Good evening everyone. I'd like to welcome you to that Sego City Council meeting. Tonight is Tuesday, May 27th. Audrey, can you have the record show that our city attorneys present, our city planners present, our city engineers absent, we have council member
Dunlap, Gaty, and Tanner present. At this time, Council Member L is not here and we have our city administrator. At this time, I'll ask you all to join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Our first item this evening is our open forum. This is the portion
where you can come to the podium, state your name and address, and limit comments to 3 minutes or less. Would anyone like to speak at this time? Right. We will close the open forum. Audrey, can you have the record show that our city engineer is present
now? And we will move on to item two to consider agenda for approval. Does anyone have anything that they would like to add or delete at this time? Adam, mayor, council, staff would request to add item 6.2 to accept a
resignation from a city employee. Madam Mayor, that's Frank. I'd also like to bring down 3.3 from the consent agenda. We can make that 5.1. And then I would also like to um reverse the order of 4.1 and
4.2 so that we're discussing uh waterfront first. Um that's the way that the planning commission did it. I think it's less confusing to do it that way. Anyone have any issues?
Okay, with that I will move to approve the agenda as amended. Motion by Ryan, seconded by Corey. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. All those opposed, same sign. Motion
passes. Moving on to the consent agenda. A motion would be in order. Madame Mayor. Yes, Ryan. I move to approve the consent agenda as amended. There's a motion by Ryan and seconded by Corey. Is there any discussion?
All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed, same sign. Motion passes. We will move on to item the new item 4.1 which is the go waterfront. And I will turn this over to Dan. Um, before
I give the planning report, just for Mr. Grener and for Mr. Pratt, your applications were just approved on the consent agenda. So, you guys are all set. Thank you guys for coming. Okay. Not to the application from Modern
Construction of Minnesota. Uh they've submitted a planned unit development development stage plan a preliminary plat of one lot and three outlots and also uh consideration of vacation and of drainage and utility easements. This is a uh reconsideration of a application
submitted and approved in 2023 that was uh expired because they did not move forward with final plaid approval uh as required by the zoning ordinance. So they've submitted revised plans for the development addressing prior concerns and are representing it for
consideration. Uh the property is guided by the comprehensive plan for mixed uses which consists of commercial office or service retail businesses along with opportunity for multiple family dwellings along with the property uh
that exists as two lots currently plus an outlot which is entirely within Wild Scenic Recreational River District protecting land adjacent to the Mississippi River. Uh this is located east of Highway 101 at County Road 39 just south of the Atgo waterfront development and Nate 101
market. Uh the preliminary plat would resubdivide the property into again the one buildable lot as well as two outlots um including the uh wild and scenic protected parcel as well as an outlot that's currently within the floodway district of the Mississippi River can't
be developed until uh the developer is working on a process with the Army Corps of Engineers to allow that area to be filled. Um so they're primarily doing this for the purpose of developing lot one block one. Uh prior application included completion of a traffic study
showing that uh the intersection at uh Quantrell Avenue and 90th Street could accommodate a significantly larger development than what's currently being proposed uh without any additional improvements to that intersection. Uh sewer and water utilities are available
to the property, but the development does require an improvement to the existing lift station in the area, which would be a developer responsibility. Uh and then they provided storm water plans for the development meeting the city's uh and MPCA requirements. Because the
two lots were previously platted, there were drainage and utility easements dedicated when those plots were subdivided. Uh those would be vacated when this property comes into final platted similar to uh the preliminary plat shown. And then finally, with any
uh subdivision application that includes public improvements, uh there's a requirement at final plat for a development contract to be executed. The revised uh site plan uh shown in the as the architectural drawing. Uh the principal building has
been changed to 135 apartments and 12,800 square ft of commercial. Prior in proposal included restaurant. This is only retail or office or service type business within that uh square footage. Setbacks for the development would be uh
similar to what was proposed previously moving the building forward towards Quantrol Avenue to try and m maximize the developable area within the property given the wild and scenic limitations on the outlot to the east. U the properties or the building's also set back
approximately 20 ft from the north property line. Uh the one issue with that is we do need documentation from the architect that uh the width of the fire lane that's provided is adequate based on the construction of the building. U one of the items discussed at length with the prior application was
provision of off- streetet parking. Uh what's shown on the uh screen is 352 parking spaces shown which includes 65 spaces within the building. Uh the recommendation from the planning commission would use a methodology to calculate a mixeduse parking requirement
for 309 uses or 309 spaces. Basically looking at the offset peak demand for each of the uses within the building. Uh not necessarily just a cumulative total for this many apartments and this much uh commercial space. How that breaks down is 188 surface parking stalls.
There's also the need to increase the enclosed space to 121 stalls. Pedestrian access to the site would be available on Quantrell Avenue and there's also an opportunity to create a pedestrian connection to the east through the outlots up to Carrick's Landing. Uh that
would be defined in terms of its location and timing at final plat pending the resolution of the floodway uh application. Landscaping and exterior lighting plans would also need to be submitted at final plat approval as uh we don't have those at this time. The
building plans have changed reducing the overall structure by a story. It's now a six foot or sixtory building. Uh that's five stories usable space above the parking enclosure. The commercial component is now at grade to the south of the residential building or the
parking garage essentially. Uh the height of the building is uh 70 feet or six stories. uh that's less than was proposed previously and it's within the 75 ft that the planning commission is recommending for this area under what's proposed as the M1 mixeduse district.
So, uh the planning commission was supportive of the proposed height of the building. Uh looking at the construction of the building, these are to be commercial type structures requiring 65% glass or masonry finishes. This plan only has 32% grade A materials. So that
obviously needs to be modified and increased as part of the uh final plat submission. One of the other issues with the prior submission was that the apartments within the building didn't meet the minimum floor area per unit requirements uh that are specified by
the zoning ordinance. The revised plan meets all of those requirements. Uh and then they are showing some signs on the architectural plans. City staff's recommendation would be just to apply the standard allowance for wall signs on all four sides of the building up to 15%
of the uh wall area with a maximum size of 200 square feet per build or per sign as this is within the freeway corridor district. Uh city staff is recommending approval based on consistency with the comprehensive plan zoning ordinance and
subdivision ordinance. uh planning commission held a public hearing to consider the application at their meeting last Monday. They recommended approval subject to the 18 conditions recommended by city staff. Thank you. Does the applicant wish to comment?
Good evening, council. Jesse Hartung, 18837 Ogden Street Northwest Elk River. Uh no further comments other than say that uh looking for support tonight with the approval of the 18 conditions listed. and I stand for questions if you have any. Okay, thank you. Okay. Um, if
you want to stay there, you can. Um, council, questions for the applicant or for staff regarding this application. Madam Mayor, yes, Ryan. Um, Mr. Mr. Hartung, at the um planning commission, I think you said
that there were three conditions um that the council talked about last time and that all three of those were uh resolved. Can you just go through what those three conditions were and and how they were resolved? Sure. So, the
letter that I received for the uh denial in the last application was the unit sizes where I believe we had some onebedrooms that didn't meet. Um those have been resolved as Dan indicated. We've increased the size to meet all the stipulations. The second uh denial was
for the parking and under the mixed use district and staff recommendation, we've met that parking on site now without any street parking. Um I I do recognize some of that still says proof of parking. However, at the planning commission, I said that was just it was intended to be what was required by the city there. So
that's been met. And then the building height was the other issue. And so now we are under that proposed mixeduse building height of 75 ft. And so therefore, we believe we've met all the all the uh stipulations for why we were denied last
time. Under the So, I want to make sure I'm understanding under the current ordinances, you would not be meeting or building height. Correct. And my understanding is with the PUD, I don't know if there is a specific building height ordinance. I guess I'd
leave that to city staff to comment on. As far as parking goes, we uh we do have no space on site to meet the existing parking requirements as I understand, but I had deferred to my my architect team on that. However, we recommended to follow
the mixed use guidelines and therefore, you know, going along with the recommendation on the on the 309 parking stalls, I believe it was. And can I ask a question to follow up with that? Is that okay? Oh yeah, sorry.
Um I was doing math in my head. So I was also here the evening um when you were here for the planning commission and there was also discussion about you um having 65 stalls currently in the building now, but you need 121.
Um you did say you'd be able to figure that out. What I guess I'm struggling with that one since the picture is the same as what it was last week. What what would you be changing on this which would ultimately change the design of this building? Yeah, so we would meet the stipulation as meeting the 121
covered. So we'd extend the parking garage area to meet the additional stalls required by the city code or by the approval of planning commission and hopefully the approval of city council tonight. Would that change then where you were planning to put your retail space to the south then? That was going to be a one. That would still stay
there. So the only thing we would be doing is increasing the covered parking spot. So, the retail would most likely move a little bit further south to accommodate additional parking garage cells. So, would that ultimately be changing what I'm looking at? That that would change what
I'm looking at tonight. It it would modify what you see here um to accommodate the stalls, but the structure above parking would all stay the same. the square footages of the commercial would all stay the same and the the proximity of the commercial relating to the apartments would all
stay the same and we would of course have that submitted prior to fin approval. Um follow up on that also exterior finishes you're at 32% you need to be 65% what would your we would we would need that
And mayor, quick question. Yes, just to confirm, I I think I read in the previous application that was brought up as an issue as was the setback. Correct. I guess this is a question for the
planner and the attorney. Um, when we're looking at applications, we're looking at what they're presenting and usually the drawing is complete, but we're And I I get that this is not the final, but what discretion do we have to can we
request that it be what we are expecting to see? So we I mean it does change if we're shifting everything to the south as Mr. Hartung just said the picture does change the space requirements for outside and inside. I know he's showing that he has 309 spots but we are that's
item 4.2 now is the mixed use where we're changing parking. So it feels like we're applying some old stuff looking at new stuff and to me the picture isn't what we are ultimately going to be building there. So, mayor, in the planning development district, the site
plan and the building plans ultimately become part of the agreement between the city and the developer. Um, so to the issues regarding the parking, the building materials, other items that are all listed in those
conditions, either the council is comfortable approving the application subject to those conditions or requiring that certain conditions that you have issues with or concerns about be addressed before you improve the this
development stage plan subject to conditions They do still have to submit revised plans that come back with the final plat, but it's just a matter of when you want to see that before you ultimately give approvals. Other questions?
What? Oh, I was just going to add on to that, Madam Mayor, that that's what I struggle with here is because I don't like denying applications, but I feel like the council at this point has the most discretion
to state what we think this should be in order to follow ordinances or variances to those ordinances. And so that's why I tend to look at this like we're some of this stuff is being repeated. I mean, at the last the last
time we reviewed this application, a lot of this stuff was the same. Other comments for Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, it's a question I guess for for maybe Ron. um when we do a traffic study
um like we did here, what does that all entail? I mean, does it entail future projections and Yeah. So, what they what they looked at before was um complete buildout of the entire area. They looked at the comparison
to what the uh development was proposed to be before versus uh what was being added uh higher level and then made sure that the level of service at the intersection of 90th Street and
Quantrell um still met the level of service that the city uh requires. Do you know offhand what um what what was proposed for that area originally? We had two lots that were industrial or commercial commercial
commercial and now it's it's one uh apartment complex with some retail. Mayor, the traffic study looked at the original concept plan that modern construction proposed, which was 400 and some apartments plus I believe it was
close to 30,000 square feet of uh commercial. So that was evaluated for the most intense possible development of this site and then it took into consideration the undeveloped portions of Sega waterfront north of 90th Street.
