something along the effects of the parks the planning commission and
parks and trails in collaboration together shall do the following and then go into I I I go down the list there. >> Yes. >> So the triple I where it talks about the planning commission and parks and trails
as we're added shall further recommend changes and amendments from time to time to such standards and guidelines board. Number four, IV recommendations planning commission and parks recommend to the
city council the total area location. It still comes to the council for approval. >> Yeah, but it would be both those, >> right? >> So >> I guess the only question for subsection IV is that you would have to have a
preliminary plat for example would have to go through review of both the planning commission which is already required. That's normal, but you would also have to have the parks committee meet and make a recommendation as well. >> If you were to do that,
>> well, they would have a joint meeting more than likely if something like that were to occur and bring them together. >> Okay. >> So, >> I say that's some communities do do that. So, I just want to make sure you guys are aware of that. If we do make that change, we would >> I think
>> be doing something of having either a joint meeting or separate meetings. Yeah, >> because Joe will be part of the planning commissions and so by default streets and roads will be represented there too if something's coming up. So, >> and I think that it's not to say that
parks and trails don't take those sorts of things into consideration too. You know, they all come with their own sort of like perspective, right? And then they're kind of just >> language to start that start that division that section. Let's clarify that
to the end. >> Okay. >> The planning commission parks and trails. There has to be a a consensus for the recommendation. So there's one view coming to council. It's not >> right. >> Yeah. one or the other overruling the other one
>> right >> in the future. >> Okay. >> This going to vi private open spaces where open spaces park, playground, trail
be maintained by future residents of the subdivision. Um that is does that only include residential or is there we get verbiage in there including blue
they're commercial property in that as well >> miscellaneous >> in vIs private open space not public >> right it says private open spaces but if the if Like what Jason was saying with
having green space outside of a business park, making sure that there's verbiage in here that they will be the one maintaining it, not the city. >> This is just in standards for location. >> Okay.
>> So that's this specific is just relating to the location of >> the standard for locating it. Um, I'm sure Evan and I can find or Evan Evan can find somewhere to make sure we put in there, you know, or the the
future maintenance of anything put in. >> Um, but yeah. Well, my point is if it's private space, it's a private park, it's a private playground, they're going to take care
of it. Oh, 100%. >> That's not open to the public. >> It's private. >> Well, it can be. Well, it can't be because it's private. >> If they choose to open it, though. >> Well, >> right. Like the IBM parks are private
parks. >> They maintain, >> but they are open to the public as well. >> Uh that just that's that's just more recently, too. It didn't used to be, >> right? They used to be private, but now they are open to the public. I looked at growing up we had
warehouser. They had a huge area. It was all private home but it was all public parks and trails through there they maintained and did. So I mean that's what comes to mind when I read that is >> well again in the case too of like say a courtyard or something. It's not like a full park but it's it would be like a
community gathering space. It's not technically a public space that's maintained by the city, right? The management or the >> But how can you how can how can you require them to put in a private park? >> It's private property.
That's my point. I'm I'm all about land. >> It's not requiring them. This is if they want to put it in, we're going to kind of help say, "Hey, let's put it in this area or give you guidance for that. Guess a private park wouldn't count towards dedication anyway.
>> Paragraph that probably should even be there. That's me. down an age under administrative procedures planning commission parks and trails shall establish such administrative procedures that they deem necessary to
require to implement the provisions of this se subsection C's. >> But you were going to put that in as a header that there was for this whole thing that parks and trails would be a part of all this. >> Yes. Okay. So that would take care of
that. kind of confused by also on parks. >> I just want to make sure I don't know maybe I've got a weird copy. So, we have section C here, standards for location. Then we go through all the II whatever. And then we flip the page
and we have section C again, but it just there's nothing there's no like header to what that section's about. that says subdivision writing when I says describe in this subsectional >> provided it's just the C.
>> Oh yeah. So >> yeah. Okay. No, we're good. >> He's not reading it like this. He's turning the achievements where am I missing here? Okay, we just a super
inconvenient place for that. Um, official maps is the last section 164 on page 49. >> Sorry, Jason. Going back to the one you just pointed out, that's C. Should that
be capitalized? Is it if it's referencing back to the other section that's got >> it's a lower case. It's a subsection. >> Yeah, it's a sub it's a subsection of >> yeah described in this subsection. So C
standards and location >> okay which goes back to the private Yeah. That like >> you have an apartment building that has a courtyard >> to be lowercase. >> Oh yeah. Then the C under H needs to change to lowercase >> because that references this C versus
that C. >> Different C's but >> very close together. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I think we can get through maps in 15 minutes. New 16th.
>> You came You came preloaded with a date. Oh, Daniel, shame on you. >> The 16th. >> Anything else? Official maps. Last two pages. Oh, we'll need to adopt the new map. We'll have to get the updated land use
map on the things to-do list. And so on the very last paragraph, G, appeals about board of appeals and adjustments and we haven't done a board of appeals
and adjustments. city code. >> City code that we haven't >> currently states that it is city council. >> So you can deny it and then they can appeal it back to you and you can review it again. >> I don't remember Evan if that's in the
current planning and zoning code or if that's in its own I think that's in its own standalone code. It's not in the plan. >> Um it is it is in this new code. It's actually towards the very beginning. >> No, I'm talking about in our current code where it talks about the the board of appeals. Is that in the >> They just call it part of
>> I don't know if it's actually in your current one. It might be >> it is your current one someplace where it is where the >> remember if it's in our current zoning section of the code or if it's in a different >> board of adjustments was one person. >> Oh my gosh, that's awesome.
>> It was it was >> How do you call that a board? >> It was a guy that ran the marine up here. >> Oh, um Hyram. >> Yeah, Hyram. He was the board of adjustments. >> That interesting. >> But this board of appeals is different
than what we do for property taxes because the training that the board of appeals is supposed to go through or be trained and certified, you know, that's why we and right now we we're not we don't have a city board of appeals because it automatically just everything
goes to the county for property taxes. I think that's just board of adjustment whereas this would be >> board of appeals and I think this is talking about taxes right I know I know >> the council this board
>> the title general is kind of a misleading for what >> yeah because later it says if the board of appeals and adjustments authorizes issuance of a permit the city council will issue it referring
So it's like >> so am I wrong in asking I mean board of appeal if you're going to change something or you want a variance or you I mean you would go through planning and zoning. So would wouldn't planning and zoning technically be the adjustment
board? >> No because planning and zoning doesn't make any any decisions. It makes recommendation back >> the city council. Well, it made there there's language in there in the old
code that allowed that allowed city that allowed planning and zoning for Mark Keane to put into his campground. That was done without city council. >> Well, I the way it was there. No, I'm
just saying everything that that we've always learned is is that planning and zoning only makes recommendations. >> They they change they changed some language. They brought together >> and it goes back to city council. >> Yeah, they change they changed some language. They brought together two things and made it the uh
>> So, I guess the question is if we're not going to have an appeals and adjustments board, does that language just need to say city council? >> You would you would have a board of appeals is how this works. You will have >> you have the council which is what you're doing now. >> We have one that exists
>> if you wanted some other entity. You could have another group of people make up the board of appeals. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, it is in the current city zoning code that references the board of
um adjustments. >> That just refers to a building permit. Is that so is that basically go go all the way around the block to the uh to a to a preliminary plat and the development itself.