Okay. Thank you. I guess um I kind of feel the same way. I would like I'd feel more comfortable seeing the changes on here incorporated in the drawing before, you know,
um supporting it. Yes. Mayor. Yes. Can I ask a couple of questions? Absolutely. So, um, you're short 60 stalls in the parking garage. Is that correct, mayor? So, there is no PUD
requirement. The planned unit development is a custom zoning district that's based on the existing requirements in the ordinance. The city has been very clear throughout this process that they wanted one off street parking stall per dwelling unit enclosed. That's been the standard that
the other buildings have all been held to. That's what's intended to be added as part of the M1 district. So, that's been clear all along. The exterior materials, we've been clear, too, that those needed to meet commercial standards because what is designated as a mixeduse district is intended to be
commercial zoning that allows for apartments. what it is basically. So, anytime that you get into trying to do a planned unit development, you're doing something outside the boundaries of the existing ordinance. Otherwise, this would be zoned R seven. The building height would
be four stories, and you'd have your brick requirement, your parking requirement, etc. So, there are give and takes uh when you're doing a plan view development district, and it's much more complicated than just doing straight zoning. Um, so yes, the city commonly
will approve plats and other developments subject to multiple conditions, including changes to architecture, changes to the site plan, etc. Um, we're trying to do this project as the same time as the city was trying to
define the uh PUB or the M1 zoning district. And the reason we were trying to do that before having this come back was because this project had come forward. The one on the Richard Lefay project had come forward. We had interest in multiple family on the west
side of the city. All of which ran into concerns about various elements because we were trying to just do them on a case-byase basis. So the intent was to try and set the global standard and then have this move forward. Now, this
project generally does meet the M1 district requirements to provide you tweak the parking, uh, fix the building materials, adding glass and brick, etc. So, it can move forward. Um, and that's part of the reasons why when we set the
agenda, we had the M1 district first to set the global picture, then deal with this one. Um but ultimately because this doesn't necessarily fit into a zoning district that exists, uh the city council is basically making a judgment
and you have the most discretion as this. So your options are approve it with conditions, uh table it, uh request that the conditions be made. the city attorney and I were consulting on the 60-day rule and we do have time uh yet
within the city's allowed review period for that or uh deny the request based on non-compliance or just non-compliance with the intent of the comprehensive plan in the zoning ordinance. Staff's recommendation would be either approve it with conditions or table it. Uh
there's no reason to go to the step to deny it yet. give the developer an opportunity to respond if that's the direction you would prefer to go. Mic, so I guess that was going to be my question is denial would mean they would have to come back similar to what
happened last year, which is a four-fifths vote to say something has significantly changed. Correct. A denial lasts for a period of time. I think the issue would be is if then the city adopted the M1 district, they wouldn't be applying for a planned unit
development any longer. They'd be applying for preliminary plat site and building plan review and a conditional use permit. Yeah. So would that extend out that timeline? It' essentially be an all new application. The city would have another
120 days. We're almost to the end of the initial 60 days, so the city can extend that to August 5th at this point. When I asked the questions just about the 32 and going up 65% just I wasn't
picking on that. I just was pointing that out that and asking for clarification on that. I don't deny that you can put in larger windows and more brick. Like that's not the question. But adding additional parking that was covered. Um it seemed as though that was
a little bit of a surprise last week when when it got brought up and the planning commission was talking about it and you're like, "Oh, we'll just add it." So to me, I I guess anticipated that you would have taken something, talked to architect, submitted it to
staff, and then they made our packet and looked different. It this is no different than last week with those comments. So um and I Okay. But but we wouldn't be tableabling it under the M1. We would be tableabling it
requesting changes to the drawing and what you're going to actually be building. So that so that's the difference. It wouldn't be tableabling it under an M1. M1 is the next item. So just so you're clear on that. Madame Mayor. Yeah, I have a few more
questions. So, I wasn't involved previously um obviously um being newer to the council. So, just trying to understand um the information that we had provided as a city and staff back to
these guys. we indicated previously in regards to the one stall per unit um and but we didn't get the updated plans from correct that show that mayor so the previous application approved in 2023
had a much larger enclosed parking structure that was to serve both the residential and the commercial it would have met the one install per unit so the plan changed um and I was just looking back the 2020 23 approval listed 17
conditions which included the proof of parking issue and the exterior building materials along with a number of these other things. So, Madame Mayor, I would just say that that's my issue is that this was not a Memorial Day weekend thing. This was a
two-year the exterior materials, the setback requirements, the parking, you know, it's been two years, not a weekend. that that that there was an opportunity to change the plans to do that. It's not as easy to add parking in this
situation. Um it's, you know, it's about 60 gram per stall if it's underground. 60 60s. Yeah. So I have a question. If we approve with
conditions today question um uh and he comes back with revised plan. Where is he bringing that plan to? Is that for building permit and that's the opportunity somebody has a chance to step in and correct things or is it
prior to that? Is there another review after this mayor? Um because this is a plat as well as a plan development, the application initially comes back to staff or review recommendation to the city council on the final plat, the
final PUD development plans and the development contract. Council can always also refer a final plat back to the planning commission if there are issues within that that you feel that there warrants their further review as well.
So, I have a question for you. Um if if you if um once you get an approval, that means you can go get the financing you need to fund these other activities in order to support the redesign and the additional
um like the soil borings and stuff like [Music] that. Okay. Okay. Okay. Mayor, just to be clear that the discretion level is reduced if you approve it subject to conditions. You'd
have to deny it based on finding that they're not meeting the specific conditions. And right, Mayor, that's right. I do get a little nervous if I'm being frank because I don't think we have an agreement on when the conditions are being met. I think
that's that concerns me. all the conditions that are listed right now. No. No. Because I don't agree with all the conditions. I I can answer that very easily for you. Meet the ordinance. Yes, it's going to be the parking
requirements. It's going to be the building height requirements. It's going to be the setback requirements and the other stuff that I I understand are easy to change like the grading, you know, that kind of stuff. But they do
not I think that would be accurate, but I don't know. I I I So, you're trying to you're trying to project into the future. I don't know what the M1 district looks like yet. So, let me ask you this. You understand if you had submitted a
plan to us that met all of our ordinances, we could not deny it. You know that. I mean, isn't that accurate? Okay. Yeah, mayor. Again, it's because it's a planned unit development, there isn't necessarily a yes or no black and white
framework to work on in reviewing this application. That's the point of having the M1 district in place. I believe if the M1 district were approved as written and recommended by the council or planning
commission, the site plan would the site and building plans would still need to be revised to address building materials, the off- streetet parking and the setback on the north property line and the underground and the enclosed. So
it's right. Madame Mayor, I have a question. Another question. Um so is this um typical procedures when uh a project is brought forward or a development is brought
forward and there's conditions that need to be met that the next review period if approved the next review period is the opportunity to say yay or nay and um and have them go back to the drawing board if they're not meeting the conditions.
If we do a conditional approval today or the next step to be them meeting all the criterias that 18 191 17 whatever number it is that you've written out it's I did review some of those it makes sense from
what I can tell but um I guess um is this normal is this typical mayor so with the plan you developed now is the point at which the first decision Is this an acceptable
land use? There are details that may need to be resolved. Landscaping plan, exterior lighting, plus building materials, off- streetet parking, etc. But this is the chance to say yes or no to the overall concept. If you approve it subject to conditions, then the council is limited by future action to
the scope of those conditions. So, does the building have 65% glass masonry material? are there 121 interior parking stalls and 309 parking stalls overall etc. So can't then in the future look at it and say
you know what I just don't like this concept at all. So which to his point the three pieces for our denial that he sent his architect we had to base it on what was approved the first time. Correct. We are not looking at that
application anymore. That one has changed. This is what we're looking at. We have the most discretion tonight. You But what I mean is you've changed this is not the same apartment building that you submitted that last time as well.
Yes. So I I guess that's what I mean. It's not the same picture. It's a new application. It's a It stands separate from the prior actions. That's what I guess I was saying. It's totally new. It's like the first time we're
looking at it is the way we need to be looking at this and not judging it from the previous one that we need to be looking at. Attorney attorney would you agree with his interpretation or mayor? My understanding is the previous application was denied. So it doesn't
set any precedent. this is a new application can judge it on the merits of now of course he can take that this is a PUD application so there's discussion about what the council wants to see and what the developer wants to see and there's give and take there so he can take that as guidance on what he thinks the council wants to see but the
council is not bound by anything that he submitted previously because it was not approved and council member Dunlap that's the struggle I've been trying to articulate is that there isn't clear guidance under the PUD right so the only guidance I had was my written formal denial which we
believe we've corrected based on all the feedback I think the the would you approve the plan? The problem with trying to answer that is we don't we don't know yet. I don't think it's also fair that we have to answer that. We are just I'm not demanding you to. I'm just asking if you
guys because how would I you know you guys are asking me or it sounds like suggesting I should update the plans. But there's what assurances are there that you guys even agree with the project? I think there is some responsibility on the council's behalf to let a developer know. Mr. Hartzon, we understand there's these conditions. We
still don't think it fits. We still don't think this is the right project for these reasons. Otherwise, how can anybody get any development done in the city? And so I think it's a fair question. Plenty of development happening. Councilman Brigade. Yes. Um it's not
that I don't see this as a fit in this area. I I liked your concept previously um myself. Um there were other disputes, but the fact of the matter is I I just I feel like yes, this is a brand new application. Um I'm I am concerned with
the parking. I know with the I should say the enclosed covered parking, you know, we're we've got what 65 within currently and you've got to get to 121. Is that viable? I mean, I'm a visual person. I need to see something.
I just I mean, I know you're telling me it is, but are what are we going to lose from that? Are we losing anything with this concept or with that parking addition? The only thing that would be changing as part of the condition, which would be I would be bound by to the city
for further approval, is that all the units stay the same, right? Everything else stays the same. The commercial space, everything stays the same. I have to extend the parking garage to get those stalls. And so the logical spot is you extend those and you just cover the surface spots, right? So that's the plan. But but then that that would mean
your commercial needs to go above the parking. So it does No, the commercial would just move south there. So it' still be street level commercial as presented. So now it's going to come out even farther. So when I'm looking at this gray hatch line, that becomes everything just moves south. The
commercial portion would move south and the other covered parking would be underneath that because this this commercial is in front of your apartments. Correct. Yeah. So, and it would still stay in front of that. So, we're going to have covered parking and then in front of that is commercial. So,
some people park in the flat part and then some people are underneath the apartments. No, it would just be one big covered parking garage. And so basically what you can see again I'm a visual person so that's what I'm not understanding. If you show if you turn the picture explain to me what it's
going to look like. Yeah we I don't know the best way to do that for you but I'd be happy to show you the portion that would just move south. Dan, do you have the dry? Yes. There's a section on there. So, this picture right here, you're
you're telling me this is going to move south and this roof line would be covered. Correct. This would move out and then these people would have decks. That where the white area is, that just extends. Everything else stays the same. Extends outward. Correct. Comes to the
south. Comes to the south. By by how many? By how many? The required stalls. So the 60 So that creates that creates two rows inside. What does that mean? Like I'm just asking. You're you're the developer, not me. It it
would I'd have to pull the plans up to see how many per row, but it would actually afford balconies for that that level there too as well. mayor probably at least be 64 feet because 20 foot deep stalls, 24 foot wide drive out. It would likely bring
the parking structure back to where it was previously because I believe we had roughly that amount of stalls previously and you wouldn't put the commercial then above it with your stairs like you had before. Well, that that would block the units on that level. and and council
member Gio, I much I much preferred the previous plan, but unfortunately that we couldn't get approval over the building heights and so then that that required a redesign that again makes the project viable as it stands. I will certainly be bringing back assuming this gets approved a phase two that has a lot of