>> This talks about request for a variance or an appeal from an administrative order determination holds a public hearing. Yeah. >> So we need to set up a board of appeals and adjustments apparently.
that on your to-do list? >> Yes. Let me just let me just add that name from a hat. I'll >> just squeeze that right in. >> Can I pick them? Do I get to pick them if I do the work? Can I pick them? >> You can pick them out of the hat. Yeah,
>> there you go. >> The same name as put in a hat. >> City council. City council. City council. Is this thing as good as it's going to get then? >> I think so. >> Okay. So, wait a second here. So this
talks about and this is I don't know how this is listed in if this is in the new code or not is the powers and duties says the members of the planning commission shall constitute the board of adjustment shall act upon questions. have to look into this a little more,
but it still says they recommend it back up to city council in decision. So >> that's why I said that sentence by board of appeals. >> All right, we'll have to look into that and figure that out. >> I have one thing to add quick. I did
have a few minutes to catch up with uh planning and zoning chair uh Kathy today. She was really excited that this was the fourth workshop. She's sorry the meetings on the dates that they were scheduled. She wasn't able to attend, but she has been reading the summaries
and the minutes and she's excited about all the work that's been done. She's really excited for it to get finished obviously and make it to council. Um but she just wanted to say thank you for all the extra work that uh was done and she's looking forward to the results.
>> So the next steps um I guess Evan from your perspective you've done a lot of work already obviously with your redline version of it and what we've discussed here tonight. So um
>> this is the packet needs to be done by the by the >> 15th 16th. Yeah, 16 I think is >> 16's at 30. >> It's not mine. Your vote. Your vote. >> Bring it to council on the 21st approval,
>> right? The agenda deadline. I think it's the 16th. >> 16th that Thursday. >> Does this have to go to planning? It's only for hearing again. >> No, it's already gone through them. It's up to council now to make their decisions. We'll
>> need to post for public hearing. >> Yes. There's no post for public hearing for >> thinks there's no post for public hearing for >> that's why you're right >> I'm like okay that was not on my radar
>> we'll verify though just to make sure because if we're doing changes to it I want to make sure that we don't have to >> so we'll verify that >> why not always wonder we >> consider number >> and there's been huge changes, but I don't know what the legality of that is.
If there's an updated map be sent out beforehand, too, >> there's some updates to that. >> Yeah. Everything we get as soon as it >> because the map also as soon as Evan's done with that will need to get be submitted so that it can be adopted.
>> Yeah. >> So, P&Z is cancelled. >> Undetermined at that is canceled for Thursday. There were no public hearings and Yeah, >> Kathy was gonna send out an email >> on the website earlier. >> Two things or go ahead.
>> I say I have one other thing I'd like to just address with this and Evan's going to hate me for it. Um, >> I've going through all this and really you can see it as you get to the the index at the front here where it breaks
everything down. Um, I'm really worried about the lack of reserve spaces for any changes 10, 20, 30 years down the road. Um, I'd like to reumber some of these to give us more room to have reserve spaces for changes for any laws that happen.
So, with that, it would just be simple number changes in here to give us more space. Some of them have two, some of them just have one. Um but I think you know as this is a a great document um having more reserve space is going to be beneficial because if we get something
in the first you know in R1 where we decide oh we need to add four more laws well we only got spot for two. So then we have to adjust the whole document anyways. >> Yeah. 0 one number you have. You could add another
you can add you can add another uh >> a fourth another fourth decimal place >> decimal spot. Yeah. >> I think that would make it more of a subsection of the other one. That's not typically how they're done. So that's why I'm saying if we can add more reserves, you know, >> as long as we're doing it.
>> Yeah. Like I mean this would be the time to do it. Evan, >> yeah, I noticed when I was going through um to add in that step down zone, we're gonna have to re number everything anyway. So, >> I think it's a good point to >> address the numbers then back and do it
later, >> right? >> So, we'll we'll talk about that and we'll kind of touch base. I kind of have an idea in my head, but you can kind of guide help me guide that. Just make sure in there. >> Yeah, there's a certain numbering pattern you guys prefer. I'm all ears
for it. >> But I know in the document we'll have to make sure we go through Evan because there are some where it references certain portions of >> Yes. Yes. >> So we'll have to make sure those are properly changed as well. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So but again setting the city up for
future the future to be able to >> do it. Yeah. Within YouTube. So that was my one thing there. >> One last thing. Uh so Evan um if you go back to section
one the R1 section which is 151.042 I guess the R1 section there's no page numbers yet. Maybe they'll come later. >> Yeah, I was thinking we need to renumber the pages. I >> I notic there are some issues with that in the document. all go along with what
you need to do. Anyway, >> well, part of that is we've we've budgeted to go on to MUN code, so we're not going to have pages. It's all going to be online where you're going to be referencing the code itself. >> Yeah. Not by pages. So, we're going to be going away from a lot of the pages.