the stuff that phase one didn't get approved um you know for phase two and hopefully phase three. But it's it's an extremely nice project in my opinion. We've got high quality living, lots of it, and different varieties from studios all the way to three bedrooms. We're
bringing 12,000 square feet of commercial. We're going to try to get the river completely back to the city to be or back from within the um wild and scenic floodway so that we can develop that as a park and bring all kinds of amenities. But it's been a battle for
three years and I don't think you know, you guys obviously understand that and I've been here and there just isn't a lot of clear. So again, I'm just trying to understand what would the council approve and if and why not this with the conditions. So then my question to you is why not
present a picture of exactly what it's supposed to look like? Because I haven't had the clear and so I'm originally we had that we had presented something that was I think 81 ft which is going to be six feet over what the M1 district allowed. Right. But if you kept the same building and showed us a picture exactly
what this looks like, why is that not an option then? Um, it it it I I'm just asking. I mean, you keep asking us questions, so now I'm asking it of you. So, that certainly is an option. Again, it will require me to go back and redesign it, which will take time. We'll have to resubmit it through planning
commission, which will take time, and then it'll have to come back to you guys. And so, now we're talking about maybe a bill the year after, right? Maybe we don't get in this winter. um it delays all the other pieces that this is a prerequisite for. But wouldn't you see
this as so you we put the stipulations you then submit us a picture as it comes to final plan the council can send it back to planning commission and you're back to where you were before had you just submitted what you wanted to build the first time. Correct. However,
everything else would have moved forward in the process and if there's still a concern over I I guess my question, mayor, is what what I failed to understand is if we provide the covered parking spaces, are you guys going to come back and say you don't like how it looks? I I guess I'm just not understanding where the disconnect is
and and shifting the parking garage and enlarging it because if it meets the requirements under the M1, why would it be denied down the road? Well, couldn't be denied if you're meeting. I I guess I look back I look I look back at the other apartment buildings that have been built in the
city. We just haven't faced what we've faced with this project before. Respectfully, to them, they're boring, right? I mean, they're boring apartments. It's nice apartments, but respectfully, they haven't broken ground on a mixeduse development. They did apartments, right? This is a community area. They're not building a park that's
going to be a two to five million dollar park development, you know? They're they did apartments and that's not what we've ever tried to present to you guys. I've tried to present a regional hub and a destination to you with commercial amenities that are both public and private. Build out a park system which
has to be phase two because who in their right mind would make the kind of investments. Nobody would make the investments I've already made additional investments to develop this and we have submitted previously. You've seen all the park concepts. Yeah, we've done a lot of due diligence on all of this. So, I'm 100% committed to this project. I'm
asking for city council after all these years to understand there's a couple of conditions that we can easily meet and if those conditions are meet met why would it be denied down the road and so why not move forward with it now shifting gears I have one other question what is your you know before it was
you're going to be a restaurant we had upstairs which I'm not supposed to be referring back to that because we're looking at this what is your anticipation for commercial here what the market brings I mean I'm still evaluating the restaurant. Obviously, I can come back and, you know, submit that
through the city if that makes sense, but it's what the market would allow and what the market's looking for. I've got a number of clients who wish not to be made public at this point. Okay. Perhaps at final plat approval or after approval, we'll know about them. Okay. That want to be in a project that's got those kind of amenities. But then how
does that so to stop you looking at how does that change then if one of them is a restaurant? because so mayor they'd have to apply for a development stage plan amendment to basically recalculate the parking with a restaurant in there and demonstrate that there's sufficient
to meet the ordinance requirement and again that's no different than any other restaurant that comes and says hey I'd like to put a restaurant right you guys will vet that process if and when it comes um it it you know it's a bummer I did have to pull those out of there you know but we made a commitment to downtown El River
with a new location Um, I'd love to bring a restaurant here. I wanted to bring the rooftop restaurant, but you know, and I fully intend to bring those in phase two. This project will be a wild success. The demand will be through the roof. And then we'll come back and we'll ask the council for phase two to
prove some more amenities and some hopefully with the M1 district, we won't have such unknowns here, right? We can move forward with phase two. as it sits right now, a gang council. I I'm asking you guys to understand the
trials and tribulations of a small local developer and support that as small government is supposed to do and as everybody says they do. Understand I'm fully in support of meeting those criteria. It's not uncommon to have a plan approved with conditions, which this plan had previously been approved
with conditions, and allow me to go forward and let this project move forward and bring it back to you. There's nothing that said you can't if I don't meet those requirements. There's nothing that said you can't deny it though. Madam Mayor, can can you clarify? You said the can't read the plan because the
text is too dark, but I believe there is still a sky lounge. There is no sky lounge on this. We are bringing some rooftop amenities for the tenants. This will be the only rooftop amenities I think in 20 or 30 miles, but that they have to be private because of fire code. We we don't have the ability to get the
second access up there and different things like that. So yeah, people renting and living off Paris and we'll have garden plots and everything up there as well. I thought that was the second I can't read it. Madam see
Mr. Outing um can you speak to a little bit about phase two a little about your plans? Sure. Yeah. So the grand the grant's plan was to develop on this site, you know, through a number of phases
and through a series of B and get double there, but through a series of phases is ultimately have a hotel, couple of restaurants, anywhere between 30 and 60,000 square feet of commercial, huge public plaza. The park development will have docks, gazeos, public and private
amenities and um really create a regional destination, you know, for something that you would see similar to uh I would say St. Louis Parks West End, similar to kind of what they're doing in Champlain, but that's sort of a little bit more sparse and not as well
consolidated. Sim very similar to like a Stillwater downtown area. And so that's the goal long term. Um I brought some pretty bold and grand visions and ideas for phase one. However, to make those economically feasible, we needed to be one story higher and we couldn't we
weren't able to overcome that. And so phase one has to be a little scaled back and then in phase two that will allow um additional amenities to be brought to the city. So that would be like future construction and like another building and correct. So you you
must own quite a bit of land in there. It's in total roughly 14 acres. Yeah. So, the plan is to do a couple of different phases and continue to build on and lease out space and add amenities as we go. How many other developments have you
have you done? Uh, I've done I've done a number. So, I've got over 20 years experience in construction. Um, including small single families to multi-million dollar homes. I've done multif family developments. Um, in Minneapolis, we've done row homes, uh, high-end. I mean, row homes sounds
low-end, but very high-end row homes right in the heart of Northeast. I've done smaller single family developments in Zimmerman and Big Lake. I did a $6 half million dollar project in St. Michael single family development. This will be my first mixed use, but I've bought and bought and remodeled commercial real estate and residential
real estate. Okay. But this will be my first mixeduse project, but I'm partnering with Power Design Build. I mean, we'll have a large scale well-known respected general contractor running the project. Um, just a quick question. You know, we
have kind of the same sort of thing in Elk River and there and that commercial which everybody thought would take off. Um, what what can you say to convince me that this commercial will take off more than that did? Well, you're talking
downtown Oak. Yeah. Yeah. And so, you know, Tipsion Mine is now downtown Elk River. So, we know downtown quite well. I've proposed a project like this downtown a number of years ago. Um, downtown, you know, it struggles from a it's all private land, right? But it's
all individual private owners is the biggest struggle there. And the city of Al River has spent I don't know how many tens of thousands on many studies. In my time in El River, I think I've seen three of these now and none of it's really come to fruition. But this project being private run allows and being one big right like 14 acres, you
know, multiple phases being private run. Um, that's where the big difference is. You don't have to deal with a ton of different individual owners that have their own ideas and their own stuff and their own financial abilities to be able to bring this to life. So, because I pic I picture this as I don't know if it's an apartment building there on the
corner that has all of the, you know, like commercial stuff on the base of it. Grand stores. Yeah. was like weren't you part of I'm quite familiar with that. I I lived in Granite Shores for a period there. My office, my construction office was in Granite Shores. I remodeled a good portion of Grand Shores for tenants
down there. Um the idea is there, but it just it's very hard, I think, for Elk River to do much of anything. Even their most recent plan that they released, it it says left and right, up and down, it's all requires private partnership with private land owners. So, I
I've learned anything, it's impossible to get everybody on the same page. because I would I would have thought that would have really taken off there and I've always been surprised that you know you didn't see little shops in there and boutiques and all that. Yeah, you'll see it here with the city council
support here. You will see it here 100%. We'll develop something that's got world-class amenities that attracts people not just from the city of Seagull but brings all that uh financial um incentive and that you know all that economic development from residents that are trip many miles to come here. Well,
for me, I mean, the the thing that catches my eye is not so much the apartments, it would be the commercial stuff, but but I guess I I'm not convinced if it didn't work there, it's not going to work here. You know what? You know, and
you can't I know you can't tell the future and if it's going to make it or not, but I Yeah, I I think not having a street cutting right through there is a big deal, right? They've got two streets cutting through there at train which causes a lot of headaches and issues.
They've got some parking issues there, but more perceived where in the winter you don't want to park in the big parking lot and walk all the way down and get a coffee, right? So, what this project's designed around is a lot of places that I visited and spent time into like the mountain villages and Turide, Colorado, things like Downtown
Disney. If you've been to Downtown Disney, you really got to get people parked and then they can walk around and they can enjoy everything. They can enjoy a cocktail. They can enjoy a nice dinner. they can enjoy some shopping and having the hotel is a big component of it. Having the people living there to support those small businesses
downtown's got 64 units I think it is at Granite Shores and then there's I think 25 or 27 across the street but you really have to bring in a higher income demographic to be able to support those local shops and stuff and that's the intent here too. But um I think the biggest takeaway is amenities and then
get to the site, get out of your car and be have have access to all that, right? And so we've got parking, covered parking here. Phase two will bring a parking structure. Um, and in addition, we're still going to do our car share program that nobody seems to believe in for the tenants, and we're going to
bring all kinds of other great public amenities here. But, um, you got to get them there and have them have a reason to get there. Whereas downtown, you got streets to cross, you got you got a perceived traffic issue down there, right? I mean, people just say that it's it's a headache. I'm not going down there. You got the train you got to deal
with. So, it's a challenge for downtown Al River. Then, everybody under the sun has their own idea of what to do with their own property, which makes it tough, too. Well, I I can tell you I like the concept, the idea that the part I struggle with is the parking. And in
the future, I know you had the um had the traffic study done. Thank you for that. I wasn't on council these past four years, but um I will say I I understand what um other council members are saying. I've
worked in engineering for a long time and as much as I would say and I was a drafter. If I could say, "Yeah, I'm going to do this and write it down," my engineers would have said, "Get out of here." I mean, they they they're
visual. a lot of people are and until you know you see something on paper in front of you, I mean I I can see why they'd have a hard time signing off on it. And I again I guess I'm just trying to clarify we're just extending the parking garage here, right? And so, you
know, from the standpoint of that's the biggest change to the footprint, right? I think everything else is just some cosmetic stuff. We're just extending the parking garage. I fully intend to meet the code. Um, and and if it's really we're not if we're not here to determine if the project looks good or not, right? Or we
like the way it lays out, right? I don't think that's the council's job. I think it's the council's job to make sure it aderes to the codes, right? And if the code says, Jesse, you need 121 spots, and I'm saying we will absolutely have that for you, council. Please understand that. Um, and again, recognize we're
sort of in between a lot of different things. I know Dan commented that the city's always had this one to one ratio for apartments, right? Um, but we've always presented under a PUD and a mixeduse development. So, I I apologize if I wasn't clear on that, Dan, but I didn't my team had never seen that
anywhere in the documentation. But regardless, that's all the past, right? I'm just asking if we can please move forward knowing we'll meet every one of those 18 conditions, which which besides the change to the parking structure doesn't, you know, which I would argue that isn't really material
change, but then why would it be denied down the road? And so if that's the case, why are we denying it now? Or why would we deny it now, obtain that it be denied? I hear your points and I I think they're they're they're good points in in a way.
Our job role is also make sure the businesses that coming into this community are successful because if you're not successful, you walk away from your property and then the city's left dealing with it. So there is a responsibility to make sure that this is going to be a successful project for the
community not just for you but I mean obviously we want all businesses that come into this community to be successful but it's also how is it going to function? Is it going to perform the way it's need it needs to otherwise right now vacant land is more valuable
than a building that doesn't work. Sure, council member. Um, I would just I would just push back and say obviously I'm trusting a team of architects. We've done our market studies, multiples, including one by HUD. Um, we've also done a market study by HUD, which is much more stringent. I've been in business for over 20 years since I got
out of the military in multiple different fronts, right? Construction, residential, uh, commercial, and, uh, restaurant, right? And so, um, you know, changing and adding the 60 stalls is not, I don't believe, a determination on
whether or not successful. Adding the 60 stalls will meet the city code requirements. And, um, respectfully, I don't think the city can deny something based on they don't think it'll work, right? How many projects, if the city was doing that, how many projects would be denied because we don't think it's a good business. But, what is the AMI
then? AMI or what is the it's HUD housing that you're building, right? We're going to apply through a HUD loan under the green energy program or the green building program. Correct. And I've worked with BCadia, one of the largest HUD lenders in the nation that submitted our concept narrative. Um, and how many units are
going to be HUD compliant? Well, the entire project's HUD compliant under the commercial application. Okay. Yeah. So, it's not it's we're not doing low income type of housing. No, it's not TIFF or low-inccome HUD. It's not affordability. It's a It's a market rate HUD financed under their green building side of
things. Okay. You could tell we all look like Wait, we haven't heard this. Yeah. Yeah. I was thinking it was affordable. No, no, no. My goal is to bring market rate um high-end uh uh Okay. highend units to So, it's it's a financing
option that they offer you as a developer. Correct. Yep. We've been through the entire concept. You call it green. It's their green building program. Yeah, it's it's for housing that does um they perform projects. They have to meet a number of criterias which
is exterior envelope. They have to meet an energy code, really high standards between heating and um electrical usage. Um a lot of those things I'm working on one of those projects right now personally or with my career being in
construction. So Okay. Um yeah, but that's an affordable project. Yeah. still the same requirements, very stringent. They also require vetted property management companies with years of HUD experience. So, um, again, as I've commented in the past, building this high this high, I believe, builds a
safer project because of some of the tougher building codes you have to you have to meet. Um, in the same respect with the HUD financing, it brings in a much more stringent uh, due diligence on the financial piece of it. And that will be coming, you know, you'll have the HUD pre-approval as part of the as part of
the final approval. So to the point of making sure it's successful, you know, and and I'm happy to share market studies with the city. We provided parking study for the city that the M1 districts being based on. We provided all of our geotechnical engineer. Um I'm happy to share the market studies for
the city, too. There's a huge demand and a growing demand in this area to provide high level housing and and I believe this project fits that and would attract new residents uh to the city to support all the businesses. So when you say afford uh oh no not affordable but um high level housing but you said it's
market rate. So So we're on the high end of the market rate. So we'll be we'll be coming in at the top end of the market rate. Okay. But we'll be delivering the top the nicest units and the the most amenities especially as we develop out that park area and bring additional space. And where else can you go where
you can live somewhere and walk down and shop there, right? you know, and as we continue to develop and have a hotel and multiple restaurants on site, it'll it'll be a destination place. I will comment I did appreciate that you do have some three-bedroom options. Um,
that was nice to see. And thank thank you, mayor. Yeah, I think that will be a a set you aside. It's it's unfortunate that we're turning into a rental nation as a custom home builder for 20 over 20 years, but that is kind of where we're going. And uh
there is a huge demand for it. The market study done by hub was even better than the private one which we were all shocked at my finance team and all of us. So this area is in high demand and it's bringing an affluent base you know that are looking to move out of the cities. But um you know with that comes
the need to have bigger units, nicer units, amenities, things like that. their comments, questions for Jesse, questions for staff here. I just I just want to make a a comment. I get a little concerned um
Jesse when you me mention, you know, something like the the West End in St. Louis Park. I've been there. Um, I know a lot of places have come and go and I just I just want to make sure that what you're thinking of bringing in here is going to be successful because as Michelle stated, it's yes, you want to
be successful, but us as a city and not having vacated buildings or anything left because it can happen. I just want to make sure that, you know, you're thinking of the best of the best to bring in here and it does and it is successful. Um, I know there's no
guarantee, of course, but I'm just I always get concerned when you say shopping and this and that. What kind of shopping? A lot of stores are closing because we're all on Amazon or whatnot. So, I'm just I get a little concerned. I definitely want commercial in here. I'm not saying no, not at all. Absolutely,
we need it, but just to be cautious when thinking of what you're going to be bringing in. Yeah. And I think that's one of the big pieces of phase one, not going too big, right? I mean, it is 12,000 square feet, which affords the opportunity for a lot of small and medium-sized businesses and a lot of service related businesses. Um, I again,
I I can't speak publicly, but I already have probably 80% that leased out. You know, again, that nothing's signed until we get approvals and get further along, but I know a lot of business colleagues in this area that that want to be in a place like this. Um, and so phase one sort of proves the point. We'll bring
that back to you guys. It'll be a huge success in bringing a lot of tax base for the city. And then in phase two, we'll continue to expand on that. And that, you know, this the system sort of feeds itself as it gets to be a destination place, right, where more people want to live there because now they can just walk downstairs and get food and shopping and all that stuff.
So, um, yeah, but the market always usually finds a way. And I agree, West the West End in St. Louis Park was it came out with a huge bang. It kind of stumbled for a while, but when when it did become successful is when they started to get enough apartments there to support it. Now, you see how many apartments around that? We're certainly
not doing anything to that scale here. We really want to make this more like a main street type of deal, similar to Still Water. Um, but you do need to have enough units there and energy and support and that is the goal that will balance the commercial with the apartments and then mix in the amenities
as we go. But you're on the river and why not take advantage of that, right? River is a huge menu that people love to enjoy. um and adding some really high-end um amenities there like gazeos and picnic areas, things that are safe. I think I've told the council part of
our proforma includes security on the premise. You know, people just want to go somewhere they can feel safe and enjoy their lives and that's what we're trying to bring to the community here. Other questions, comments? Jesse, if I were to ask
you, would you bring back a visual picture and drawing of what it's supposed to look like? Is that on the table for you or are you absolutely against it? Can I bring that to you in three weeks,
mayor? Let's make that a condition. Um, and and I'm not I don't want to sound insensitive here, but I mean, the reality is it will take multiple weeks to get that updated, right? Which puts us if this has to go back to planning commission. I mean, this derails the entire thing for two months probably at
best. I'm not sure what the schedule's like, but mayor, but it doesn't this wouldn't necessarily need to go back to planning commission. If he submits something that's responsive to their condition, uh, then it's council's discretion. So, with that said, Jesse, what what
would your answer be then? I would request that it gets approved tonight, mayor, and I will withdraw the application if you don't like this picture I submit to you. trust me a little and then let's take a leap of faith together. But I will get you an updated plan within a month uh if not
sooner. And if you don't like that, I'll withdraw my application. I'm a man of my word. I mean, when I go through this, I I would agree that you can fix the windows. As I said, to me, it's what it looks like. When we asked you to provide it at the planning
commission um with parking, I was in the meeting. you said, "Yep, I can do it." But you, you know, and I don't want to tie you to the last time, but you said, "Yep, I can do it to a lot of things." And then we would get down to the wire and then it would you would kind of badger us for
not seeing your vision. And right now is our only time where we have the most discretion to ask questions and make sure this is a good product. We want you to succeed. Um, so I'm as you ask those questions that my that's my question to
you. Yeah. And So, mayor, I my understanding from planning commission to here is it's it was a week time difference, right? And so, um the city council is the big sort of like rubber stamp, right? Even though you guys can cancel this. So, um I was never
under the understanding I was going to go back and try to get this updated in a matter of days and resubmit it. Nor have I done that in any other developments in any other cities. It's submit the concept, come back with the preliminary, have the preliminary approved with conditions, and then bring in the final plans. So, while I understand that there
is a parking garage here, again, I just asked if I brought that back, would the project be approved or would it be denied because you didn't like how it looked? And if the answer is you didn't like how it looked, that's one thing. But if the answer is, hey, you got the unit to be approved, I'm just asking for council to recognize that we can get to
that. My answer would be if you're meeting what the requirements are, it would be hardressed for us to say no. Correct. And so that's why So, right, but right now you're not showing me that you're meeting it. You're telling me, but you're not showing me. Well, I'm taking the approval is a legal
obligation to meet them. You know, that approval that you guys would vote on today with those stipulations is a legal obligation to meet them. So, I um I think we're really, you know, I don't think there's a single difference in my opinion. The city attorney can comment on that, but um coming back and showing
it or agreeing to meet it is close to legal requirements. So, Any comment, Dave? I don't know if I understand the question, mayor. If if he did, if you put conditions on it and he did not satisfy those conditions, you could not issue the building permit because the
conditions were not satisfied. There's not a legal requirement that he satisfied them. He could not satisfy them and then you would not issue a building permit for it. And so if if the conditions are met and it's approved, I'm asking you guys to allow
some I'm asking you guys to approve it, understanding that I will meet those conditions and um and it is a legally binding requirement of mine. But I think you can also agree that to Ryan's point that he said you and and your architects
fixed three things. But to hit what he was pointing out is just that there was a large list of other things that if they're in there drawing and making changes, they probably could have tackled those things. True. and and corrected them as you submitted it. But
buttoned everything up as you I think there was an opportunity again this is their third application and just being cognitive of cost not having a clear direction 100%. I was just trying to keep it super simple. Here's why we were denied. Fix these, right? Those other conditions, you know, it didn't say
denied because of these conditions, right? But um but there were but there was a lot of talk about those issues and that wasn't in our three denied, but you sat in front of us for a long time and we went back and forth with a lot of those issues. Well, and again, mayor,
under the PUD development, some of that stuff was not set in stone, right, as it is with the M1. And so there wasn't clear understanding of what needed to be met there. You know, could I have added more brick and stone? Sure. But it maybe wasn't needed because again, it's a PUD development. There wasn't a specific
requirement on brick and stone. So I was trying to meet the requirements at the time that we were denied for. Um and and again, respectfully, Council Member Dunlap's not approving it regardless if I meet those conditions. He's already made that statement. So I I
don't think you understood my statement. I'm saying that the conditions that are in here are not everything that I would say is a condition for approval. There are there are parking requirements in here that refer to M1. We haven't discussed M1 yet. M1 at the time of this application
didn't exist. So, this was submitted under PUD and it's not meeting the zoning requirements. So, now and I I completely understand your point that the PUD is different. We can go above and beyond or
or change those zoning requirements, but why why would we? I mean, that's that's the question I keep coming back to. And and to be honest, wouldn't you rather have us give you that feedback right now instead of at the final plat? Well, I think your feedback and your vote for
and approving this is the feedback, Jesse, you need to meet these requirements so that it can be approved. That is the feedback I'm asking for, council member Dunlap. And and this was on the agenda for after the M1 district. you had requested it be moved ahead of it. I don't know if that was intentional or not,
but if it was, it it may be something that cost a lot of time and money for guy just like, you know, I'm just like you guys. I don't understand why if this meets the M1 district that's about to be approved, it seems awfully um crazy to think we're going to deny
this so you can come back under the M1 district, especially considering you moved us ahead of that. I I think if we uh adopted the M1, you would have to reapply. Mayor, this we you can still act on this application as a standalone application.
Okay. Even after the M1 is approved. Okay. But so to clarify, it would be approved under PUDA. Correct. With M1 like conditions. Correct. May I request from the city attorney? Can I can we can I ask not for a vote
until after the discussion in the M1 district and see if that passes? Is that is there anything preventing that from happening? The council set the agenda. They can they have to follow the agenda they've set unless they vote to change that agenda. So it's you can ask if the
council wants to move it, they can move. So I would just say for everybody's sake, why don't we table this, reput this after 4.2, let you guys figure out the M1 district. If I do have to resubmit, that would also be clarity for me as a developer to understand what am I resubmitting under and then you guys
can continue the discussion. I'll patiently wait and I think that allows everybody to have clarity on what this would be approved with or without council thoughts on that. I guess if that'll clarify and confirm things then yes I would agree to do
that. Thank you council member. Any other comments? So I can just because I think there was some insinuation there that the reason I think it's appropriate to discuss it in
this order is because M1 didn't exist when it was when this was submitted and this is the order that the planning commission discussed it in. I don't think there's nothing wrong with us considering M1 like issues for this development.
The reason that I think it's more logical to discuss it in the way that it was submitted is because I don't want to discuss two things at once. I don't want to discuss where we think the M1 should be and your application. I I agree, council members. So, wouldn't it be prudent to wait until you guys
discuss the M1 and see if that's approved? Then we don't even have to discuss the PUD portion. I don't think it is because you submitted as PUD. You you you could have waited, right? You could have you. Respectfully, council member, I did email the city. I've waited. You guys had this on the
agenda and took it off, you know, and so there's real cost involved, right? I mean, there's real cost involved to continue to wait and I had waited months and months and and again, I'm not a I don't want to point to conspiracies, but Adam, I emailed him and he said, "We don't know when that's going to be on the agenda. We don't know when the M1's
coming." So then I submit under PUB and then magically the M1's back up. So it's just like I'm a developer, guys. So, I'm not I'm just trying to get clarity on what to do. And if we met the three reasons for denial, why can't we move forward with these conditions? And if we have an M1 district that's about to get
approved, why can't we do that first and then find out? And then why can't we approve it understanding that? I I I mean, it seems like we're getting in semantics over verbiage here. Comments. Yeah. Just to be clear, this application is a PUD application and regardless of what happens tonight on the M1, if
you're going to process this application, it's going to be under the PED application. You can you can table it and handle it later. It would still be a PUD application unless he resubmits a new application as an M1 application if M1 passes. Was he applied as a PUD? Because he
applied as a PUD. It has to be processed from start to finish as a PUD. Mayor, also just for clarification, the reason this was on the agenda first of the planning commission was they already held the public hearing in April to consider the M1 district. So then that
was no longer a public hearing. When this came to the planning commission, it was a public hearing which are held before any other planning items, but it wouldn't have changed if the order were different at the planning commission because Jesse applied under the PUD.