So, >> one less thing to keep updated, too. >> Yeah. >> So, the you don't have any blank pages in there to fill in them, >> right? to fill in those missing statutes
or codes. >> Chat, I posted a couple of other spelling errors that I found. >> I can send an email if that's easier. >> Evan, did you see the chat? >> I I did get those. Yeah.
Thank you for sending those over, Marie. >> Oh, boy. No wonder you were so quiet. You were typing the whole time. >> Thank you, Marie. Welcome. So, the minimum lot size, the 14,000 square ft. I know we talked about
the 10, the 12, and the 14. Uh, and 14's shown in the chart, but if there's any discussion about that, um, I guess that's where we come up in council for finalization, but I do think it's
still, in my mind, I think it's still too big. Well, let's let's let's be realistic. The downtown lots here are 60 foot by 140 along Minnesota Avenue. They're 60 foot wide lots.
That's not 14,000 ft, >> right? I was thinking um with adding those buffer zones, we could drop that down to 12 or 10,000 square foot for the minimum lot size for the new which would which would
technically be >> that's two then >> it would be with the flex that you can can do that. Okay. And so you've got an ability to do that that's built into it, >> you know. So it's it's keeping the other
that makes sense to keep the other ones which would be the straight R1. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So I mean >> that would be R2 though. That will be R2 because R1 will be the new zone that includes the buffer zones R2.
>> But but you understand what I'm saying with the rest of it. on the thing. It goes with the flex. You can go down to 10 if you want to. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that gives that flexibility that's inside the flex. >> So, everybody's just going to buy for flex to get the 10.
>> It's one of those things that you've got that ability. Otherwise, you can keep the R1 at at the 14, you know, >> because again, you got the flex, which is what you're looking at, right? Okay. You want to be able to have that. So you still got that
>> building flex. I think that's there's all kinds of ways to do whatever square footage you want. >> But in the R1, I think, you know, with the with the the square footages and the setbacks, I
just, you know, the steering committee said 10,000 and repeating a lot of this, you know, 10,000 very respective for all of our cities around us, including Rochester. Um, you know, I think 12,000 is I'd like
to see 10,000. I think 12,000 is respectable, but I think 14,000 is is asking a lot of our developers to put a lot of extra cost into that. >> These are not required. >> Again, developers, you can go to flex
and you can do the 10. So developers have that that ability to do that. We're not taking anything away from that. And and I think it's going to be interesting to go to a public hearing and see what what what the public has to say about it because it's got to go to a
public hearing anyway. But why should we have why should we have the developers know that and maybe developers have that awareness they can ask for a variance but they
don't know if they're going to get it >> with the flex here it's guaranteed >> what's that >> if you go in with the flex when they came in with that it's guaranteed so there not looking for a variance that goes along with it that's a part of the flex >> well they may Maybe they don't want to
do a development flex for four homes. >> Well, you were talking about um the situation that you don't like to have, you know, certain I call it u footprints of of lots. Okay.
I won't say cookie cutter but cookie cutter to go along with it because you said you want to have homes to be able to do custom home that there are that are part of that with the custom homes you know keeping it for 14,000 gives enough room to be able to play with a
custom home. So a lot of the cities when I was talking to other council people that there are when they went to a smaller lot they just put bigger houses on smaller lots where it didn't give the feel of what we want to have here for
for what noco is to have the larger houses on the larger lots but not 20,000 but to drop it down to the 14 >> and I have another I have another question al together And it refers to the unbuffer zone.
Who owns who's going to own the property in the buffer zone? >> The developer, >> the developer. >> Well, why why would I why would I buy property in the first place? >> It's a 20,000. >> Second, why would I buy property in the first place within that buffer zone?