Correct. and mayor, when staff was reviewing the application, we reviewed it in the context that the planning commission was discussing proposed standards for the M1 district, which all those discussions were based on the prior discussions of
this application and the other applications and looking at the other apartment buildings in AIGO plus the comprehensive plan discussions. So, all of that has informed where we how we got to this point. So, I I've just been trying to follow
the guidance of his missions and the staff, and we run into roadblocks here with council two times now. And I and I'm really hoping we're not at a third because again, you know, we're just following the recommendations of where the city's going, trying to be in line with where
the city's going. And I I it would feel really upsetting to be punished because we did that, but now being said, well, that isn't quite done yet, right? So, um, we've got the conditions. There a legal agreement between the city and myself to meet those conditions. And so, I just I just ask
you guys to please recognize the struggles here and let's put this behind us and allow me to meet those conditions which are going to be in line with your M1 district and well under your ability to do under a PUD. Madame Mayor, right? Maybe a question
for Ron and Dan. In in past projects, have have we got um presentations like this or applications that are not quite finished where that the drawing maybe isn't done
or you know what the council's looking has been approved. So, mayor, every application is different. It's common that we apply conditions to any approval. I was joking with council
member Blunt at the planning commission we aim for 10 conditions and he'll get concerned until there's more than 30. So, you know, it's typical to have conditions. It's just a level of degree to what the conditions are and the
council's comfort level with those. So, if the council believes, you know, the condition says adjust the lot lines to make 70 ft meet requirements, add some additional landscaping to this yard adjacent to this roadway, etc. It's not
going to substantially change the character of the project, add some brick to this, add the garage stalls. It's the council's decision whether that's going to potentially substantially change what's in front of you and whether you want to see that before you act on it
tonight or if you're fine proving it with conditions knowing it's coming back uh for final plat and then they'd have to meet that condition. But the concern would be again in my my position is that if I'm
not seeing what you're presenting, you're telling me all this, I'm 100% sure you're going to be complaining or yelling at me if I then deny it because you're going to say, "I don't have any vision." Well, I don't see what I'm
supposed to be approving tonight. I see something that isn't what you were told that the planning commission to do. Right. And so, mayor, that's where I'm asking you to understand that it's not I can't change that, right? I mean, that's the condition is an agreement. And so,
okay, I will be bringing back the parking and and that's why I was asking if the parking stalls were there, would you deny the project? Because if the answer is no, then why deny it now if you know that I have to do that, right? And so, that's the part that I'm struggling to understand. that I can
trust that it's going that you're going to do. Well, you're not trusting me, mayor. You're trusting that the city's process, which has been followed number of times, is is it's also setting a precedent for every other project after this. I I think the I'm sure you're a great guy. I just this is what I'm
tasked with tonight. That's what I'm struggling with. Well, I Dan just commented that unless you get over 30, they don't start to get worried. I mean, the president that time and time again. This is a lot of parking congestion over in that area anyway. So, there's a lot
of concern towards that. You can appreciate that, I'm sure. Well, we we paid for the parking study that's and one's being based on sure5 or $6,000 and and I think um what I worry about is setting a precedence.
Um, so I guess I would make a motion to deny based on, you know, I guess not seeing everything and having a visual. You still mayor? Uh although you don't have a
second yet. Um staff's recommendation would be rather than deny at this point, you would table with direction back to address the building materials, address the parking and any of the other listed conditions that you feel are significant that you want to see before acting upon
the request. Okay. We want to be sure that the developer has adequate time to respond to any concerns of the council before going to the the step of denying that request. And how much time would he get then if we take that action? So you can table it till the next meeting or as
soon as he's able to resubmit information. Uh the city has until August 5th to make a yes or no decision. Okay. So if this is tabled, may I mean is there clarification? because last time I thought it was denied for those three reasons. So, if we're going to get a table tonight, what is the clarification
that we need to see? Because if you're asking for a landscaping plan, lighting plans, and stuff that's going to be well above the half a million dollars I've invested, I mean, at what point do I stop and say there's other communities and towns that I can invest this money in? Again, I'm asking you guys as
council members to understand and and and support a local small developer. You know, I don't know when every every developer the same. I think you should prioritize local developments. Why wouldn't you? Isn't that in the city comprehensive plan? Why would why can't you support a local developer over a
national developer? But regardless of that, land use. So, it meets the city treats all development applications the same regardless of the size or portfolio of the So, when when is the next meeting
for council, Dan? Next council meeting would be June 9th and 23rd. Can I bring it to the June 9th meeting? When would you need that by? We would need it by Tuesday the 3. And is the
only concern, mayor and council to see the parking structure so that we can amend that and get that taken care of quickly because the other stuff is I would allow everyone to answer that. Yes, that's my request, please. if we can just get clarification on that so that we can have a reasonable so I can
bring this back to you to show you the visual changes as we work through some of the other stuff. I guess I'm not going to go ahead and say yes. I mean I'll consider it of course but I but I agree with what Ryan was saying. There's a lot of stuff to look at and consider,
but I'll consider it for sure. So what are the conditions that you would like to see the question? I guess the the parking for sure and seeing the the visual of that. I would like to what Ryan said about the other
conditions have a chance to understand that. And for myself, I would just add it because I think I understand why you want our list right now and you want us to be crystal clear. I can completely respect that. But the problem is once you change the design, something else
might change, right? That's the thing I think I'm I'm hearing that we're struggling with. We're struggling with that because it changes. So I I can't give you I mean I gave you a list of three before, right? And in from from where I'm sitting, one of those was addressed. And if you change the parking
situation, it it's going to change some other things. And so I can't tell you definitively. I can tell you I would like to approve this application. I I I do believe in mixed use. I think that is a good idea. It's a good design. But I
also have a responsibility to ensure that the ordinances are being followed. And that's that's going to be my standard. If you can meet the ordinances, I don't see any reason I could deny you. So I think for myself, I would like to see
the parking being addressed that the underground or covered parking however that's not underground, but it's enclosed parking. seeing that and how that ripple effect is between that the structure as a whole, how it's affecting
the the lot and then if there's any other ripple effects that occur to that parking lot that is caused by extending that out 60 feet, are you going to shorten sidewalk or that boulevard area? How are you going to adjust for all
that? Um, that would make sense. Um I'm assuming that the tower portion wouldn't change for the apartment buildings, but if it does that we would need to see that change, I guess. Um so whatever changes are that are are basically a
result of that parking and in fitting in that parking is what we would need to see. And then the materials too on the exterior facade is showing that where you're going to make that attempt to meet our criteria. So illustrative
illustrative. So you could probably just do like elevations and and color it up as this is brick and this is you know yeah we'll have the architects update the exterior elevation so you know the the conditions outlined in the report to the counselor the road
map to the developer what needs to be addressed. So the action items actionable items in that would be revise the plans prior to application uh such as exterior finish materials for proposed building comply with the zoning products. Number three uh number four
developer shall document that the building set back from the north line and fire access and circulation north of the building complies with the fire code. Seven. The submitted plan shall be revised prior to application for final plat approval. Address the following
off- streetet parking requirements. Minimum 309 off- streetet parking spaces. Minimum 121 off- streetet parking spaces with an enclosed structure attached to the principal building. Minimum 121 stalls dedicated for use by the residents of the multiple
family dwelling units. Um, those would be the ones I would see as the extraordinary conditions that have been discussed at length. And I would just clarify for number seven, not proof of parking. I understand you said that proof of
parking is not no longer on the table, but the plan that was submitted to us is has 30% proof of parking. So, unshave that portion, right? Yeah. because you have it's gray on that. Correct. Yes. Right. The condition was listed as a
minimum of 309 Austrian parking spaces shall be constructed. Right. And that's based on the M1 Yeta calculation. Right. Correct. Because otherwise the number would have been 339. 339 higher. Yeah. With no requirement that there be um
enclosed. Right. But as that was discussed at the planning commission, all of the other apartment buildings have an enclosed space that matches the apartment building. Um, not studio. Studios are not included because I believe commissioner
stratees mentioned that and King can. So Dan, do you know if did we require that as part of their PUB? Yes. Okay. I believe that's why they mentioned that because they said everyone else has the same. So this would and that mayor that
requirement also came out of the 2018 multiple family housing study and it was referenced in the comprehensive plan update, the 2023 update. Okay. So, we would need to make a formal table, right?
And then Jesse would pick the date, I guess, when he's planning to bring this back, but he needs to come back before August 5th. Did I correct? Y and that doesn't need to go to planning commission. Dan, that's what need to go to planning commission unless the
council sends it. And as long as from staff's perspective, as long as he's addressing the conditions that are outlined, the planning commission already voted to recommend approval with those conditions. So, they should be satisfied.
And so I will just say for me and I I don't know if this is helpful to you or not, but if you do it under our current ordinances or whatever comes out of the M1 discussion, um because I'm not a fan of the building height, but I don't know how that
discussion is going to go yet. Thank you, Council Member. Great. We need him. Is there any discussion with Ryan's comment further on that? I mean, we did we went round and round with building height for a long
time. So, any other comments on building Oh, sorry. No, mayor. Just a reminder, there was a motion that never received a second. Just acknowledging whether or not that uh I'm sorry. Failed due to lack second before we then we went off on discussing. So, uh, or if you want to
revoke your motion, Dave, I don't know if that's a possibility for the person to do that, uh, or it just fails because of lack of a second. Uh, well, I first of all, I think the motion was to deny it and there was no second. So, either the Cy could renew
that motion if he wants to, or if there's no second, then it would die for lack of a second. It can die. Fair enough. Just wanted that for the record. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. I think once he said it that we were
trying to figure out how we could Mr. Hartung some direction. Mayor, one additional comment uh you thrown around the August 5th date. I believe the last council meeting before that would be July 28th. So you may want to put that in there so that you're not calling a special meeting just for this
occasion. Thank you. We have that noted. All right. We've discussed a lot. Jesse's been here in front of us for a long time. We've talked about tableabling this. We've given him
suggestions. Is there any more discussion or is there a motion to proceed? So, Mr. Hartung has some direction on this. Mayor, can I just clarify? Would the motion be tabled as to the July 28th meeting? I I would intend to bring this
back on the I think it sooner. Y I I think we can allow him to have that time until the 28th until he was ready. I think that would be maybe But he needs to know the deadlines are to meet the packet requirements. Yep. Yeah. I I've got the understanding of the timeline.
So, if it's tabled till the 28th, my intention is to bring it back to the next one. So, as long as we can hopefully table it until the next meeting, that would be that would be great. Well, if the next meeting, I mean, in that case, I think the motion just be to set it for that meeting and
then if it has to be continued again at that meeting, that'll be fine. But at least the public and everyone will know the exact date that it's scheduled for. And does Mr. hard tongue have to do any specific requirements if he he doesn't meet that deadline for two weeks from now what is I want to make sure he's
clear with what his expectations are to contact staff right so the meeting the 60-day rule would require be done before August 5th and the last scheduled meeting would be the 28th of July okay but you can schedule it for the meeting on the whatth 9th of July June 9th of
June sorry and if he doesn't bring back then, you know, it can be bumped to a future meeting as long as it's the 28th or before. And that would simply mayor that would simply involve staff putting memo into the packet saying we did not receive the plan. We communicated with developer whatever the situation
requesting that the council again continue it to the next meeting and that would likely be a consent item that is not to throw a wrench in this. Sorry. No. If he doesn't bring it back, it automatically gets approved. Correct,
mayor? Not yet. Uh the intent would be at the meeting on July 28th, if he hasn't responded, then staff would have it presented as a discussion item to either approve with conditions or to deny it for uh non-compliance with the
intent of the PUB district. Everybody good with that and understands it? And and the reason that we're saying that he can he's going to come back and have it on the schedule or have it on the agenda is just so we're doing that announcement in advance. Mayor, so the
public is aware that the item will be discussed and potentially acted upon by the council at that date. Yeah. And and before making motions, right, to your point, you have issues with the building height and you're referring to it under the PUD. We haven't obviously discussed
the M1 district because obviously it wouldn't fit under that, right? My and certainly correct me if I'm wrong, but the current requirements are where the current maximum under our zoning ordinances would be 48 feet, four
stories and that's consistent with the other developments in the area or other are the other buildings that have been developed to not see. Correct. It it did feel at the planning commission that we were interchanging current
proposed current proposed when we discussed this item and that's me sitting in the audience I would say. So, I think that's a fair comment to make, Ryan. Um, because as we're applying parking stuff to something that we haven't even approved yet and we're
talking about building heights to something we haven't approved yet also. So, and and just like if you know if Mr. Hog's plans change and things move around, our ordinances might change and move things around as well. So, you know, that's I I certainly appreciate
your comment that, you know, I think the M1 discussion is going to be helpful for me too. So all right, just to be clear and I think everyone is clear, but this application is that is a PUD application. So you are
not bound by the M1 standards, correct? Okay. So he knows by submitting it with a PUD, he was going way above what we were even allowing under the current And you're aware of that, Jesse,
correct? Yes. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We're looking for a motion. Anyone have one? I will make a motion to table this application to our June 9th
meeting. Is there a second? Second. Do we have to spell out the conditions? I believe Jesse has heard them. Audrey is typing away and you can call Dan in the morning. I understand. Okay. All right. There's a
motion by Jessica, seconded by Tina. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed, same sign. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Jesse. All right, moving on to
item 4.2 which is zord zoning ordinance mixed use M1 district. Dan mayor, thank you. Please try and forget anything you discussed in the last. Okay, start with clean slate. So the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2023
and included a mixeduse land use category. Um this establishment of this designation was based on the multiple family housing study done in uh 2018 that looked at areas that would be appropriate for multiple family uses
within the city. uh as well as looked at opportunities for mixeduse development where apartments could be utilized to provide market support for designated commercial areas. Uh those areas were concentrated primarily around the County Road 39 and Highway 101 interchange as
well as along County Road 19 north of the city of Albertville. What was outlined as part of the multiple family housing study and the comprehensive plan was that a new zoning district would be established to address mixed use zoning districts versus using
the case by case approach of a planned unit development district. Uh the intent would be to make these as I said before not referring to that commercial zoning districts that allowed for apartment uses. Uh that would be done as a conditional use permit. So there would
be Oh, the I probably share it. Sorry, Michael. It won't let you share. See, we're just looking at ourselves. Here we
go. There we go. Thank you. I thought Adam kicked me. Sorry. Okay. So, um the intent would be to through that conditional use permit process establish very clear performance standards uh for allowing multiple
family units within these developments. The lot requirements and setbacks are basically set up to be the same as the commercial zoning districts in terms of requiring 30 feet front yard setback, 10 feet side, 20 ft rear and a 35 foot
setback if you're abing a uh residential use or zoning district. building requirements. Similarly would be the same in terms of the commercial uh building materials. Uh where there is uh
flexibility sought would be for uh the height of the building. Uh again trying to create that opportunity for density uh to support commercial areas. looking at the Highway 101 corridor as unique from other areas of the city, especially
at County Road 39, but allowing a building height up to 75 ft is what the planning commission settled on. Uh more to that later. Uh but then other areas of this district would be limited to 48 feet uh in height. Specific to the
multiple family standards, thousand square feet per dwelling unit, so basically 43 units per acre. uh to address the situation that came up with one of the prior applications involving the Richard Lefay property north of the
uh waterfront development where they were proposing a seven or eight story building directly adjacent to highway or county road 42 with single family homes across the street. What the planning commission recommended and developed was kind of a stepped building requirement.
So the first 100 feet of the property adjacent to County Road 42, the building would be limited to three stories or 35 feet, same as the commercial development to the south. So there's no not necessarily a change in the character of that use. But then it would allow some
of that density to be stacked closer to what would be the future Quad Avenue up to 52 feet, which is basically four stories for a mixeduse building. Then on the other side of Quad Avenue adjacent to Highway 101, that would be
the 75 foot building. So you're moving the intensity of the use away from the uh residential areas such that when the property was guided commercial before, this is the same type of building that could be constructed in that area directly
adjacent to 42. What the planning commission also raised was okay, what about the areas uh along County Road 19? So the same step requirement was put in 35 ft if it's ab budding the residential zoning district that allows single or two family uses
but then that area only goes up to 48 feet. So the building directly adjacent to county route 19 for example can be four stories high the same basically as Park View retail or Parkview grand or village structures. The other requirements were that is if
it's a budding a residential district that allows single or two family dwellings, there's a floor area requirement where the square footage of the building can't exceed 70% of the lot area that's working to control the bulk of the building and the intensity of the use. um that 35 foot setback area
between the residential use and the the mixed use building has to be landscaped u like a buffer yard requirement with evergreens uh and materials that will screen the two activities between each other. Um and then the final requirement
was uh the two stalls per unit one must be enclosed within a structure um attached to the principal building and that only applied to units with one or more bedrooms. So taking out the efficiency or the studio apartments where price and affordability is more of
a consideration. So this goes back to prior discussions regarding the Mississippi Landings project as well other projects within the city um dealing with uh guardian angels in the village being two of the taller
buildings. Uh the Windham Hotel is also in the scale similar to the Guardian Angels building. Uh because all the other buildings have used pitched roofs, the height is technically measured to the midpoint of the pitched roof because as that structure leans back, its visual
effect to someone viewing it from the street is lessened. Whereas a flat roof is basically a horizontal plane or vertical plane parallel to the roadway. So it has more of an impact. Um where the planning commission looked at this is they realized that uh other
structures have basically been limited to four stories in the city. Um but they felt that again highway 101 being a unique opportunity. Um you also have the benefit uh that I've seen in other cities where if you put a tall structure directly adjacent to the freeway, it
helps mitigate that freeway noise to the residential areas further set in. U so that's a a positive in that. Um, they didn't want to deal with the planning commission I'm referring to didn't want to deal with pitched roof, flat roof, so they just capped it at a flat 75 ft.
That basically allows for a six-story building with the elevator pantries or um and the uh mechanicals on the roof to be accommodated. Um, this is just an illustration of that building height transition comment. We had the graphic
on the left for the planning commission. Then the engineers all said, "Well, why didn't you show it to plan view as well?" So, we put together this stripe drawing, the yellow area being the threetory, 35 ft height. Orange is four stories, 48 feet, and the red being uh
75 ft. So, you can see that it's pushing that tallest structure all the way to 101 on the opposite side of that roadway. Uh the same would apply looking at kind of the concept plans that have been developed for County Road 19 to have the uh frontage or the backage
roads with residential on the interior side and the commercial mixeduse buildings out towards county road 19. So there is still that stepping down of intensity and building height and building bulk. That's kind of a baseline recommendation of the comprehensive
plan. Yep. So, if the property to the north of this was u residential and allowed single or two family, then they'd have to provide that same transition coming south for that first 500 ft. So, it
would really only back up the red to more to the south, right? And push the red further south. Correct. The property north of this is also guided for mixed use as well, but it's correct. Yep. Yeah. Anywhere that you would have a mixeduse M1 zoning
district, but up to anything zoned R1 through R5, and that includes over across a roadway. Uh so from the center line of Parish Avenue for example u this requirement applies which was our concerns with the lef
application came in for the lefay property I should say it was yeah you'll recall that they initially proposed it on that side and then hearing the opposition to that they proposed moving it to the other side of directly adjacent to 101 which was more acceptable they still had other issues
that caused that project not to move forward. And then the final uh issue was the off street parking methodology. Uh this came out of the 2023 application for Mississippi Landings where they did a parking study uh and looked at various
ways to accommodate for uh Austri Parking analysis for mixeduse development because you don't want to take just you've got a 100 units so you need 200 parking stalls for that. You've got 200 20,000 square feet of commercial. So
you need 200 parking stalls for that. So you need 400 because there is obviously offset peak days of the week and peak times within each day. So rather than cause a developer to construct more parking that's needed for the actual use
of the property, it's better to kind of formulize uh how that can be staggered and offset. And that also benefits the city because you end up with less uh storm water runoff, less storm water facilities etc. So this methodology was
adapted from city of Weisetta. Um it's a little bit different situation uh given that Weisetta has on street parking areas where they use this. They also have public parking facilities. Um but the the theory is the same that those parking stalls are allocated as part of
their overall parking requirements as well. uh we've seen this methodology adopted in other communities now as well uh that we work for uh and has passed through their engineering planning staffs as an appropriate way to deal with mixeduse
development. So the planning commission did hold a public hearing that they opened April 21st to consider it. Uh they tabled it to address that building height transition requirement. We brought that back to them at their meeting last Monday. uh they were satisfied with that outcome after
further discussion of it and to recommend approval of the M1 district as presented. All right. Thank you, Dan. All right. Questions for staff comments about this. Corey, thank
you, Madam Mayor. Dan, uh, so I don't know a ton about this, but so would mixed use could a traditional commercial property come in and just put in commercial property or would it have to be this combo platter as they say of uh,
apartment retail mayor? So the intent is it's a mixeduse district. So, it allows for standalone commercial buildings, standalone multiple family buildings, or a building that combines commercial and uh multiple family
uses. So, for example, you could develop on the Lefay property, an apartment building, a retail store, an office building, but the it's the idea that all the uses are occurring within that designated area, not necessarily a
single structure. So you can't have one without the other. Yes. More. More or less. Okay. Is is this a is this going to spur growth do you think like commercial wise and retail
and and restaurants that people want mayor? So the theory behind the promotion of mixed use is that with the changes in retail and office now since Amazon and COVID pandemic you need to
have more density more households adjacent to commercial to support it. So what this is doing is taking what we had as the land use plan that had nodes of commercial development around the major interchanges with stepping back multif
family or townhouse stepping back to single family. It's loading more potential households into those commercial areas to then drive market interest and support for those commercial businesses. So you're you're
trading some commercial floor space but for the opportunity to make the commercial that does develop more sustainable the map Dan um I can talk to you about um where this would absolutely so we talked about 19
we talked about um north of the Windham Um, Mr. Hartung's property. Do you have a map that you could pull up just so everybody's aware of? Yep. Talking. It's basically the area west of Highway 101 north of the
Atgo waterfront development, north of the windows. It's the waterfront district proposal. um the area uh where the village apartment is and then the lots north of that as part of the PUB district for
Great Ruler Center established in 2006 designated that as a mixeduse village area. That's how that apartment building was allowed into that PUB district. Um the west side of the BFW uh soccer
fields was guided for this mixed use as a way to kind of put a transition between commercial fronting tow avenue. Uh then some form of higher density residential transitioning back to the single family that's in Emerson Point or
the future potential development of the DNY property. Um then the only other area would be in on the County Road 19 corridor. You've got the Slavic property basically west of Sunray Farms
and uh Dur Creek and then the northwest corner of County Road 19 and 70th Street which was the Kurts property I believe. um where it's transitioning from what is design already designated for mixed use and kitridge crossings across to county
19 with commercial on that highway frontage. Thank I think it's good when everyone sees the visual of where this is actually and mayor a land owner could come in and request an amendment to the comprehensive plan to designate that for
mixed use at some point but that would have to be obviously evaluated by the planning commission and council kind of in the context of the city's overall plan as well as the specific area that they're proposing it right because I mean obviously as we've heard the
developers want those commercial spaces to grow. But by requesting it just somewhere that doesn't make sense, you're not getting that any people coming to it. It's just going to be just the people that live there that they go to a little coffee shop or whatever it
may be. All right. Other questions from council regarding this? Yes. Right. Um, I have one question for you. Can you give me an example of where you talked about that Anchorage store and uh what
city? Okay. I I again I'm a visual person so I just want to give me that example if Okay. And I your comment then about making it equal. I think our concern was or well I
guess I'll the planning commission's concern off 19 was that you don't have 101. So, by putting a huge tall building, it very much would seem out of place since County Road 19 is not at all
comparable to 101. If we were talking about along 94, I think that would be a different discussion. But there was the talk about, you know, if you're if you're living in those homes and you see this huge building plopped there, did it did
it seem a little out of place? Oh, I I'm sorry. I thought you were saying you thought it should be the 75 ft on that side. I'm sorry. Okay. I miss I was just like that would look terrible. Yes.
the sh the shadowing the the height of things. based on all of the other buildings are at grade and they're building then they're retaining walls up to the structure. So you are taking the first floor for parking. I I guess maybe on
the west side of the city you could you could Ron's the engineer's giving me that shake that yes we could dig under but on the east you have to be a great for especially those properties but yeah that was a
$60,000 stall um cost I was throwing out there. I thought for whatever reason I thought this was below grade. It's actually on grade, so that's a different price point. But yeah, when you're talking about water table, you have a water table. That's why you can't do it near the river next to the Mississippi.