>> So, it's still a lot. It just falls under the minimum of 20,000 square foot lots >> in the buffer zone. Exactly. >> Oh, okay. Now, where's their buffer zone? >> That's the next slot down. >> That's the next size down.
>> Yeah. >> How does how does that work? Those that are already there get a buffer zone, but the next group don't >> I mean, they would be I mean, going from 80,000 square foot lots down to 20,000 foot lots and then 20,000 foot lots.
>> The bunkers only requires what size lot? 20,000 foot which is was our current >> the current code >> which is the current code. >> So I mean they're still getting a that buffer zone is still getting a step down
but the step down that we're deciding that the minimum should be. It's actually probably a more favorable step down than what the current lots are getting. >> So I just
This was actually from May of last year. It was amongst our administrator group. We were talking about stuff. Um this came from St. Charles asked the the city administrator in St. Charles. Um their single family residential square foot minimum is 9,000. Pine Island is 11,400.
Um Lewon is 8,000. Um St. Charles is 7,500. Uh Zimroda's 11,000. Um >> 11,000 is just over a quarter acre.
>> Well, 11,000 they've got they've got it two different ones depending on the lot width. >> 43 560. >> You've got 11,000 or 75 or 7,500 for ours. They've kind of got two depending on the size.
Um they've got two different I guess residential districts. So, um, they can vary between 7,500 and 11,000 for their residential. So, take that information what you will, but that's some of our surrounding cities what they're doing. I know Byron's lower, too. I don't have it
in here, but I know they're sitting lower. So, >> that's just where we're at with the regional ones. >> I'd be perfectly fine lowering it to the 114. I mean, that sounds that's 26 acres right there. A little over a quarter
acre. It's a good lot size still, but a big house on it still. So, um >> that's just my two cents, but I'm not married to any number between 10 and 14,000.
>> The DF is going to be where people will go if they want to go lower than that. But, >> and and that's where you're going to have it. The the thing I'm looking at is is how many lot splits would be done when you go down to 10,000 throughout the rest of the town and all
of a sudden you're going to have all these other houses that there are on lot splits because you're at a 20,000 right now. >> Doesn't that speak to what they want then if that's what they're doing? I mean I'm just asking is I don't have a lot here so I don't know I hear things but if there's going to be a lot of them
doesn't that mean that the citizens want that? I don't I don't you know it's it's looking at at why people moved out here in the first place you know and and it's to have the larger lots >> and that's what came with the public hearing that night. So when we were in P&Z that's where we landed with that 14,000 and then also the step down also
came up in the public hearing and that's where a lot of that >> feedback was taken from. >> I just know >> I guess to me if you have that 14 Ryland I guess if you still have that 14 plex you can apply for there's still the option to get that lower I guess but
provide some I would say security for the people that are already living here paying taxes that will go out here for that reason to Jim's point but I'm not on council either so I know you guys got to debate this and decide but I'm just that's my two cents based on the conversations we've had >> yeah we've heard it both ways right
we've had people lobbying for as small as 9,000 square feet so I mean it's it's been both it's been both ways um but a quarter acre lot for me is still a pretty darn good size lot, but like
that's a manageable mowing size push mower size lot with a good size house on it, right? I mean, but I'm happy to leave that in the DF as well. So >> because the DF has got it then that's
why we went with the DF you know for the developments was was with that particular ability to do that >> you know >> and poor acres just under 11,000 >> y yeah the only the only
I guess this is one thing that I I'm thinking about is if we have it at 114 which is 26 or 11,000 I think it's 108 10,000 800 to be >> 435 >> when I'm talking a quarter acres. So
1080 or 10,800. We have at the minimum at that we might have developers come in and put 10,800 foot homes or lots on there. Now we say
now it has to be 14,000 or you can do a DF. And if you do a DF, you may be able to get it down to 8,000 square foot lots. Like, what developer is not going to put more lots on? >> So, it might be safer