So I think what we're seeing in in Minneapolis and St. Paul, we saw a huge exodus of a lot of businesses because they couldn't get people to come downtown or go downtown to work. Um, and you're seeing this huge rush to try to
convert these existing buildings downtown St. call in Minneapolis to contain more housing. So, we naturally have the housing around us to support businesses. What we're trying to do is balance that immediately around those
businesses and the mixed use. I think um along 101, you know, if you are allowing for a few taller structures, it's going to be soil dependent and how tall you can really go in those areas. um you have a little bit of a ravine um that to
deal with. It dips down, it doesn't go up, it goes down. So you have like an elevation difference as well. So you have the parking condition and then and then you have, you know, where it's going to drive that first floor to be really um you know, a combination of un
um enclosed parking and retail or commercial property of some sort. and then your housing is on top of that, you're you're confining you're really restricting what these developers can do with that property by saying floor
versus an elevation. That's an opinion. Um and and because you can take that same concept of 45 ft, put it up on on a hill and it feels very different. If you pick an elevation, it makes it a little more consistent throughout your
community. So that correct which that has been the discussion when they talked about at planning commission that if you're driving you don't necessarily see the holiday in because the way the freeway you're you know
you're looking at the roof you don't see rockwoods at all because it's down in the valley and I think that's what you're correct about Um, you know, when back in the day when 101 was flat before they had to raise it, those buildings would have looked
much taller, but the way that the 101 corridor is there and the main down in the valley now, it does seem that makes a little bit more sense to give them some height. I definitely would not want to see that same height over at 19. I think it would
look very out of place. I was like, Oh, the percentage on housing supply for apartments that Yeah. Okay. Mayor. So, if you're talking about a green field development like the example on the screen, they have to plat that.
And one of the criteria for platting it is looking at the land use that's going to go on the site and evaluating the sewer capacity or the water capacity either direction or the road capacity. So in prior or other applications that have come forward, whether it's a PUD or
a straight M1 district preliminary final plat, there will still be utility study done to ensure there's capacity. There'll be a traffic study done to make sure that the roadways can accommodate the intensity of the land use that's proposed.
So, and also because of the way we handle development in terms of we don't know things to allow for uses until we actually have a development proposal so that we can fully evaluate that or that
we could fully evaluate to say, wow, you know, we just had three sixstory buildings put up with 400 units. Do we need another apartment building at this time? Nope. We're the city's flooding the market with that. We're not going to approve the reszoning at this time because it's unbalancing our housing
supply. Madam, mayor, that um that was uh kind of what I was going to ask, but Ryan was so so we don't have that percentage anymore of your your good on the apartments because that and and the only reason I asked as much as I can appreciate that's kind of the big boom
is so many residents when I was out campaigning, you know, they don't love apartments around here. A lot of the people have been here a long time. And so we did do away with the 10% as a hard fast rule just because it became
problematic from looking at developments and whether you were really evaluating the development itself. Sure. Um, and part of it, yes, people don't like people you talk to may not like apartments, but there's the need to provide range of housing types and sizes
and affordability and styles. You hear developers talk about the change going on in society with the baby boomers and all that. It's not just Odd Sego that's looking at this. You look at all the apartments going up on the new 610 corridor in Brooklyn Park in Maple
Grove. You know, when we first did the multiple family housing study, the city was talking about building heights. The fourstory building was kind of what you saw in cities closer to the metro. Look at all the new buildings along 610 corridor. Now they're five or sixtory
buildings suddenly. So, um, and that speaks to the economy of scale and affordability limits, too. So, um, what this proposal is isn't necessarily pushing the envelope in terms of what's going on in the housing market within
the Twin Cities. It's just defining areas that are appropriate for Seiggo to have that type of housing and it's just an option and a scale, right? But the way we've structured the city's zoning and subdivision controls, city still has
quite a bit of discretion to approve certain projects that if you were a metro city, you wouldn't necessarily have. So, one question with that. So, see, still in the audience, but if we were to keep the height restriction
on these properties, not go to 75 feet, somebody could come in and still build three different buildings that are 45 feet tall and you'd have way more houses than if you just let them build one seven story. I I mean, that would be the
option for them, right? So, it almost forces them to build it high and then focus on potentially um a different retail you like a separate building that's a restaurant let's say or something like that and then attach those commercial to that apartment
piece. What would be the restriction if you had the 75 feet and they wanted to put two of the 7 I mean is there a limit and what would the city's ability to not allow that to happen? So if for in
example this property someone came in with 275 you know you're going to have requirements for off- streetet parking uh which is going to be a big factor how that gets accomplished. Okay. um then you'd have limitations on sewer and water infrastructure because when the
city first did its sewer planning back in the 1990s, it was assumed that these areas would develop with a certain density and a certain amount of sewage flow and now we're adding and so those trunk sewer pipes are in the ground and all you're
basically doing is allocating out the sewer capacity to other properties. So if somebody comes in at over what was estimated for that area, you have to make sure that there's they're not taking capacity from some other property downstream that's still going to or
upstream that still has to develop. you you'd be adding cars to the road and obviously more use on our system. But you mayor, just speaking generally. So when the city first invested in sewer and
water, we did a fairly rudimentary fiscal analysis on the cost of development for oneacre lots versus sewer lots. The bottom line is density is your friend when it comes to financing public infrastructure and
services because you know take the single family lots. The acre lots were designed at 150 ft wide. The first sewer districts were 75. So you're getting two houses for every one unsured lot. Double the tax revenue to the city. Now you're
looking at putting, you know, one house uh or 43 homes per acre for every one house in an unseured lot and the investment that goes into that plus the way it's calculated different tax ratio
etc. So it becomes different. And I'm not suggesting that an apartment building is 43 times the tax revenue. Adam's like, "Don't throw out those numbers." Cringing a little bit over tax
revenue. A type of development determines the allocation and the tax capacity. It doesn't generate revenue. revenue is set in terms of a tax levy by the city council building. This building or that building doesn't increase
revenue at a different pace. It allocates it to a different taxpayer based on the tax rate system set by the legislature. So it doesn't derive more revenue solely because you build a different type of product. Yeah, I was like
Yeah. Just just You're looking for the break even. Yeah. Yeah. So, Dan, you you mentioned the Brooklyn Park uh Maple Grove, the 610 quarter. And those building heights, I think we, you know, when this first came up, we
were all like, "Wow, those are really tall." And and then they kind of keep coming. So, have those other cities amended their heights of their buildings given the 610 expansion like what is that like? I I guess explain to me
because obviously all of their buildings were not that tall before. No, they were not. And so, I'm not certain whether they did it by a certain zoning district. Maple Grove I know relies on planned unit development quite a bit. Um so they may just be responding to
developers saying you know this is what we would like to propose for this corridor and city saying this is a unique corridor. Some of our last remaining developable property. Um so we're going to maximize that. Yeah because their stuff up by the
fountains is not no that tall. So it's not that it's the new stuff. It seems like it's just in that corridor. Yeah, I first saw it east of or west of 94 and then Brooklyn, the interchange at 169 and uh 610. They're really
building. They're talking about going taller than that even on the north west corner. So to kind of recap, the benefit to the city if if this is approved rather than go through a pod
would be let you recap mayor. So it establishes this is the city's requirements for this type of development. establishes a level playing field that any developer approaching the city to develop on one of these sites
guided for mixed use. They can simply look up the zoning ordinance requirements, design their project accordingly. versus planned unit development tends to be well we're going to base it on this zoning standard but then we're going to modify this provision and we're going to and the
concern there is it creates you know the developer doesn't know what they're getting when they go into it because maybe they listen to the staff maybe they listen to the planning commission maybe they listen to the you know they're making their way through it's making a more efficient process right
and you can run into concerns like well you gave that develop or something, but you're not agreeing to give that to this project. So, the perception of favoritism, right? Yeah. It's, you know, do we have that? It's always to be
consistent. And in these areas that you have highlighted, we aren't showing lack of favoritism to the other developers that went in because those are not in mixeduse developments. So, am I saying that correctly? Right.
Like so over by Coburn's that would not have been a mixeduse option south of Target and then over um Casey Dark Wall's property like we're not those are not it's not like they've missed out on
going higher because those are not areas that we are considering for mixed use. the city basically established what the standards for those were. For example, you talk about um the Coburn's development and even Parish Meadows to
the south, the whole areas, if you look at the two developments together, it's mixed use. You've got commercial 139 and 42 and then the apartment building and then town homes, but they all develop under conventional zoning districts just established for those specific sites.
Okay? Whereas this kind of combines that all into one district and you still have the discretion to as a council through a zoning map. Yeah. Yes. Other questions or comments?
I just mad may I just want to make a comment. I mean with 101 the 75 ft and then other lots. So we'll say 19 because that's what we were talking about the 48 ft. I do I I personally I like the diversity within the city because you
know with 101 as we mentioned before with Jesse's previous product or project. Um I I personally didn't have a problem with the height. I think you need that off of something like 101 to visibly see it. Um I I just like that
diversity with that area with abuing the highway 101 and then of course others not so much. Say again 19 using that as an example that I just the 75 would not get there. there's certain areas that it would and I think
off the 101 is a is a great area for that um to have that diversity within our city and and then bring in maybe other you know developers. We don't want to leave anyone out. Um and I think that just makes our city even that much more
I'll use the word again diverse um with bringing in different developers, different commercial um apartment buildings, whatever it may be. But I do like that aspect of it. I do appreciate that we've also
addressed the step up of the buildings um to be respectful to the people especially um west of this is county road 42. um they were here first and that really
does now give them kind of that assurance that we are being thoughtful of protecting their homes and what their views are going to be versus popping something big just because the land finally sells. It pushes it towards the freeway and not in
their sidey yards that would technically be a lot 42 there. And I think it also then assures the residents on the west side on 42 and you've got Sunray Farms, Kitridge Crossing that we're being
um aware of what that looks like for them too and pushing it not towards them but away from them. It will be an issue though. I mean, you do have some homes on the west
side of 19 that still could choose to live there and that gets a little weird there because you would be pushing it towards 19 away from Sunray Farms, but it really would be in their front yard, right, Mayor? And the distinction is those properties are all still zoned
agriculture. And the long-term plan is that county road 19 both frontages are commercial. So those homes are interim uses. They're expected to go be redeveloped at some point as growth
continues. The homeowner can choose to stay there as long as they wish. And it's you kind of see the same situation on 42 south of 85th Street. The home the barn and everything there. Well, that whole area east of 42 is going to be
commercial at some point and those homes will eventually be pushed up the same way Kevin Face Farmstead is eventually going to be pushed up marketing wise. Do you think uh this will make this stuff more attractive or we'll get more of the commercial stuff
that we're looking for? Mayor, I think the expectation would be is if it creates more opportunity for multiple family, it creates more opportunity then for commercial to come behind it. Much the same way as the continued residential growth over the last 25
years has led to the commercial growth we're now seeing on 42 and 39. Okay. Other questions or comments? Is there any other areas in this proposal that people had concerns with? I will say I I can appreciate too
that I the parking I'm I'm glad that we are looking at that and kind of coming up with a formula that we can all agree to. It feels like for a few years now we've been not comfortable or consistent with it and we can all tell that yes if
you're going to have a office they're not there at night so that parking lot sits empty. I think to make it very clear though, the council and the planning commission has always respected and been concerned that the residents that do choose to live in these
apartments in these mixedus areas aren't walking super far to get to their apartment. Um, that's been a concern that's been brought up multiple times. Um, and it's great that some are offering security,
which I can appreciate, but maybe that's how it looks now, but you don't know what the next developer is going to bring in. And so pushing and being very thoughtful about what that looks like and not having a empty parking lot doesn't look great
on anything either, too. So, Madam Mayor, comment to it. Dan, maybe you can talk me off the ledge here. I'm having trouble because I keep envisioning here's the gateway to the new Maple Grove by doing this. And I, as
much as I love working in Maple Grove, I I don't want to see turn into that. And I convince me that I'm that we're not going to be that mayor. You know, is defining its own
character through its comprehensive plan. So the comprehensive plan talks about the need to provide opportunities for balanced housing supply which includes apartments because you know people will have children maybe their children want to live here well you can't afford a townhouse or a single
family home so you start an apartment or as you get older maybe you want to not do yard work and move to an apartment that's the societal change that's happening now so otherwise atos as the city their role is facilitating ating
private market conditions. There's a reason is growing and it's because it's approximate to Twin Cities metropolitan area. You know, there's reason that people are developers are coming out here and talking to land owners to buy. City's role in that is to then provide
infrastructure and pace the the rate of development so that infrastructure can be, you know, accommodated. So, you know, I've had people comment about, well, I want to be what it was. Well, what point in time
are you talking about? Because I's population in 1960 was a thousand people. It doubled as 1970. It doubled again by 1990, 2000, 2000. So unless you were here in 1960, you're part of the growth that has
come out from the Twin Cities and chosen to make home. That's, you know, if you're not going to move to Otgo, you're going to go to St. Michael or you're going to go, you're going to go to the next suburb out. It's just right. Maple Grove didn't look like Maple Grove 30
years ago. So it it's kind of an inevitable market reality that this development is happening. And it's the city's role to participate in that in partnership with a willing land seller and a developer that's interested in being here. And I guess my comment to
Corey would be what part of Maple Grove are we talking about? Shopping? No. For all the medical facilities. I mean, they have a lot of them. So, no, I it's I'm just asking. It's like just crazy busy. And I you know, that sort of thing. It's [Music]
uh I'm old school in a way. I mean I but in the name of economic development I mean if if that's what you're suggesting I mean I trust you whether it's the the city's multiple family housing study that was reviewed by the planning
commission and the city council and the comprehensive plan that the planning commission developed and recommended and the city council approved. It's not it's not certainly my decision or you're the face you're the face of it.
I simply represent the G. Yeah, I think uh I hear what you're saying and totally understand. Um but you can't stop. But if you don't plan as a community for that development, for that growth, uh then you're always reacting and then
you have a city that is not well thought out, hodgepodge, and always behind, right? Thank you. That's always our intent obviously as we're looking at each of these applications that come forward.
We've expressed that we've expressed that to them too as though they become our neighbors and as the developers come in build and then leave what's the city left with? So making sure that we're able to manage
that growth and long-term stress on the system. Mayor, that's where the comprehensive plan fits in with the utility master plans, capital improvement plan, the annual budget, so that it's all interrelated as
part of your decision- making process. All right, questions, comments? Otherwise, a motion may motion. Okay. Motion to adopt ordinance 2025-04 amending the zoning ordinance regarding zoning districts and mixed uses and approve publication in
summary form. Second. Okay, there's a motion by Tina, seconded by Michelle. Is there any discussion? Yes. I guess my comment to that back R B R B R B R B R B R B R B R B R B R B Ryan would just be that I would be concerned
if we don't direct where these taller buildings can go we're going to end up having as as you said you want to not limit it. I would be concerned that all of a sudden we're gonna get a sevenstory request off of Nashwa
and that just would seem very out of character. So I feel like this gives us the basis of the corridor of the 101 corridor specifically in those areas where we've talked about the topography
being lower there so maybe it doesn't look as high. I would agree. I'm not a huge fan of ginormous buildings. I do think they look out of place. That was why I didn't support and I appreciated that they didn't support it off the um County Road 19
area. But I do think there are some areas along 101 where seven stories might not look like seven stories as you're driving by it. it. I would agree that it might not feel that way if I'm on the ground looking up, but I'm referring
to the bowl area. So, I mean, it really does appear to like a bowl once you're on 94 101, excuse me, going places. To be clear, it's basically 60 or six story level at 75 ft, not seven stories. Oh,
sorry. I said 75 because you had that visual before. Sorry. Sorry. That's exactly where it came from. Correction on my height of the building. So there's no clarific Nobody's coming back to say nope. The
mayor said 75 ft. No. We got to get you set up with Google Earth. Yeah. Okay. Is there any other comments? We do have a motion in a second. Any more discussion? All those in favor signify
by saying I. I. I. All those opposed, same sign. I motion passes three to two. Right. Right. Who else denied it? I'm sorry. Corey and Ryan. Sorry.
It's the council's decision. All right. Um, city council reports and updates. First one is Heritage Preservation. Thank you, mayor. Um, they did not meet this month. Okay. I don't have the date in front of me for the meeting next month, but it's it's
planned. All right. Perfect. Thank you. Uh, parks and recreation. Michelle, um, we had a great, um, grand opening last week for the, um, fair breeders park. I pronounce that
wrong every time. I apologize. Um uh and um so we did not meet that was in Lo's meeting. I think they had a brief discussion um prior to the the the the gathering starting. So the next meeting would be I
think the third for parks and wire. Perfect. Thank you. Um planning commission Ryan Perfect. Thank you. Public safety. Public safety. Um Wednesday, um we are
now starting all of our meetings with the pledge of the allegiance. Um so the commission agreed to doing that, which is I think great. Um we also discussed recognizing uh first responders month. So, um I believe it's the same day, the
15th of May, uh every year. Um and um one of the commissioners read off the names of the Minnesota officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. Um and we also took um some time of silence as
well to observe those. Um the commission also discussed recommendations for modifying their language in the mission statement. Um, so we are or I should say the commission is going to um they tabled that and then they're going to
send a copy uh with the proposed proposed language to Heidi um and see what options we can come up for the next meeting which will be then June 10th. Okay. Thank you. All right.
Um feel like we're out of order but we do have 51. So, uh, we'll do any updates first and then we'll move on to item five. So, does the city council have any updates? Pass. Okay. Um, Madame Mayor, and I think Adam, we're going to address
the compost site still tonight or No, we get there. Okay. Okay. All right. Then we'll move on to item 5.1. Ryan, you have your question. application.
Madame Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve pay application number five in the amount of $257,79.35 for work completed on the fire and emergency services facility project. Second motion by Corey, seconded by Tina. Is there any
discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed, same sign. Motion passes four to one. All right. Moving on to staff. Well, item 6.1, consider scheduling a
special city council meeting for audit presentation and budget discussion. Uh, mayor, uh, the request would be two separate meetings. So, tonight I think I'll just, uh, keep the shortened request. Uh, June 9th at 6 PM for the audit presentation would bring back the budget
meeting scheduling, which wouldn't have been till July. Anyway, um so what's today? Yeah. What's June 9th? June 9th, 6 p.m., please. Okay. Yep. Correct. I will make a motion to call for
uh you want audit presentation or are we doing budget like audit presentation? Audit presentation. June 9th at 6 PM. All right. Motion by Jessica, seconded by Ryan. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I.
I. All those opposed, same sign. The meeting is scheduled for June 9th. Moving on to item 6.2. Mayor, council, uh, an item was added to the agenda tonight and RCA was distributed to you uh, prior to the meeting. So, staff is recommending the
city council accept a resignation from an employee. Is that a deas for everybody? Yes. Okay. Questions and a motion will be in order. May I'll make motion. Motion to accept the resignation of Matt Cena from the position of mechanic effective May 27th,
2025. Second. Motion by Tina, seconded by Corey. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed, same sign. Motion accepted. We under staff reports and
updates. Adam mayor, council, as council member Tanner mentioned, uh myself and uh street manager Lansson met with the city of Albertville about two weeks ago to discuss the future of the compost site. Uh so Albertville has presented
some I'll call them interim solutions. uh to controlling access at the compost site. That will involve um uh they've done some landscaping over there. If you've driven by there lately, they planted a bunch of trees. They're looking to install a gate. Uh hiring an
attendant and finding a little I'll call it a hutshed for the employee to work out of. Uh there would be hours uh restrictions for access to the compost site that's aligned with that. Um so still working through some of the
details with Ubertville uh on that but um our initial target was sometime after the 4th of July 4th of July to uh implement those changes. So uh we've had communications develop a flyer that's uh in Albertville's hands right now for
review. So, just kind of waiting for them to keep the ball rolling uh in terms of when they're ready to go and have everything in place and then we can notify residents of both communities of the pending changes. Do they have some proposals on hours and I do and they're
not uh finalized yet, I would say. I know they the Albertville City Council discussed them at their last meeting. Okay. But I I wouldn't say that they're in final form yet. So, okay. that there would be hours um seasonally uh reasonable. Then over the winter
there would be either by appointment for Christmas trees or some undefined schedule yet for the winter months. So, okay. Is Albertville um kind of fielding the same kind of comments from residents that we are?
I mean, yeah, it's not really from residents where where the concern is. It's from people that don't live in either community. um or contractors that are abusing abusing the site which are in turn driving up costs for handling the
material and removing it from the site which is borne by the taxpayers of each of the two communities. So the idea is to restrict it to the people that are paying for that service. Get that back in line a little bit. So sounds
good. Yes. drives up the cost. Yep. Yeah, one of the examples we looked at during the meeting was I believe the city of Orno. Um, so residents have the option to bring in a certain amount of
material uh on their first trip, but if they bring back more on a certain day or it's over a certain size, then they're responsible for paying a charge related to that. I I don't want to speak for Albertville, but I'm not here, but I I don't think that's their intent right now is to move to a cost recovery, but
it's certainly something that we could explore if that relationship continues. So, it I would agree. I mean, we are paying a lot for the service now and now we're going to be adding personnel to it. That's another person if there's a
way to I believe in Alf River you get a permit and that's what gets you in but it's a it's a key fob card reader. Yes. Yeah. Not familiar with Elk River but that's what's done in St. Michael. So a resident has access to a card that you
have to go to get it. Correct. Yeah. Then that starts their access rather than Yeah. But that also costs money to put that system in as well. And I I and I don't know if they still do it, but I believe when they switched to that system, I'm looking to Kevin, wasn't it
like $10 per resident for them to get this? So, okay. There was there is no charge. Okay. Okay. And it might have been in the beginning to help recover the cost of
that reader system. Um, and I didn't follow it obviously because I was going to be able to use it. So yeah, and while there will be additional costs for staffing and maybe some of the the minor infrastructure improvements with the gate and such, the concept is that the
backend cost of chipping and removing the material will largely pay for that. So or or more so yeah, it's just unfortunate that I don't think it's residents abusing it. It's contractors.
So now we will have to figure that out. Correct. I think Sergeant Alman's uh filed a report over the weekend too that can attest to the the abuse from contractors that do not live in either community. So park a car out there. Mayor Council, no
other updates for me. Okay. Thank you. More to come on that in the future. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Audra. Thank you. I have no updates. Okay. date. No updates. Thanks, Mayor. Okay, Dan. Mayor, no further updates. Ron, no
updates, mayor. Okay, Darl, thank you. Um, just an update for the council, but also for the public that the groundbreaking will be tomorrow afternoon at 3:30 for that building. Thank you. Thank you.
All right, Sergeant Almans. I was once a wellrespected narcotics investigator. Now I'm investigating tree trunks being put into a field.
And you don't find it funny? Um, in in the interest of time, uh, the weather definitely changes our traffic behavior. So, the number of traffic complaints, park complaints are way up. Um, not necessarily not Sego, but my report on kind of the traffic behavior is we had a lot of crashes over the
weekend. I think we ended up having like five helicopters over the course of the weekend with injury accidents around the county. So, um, which is a lot. So just regarding speed, it's I think each one had its own individual variable to it, whether it's
impairment, speed, distracted driving, um at least in the county. So um we have been busy with car accidents in town. Most of the accidents haven't been injury accidents, but we have had seen quite a few. Again, the traffic complaints are way up. We got a lot more motorcycles out there. We got a lot more
people out and about. Um, I think we're generating like 2.5 types of traffic complaints a day um that are kind of just gen I shouldn't say generic, but like essentially residents calling at specific locations in the city that they would like us to uh attempt enforcement.
So you can do the math real quick of all the different in course of a month, how many different places they'd like us to be at one time. So, uh, that's what I have on that. The compost site is apparently now on my books.
Sorry. Thank you. Did you write them a ticket though if they didn't live in either community? Oh, you're gonna make me get into it, huh? Well, I'm kind of cur I'm curious, but there was no citation as there was no violation. And
there I would say to this for the sheriff's office to assist, we're going to need to get some sort of ordinance on the board. Oh, okay. Dan Albert has already been mentioning to a city council member for Albert, Mr.
Napstead. So, okay. All right. Does anyone else have anything? Thank you. Well done. Thank you. Thank you. All right. If no one else has anything, then a motion to adjurnn would be in order. So moved. Second. Motion by
Tina, seconded by Corey. Is there any discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. All those opposed, same sign. Meeting is ended. Thank you all for attending.