to lower it just a little bit so we don't end up with DFS everywhere in town trying to get those lower. Well, still you can you can you still could >> but you like there's you can still get
>> I I mean I don't know how many additional lots you would get out of a 40 acre lot by lowering it 3,000 square foot >> each one real quick times 4 is 12 you get an extra you get
an extra 12,000 >> well 12 lots out of it >> you get an extra 12,000 ft Okay, >> that's what I look at. You think it's a little >> You're really only adding what? One to three houses to a development. >> You're adding a one house per acre,
right? So, if somebody's doing a 40 acre development, just take out the streets and roads because, you know, they're getting in there. >> They're probably going to end up with 32 acres of >> houses. >> 32 times
a 30. They got to go through the process to get it to 32 extra houses. Why wouldn't they go through the process to get it to 64 extra houses? It's the same process, right? That would be my concern is that we end up with actually
this goes reverse on us and we actually end up with smaller house lots, more DFS. >> Well, remember the DF that there is has got to come to council to be approved. Okay. So, it's for us to say no, you
can't do that, >> right? >> So, there it's up to us, but also next year's council, the year after that's council. >> Well, it's it's it's it's up it's up to council when I said that when I'm looking at Okay. So, >> you know, it's and and and it's it's a
roll of dice. I mean, everything is going to change. I mean, look at it this way. Any of us could win the lottery and we'd be gone anyway tomorrow, right? you know, so to your point 40 acre lot, you're looking at 34 more units going from
14,000 to 11,000 are going to get that many more >> lots move to Rochester. >> Okay. You know, I'm just sorry, just put it out there because you referenced back to Rochester and that was part of the conversation last time was
>> a lot of people moved out here from Rochester because the small lot size the way it was and that was kind of where we landed on that 14. So, >> yeah. >> I just keep looking at the new development behind the elementary school, Pine Island, those lot sizes are 7 to 9,000 square foot lot sizes. Those
are still nice houses. Those are still >> nice lots. So like that's the picture that I've >> got in my head for the quarter acre >> quarter acre lot. >> Yeah. >> It still looks
>> they they just added a new preliminary plan to that neighborhood too >> in Riverbend. There's these >> these four or five houses that are granted they have a >> a drop off behind them and the livable
space is either 85 or 100 foot lots and they're 120 ft deep and they're all very nice homes >> and and I'm not I'm not saying that they aren't okay. You know, but understand you can build nice homes on 12,000
square foot lots, >> you know, and and again, maybe that's the compromise. Instead of going from 14, go down to 12, you know, and and stick with the 12,000. Okay. No,
>> I mean I think we put a lot of emphasis into the steering committee and when you went into your August public hearings that was where the conversation started from the standing committee was 10,000 square feet >> but but everybody that it's it they
wanted the larger Okay, that's that's what the public hearing came up with. Well, we had a we did have a mix, but I would say the majority of people that showed up were asking for larger lots for sure. >> And and so that's >> there were absolutely people that were asking for smaller lots.
Um >> and the takeaway from the August PNZ meeting was 12,000. That was kind of the takeaway from the public hearing >> and which is in the September P&Z meeting, you went to 14,000. >> Yeah. >> From your conversation. So I just think
that My concern is 14,000 is a is a somewhat of a determined from developers to even look into Oklahoma is today if you tell and I've talked to a couple developers and you they asked me where I'm at where the city's at and I said well we're looking at 12 or 14 they just
kind of go geez you know >> but >> that's first impression >> but that's if if you go with the flex it's not it's >> looking at our code You may not recognize that. >> Well, these are the new things that are
that are coming. So, it's it's going to be like Yeah, you've got an ability to do that with the flex. If you go in and pull the flex, >> you can do it, you know, a whole lot of a difference, too. >> Well, the thing I look at I look at flex flips the whole thing on his heels. >> Flips the whole thing over.
>> This is a right? I think >> Yeah. >> So, okay. So, let me just ask this for Evan and my clarification. I'm hearing a lot back and forth between 12 14 obviously 10 was that at one point now 14 would 12 be amendable if we added listed as 12 in our one to everybody
Marie I hope you're still on you can hear me I don't know you've been quiet >> I'm here >> okay um I mean I we obviously want to try to make this for the April one having it done right and everything done without having to make changes so if 12 is in there is
that amendable to everyone is that something that is reasonable Again, it's a lot of back and forth right now, which is great, but looking to council members, you want to make decision, >> you know, I I I think it's a compromise
that that might be workable. >> Yeah, I think I think and I was wrong. The the development behind elementary school, those are a little over 11,000 square foot lots. >> So, 12,000 square foot lot is still a really good lot with the really nice
house on it, too. So, I would be I like I said, I could go 10, I could stay at 14 and 12 would be fine by me. >> I'm just looking as a compromise that there is that would would be reasonable. And again, remember the flex is still there. The flex is still there. >> I'm okay with 12,
>> Marie. >> I'm still on 14, but I I could do 12. I don't think I could go any smaller. I know I'm not on council, but I guess are we compromising as a council or are we compromising on behalf of developers
pay for septic? >> I think that there's some voices in town that are not as vocal um that would like smaller lots. I've heard p I've had personal conversations with people who want smaller lots.
Well, you know, and some of the conversations too, you know, a lot of that stuff. Um, and and we heard some of it last council meeting at their Okay. And and so my my comment on that is
somebody that's here that's living in this community, you know, if they have a house right now, um are they going to turn around, sell their house and try to go into a new house that's going to be twice as
expensive as what their current house is by what the costs are for for building, you know, and turn around and pay the extra taxes that there are on doing a new one and and and then could take out a loan for 7%.
>> Yeah, but that's not me to decide. >> No, but I'm just saying but that's that's the reality that people >> situation is. >> People look at that, but you have to look at the full picture. They see that and they think it's a simple >> solution. It's really not. So everything
is going in the new development for town homes. Those are half million dollar homes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Are you going to sell a $250,000 home? Okay. That's in a downtown area to go into a half million dollar home to
pay the difference on taxes plus HOA on top of it. Yeah. I don't know. But I'm just it's a question that I'm really asking, you know. So, you have to look at everything that's associated with it. It's pretty easy to say smaller lot, but going into a new home by what
construction costs are now is really expensive. >> No, I I I hear you. There's a lot more to it than that cuz property taxes are based off a lot sizes and and lot valuation and and all of that. So, I am
just I with the buffer zone that we put in, I am content with going down smaller. I'm fine with leaving it where it is. And >> my taxes my taxes are up 25% this year with zero improvements. Explain to me on
paper where that comes from >> because county didn't increase your value last year and they doubled it this year >> or they didn't do it for five years >> and then they and then they hit you hard this. That's where people aren't understanding is that >> talk about a fraud. >> We don't make your we don't value your
home. The county does. cut gets bigger every time they increase the value. >> Exactly. That's why >> but but yeah, we don't we don't we don't control that. >> Well, yeah, we did. We controlled what up was charging us the last year. It
went up 20% here, 17.6%. But >> anyway, >> no, there it's and and and it's looking at at the senior aspect of it. It's there is no good answer. And it's not just the city here. It's it's everywhere
when it comes to that. It's really it sucks to be quite honest with you. >> And it's realistic, you know. >> Anyway, >> sorry, we're later on here. So, okay. So Evan, we we'll put in 12 if you want to change the meeting because I think
there's a consensus there where that's a reasonable one between the 10 and 14, but we'll put in the 12 and then you guys can make your decision from there, I guess. >> Okay. >> So, seems to be pretty across the board there. So, I just want to get that cleared up.
>> Anything else? >> Thank you. >> I told Jason we weren't getting done. I was just hoping you we weren't going to be booking the 16th. >> Guess it's my fault. >> Oh, no. We will have it. Start telling
people we'll have to council meeting. >> Thank you, Evan. >> Thanks. >> Thank you everybody. >> I don't know. So, >> have a good guys. >> It just ran away.
Then we'll stay there to stop it.