All right. Good evening. I would like to welcome everybody to the St. Paul Park Planning Commission meeting um for October 13, 2025. I'd like to remind everybody that this meeting is being recorded by True Lens
Community Media. You can view all city meetings live and replayed on cable channel 799. Meetings are also streamed live and archived on the city of St. Paul Park's YouTube channel. Let's all stand and rise for the uh pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America tonight is approval of the minutes. Anybody can I get a motion? Make a motion to approve Monday, September 22nd, 2025 meeting minutes and wave reading of the same.
>> I'll second. Oh >> yeah. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> All those opposed. Okay. The minutes have been approved. Um. Uh, next step is commission actions.
So tonight, our first action is a public hearing on the conditional use permit application for 940 Hastings Avenue. >> Good evening, honorable members of the planning commission and the honorable
council liaison as well. is a distinct honor and privilege to be with you this evening. We've got, as stated, we've got a conditional use permit application at 940 Hastings. Uh this site is the old uh
uh it used to be like a meat locker where you could go by like headquarters of a frozen food company and they had a storage area and then they you could buy stuff there. And then it transitioned into the evident healthc care facility
which is the I believe the current operator of the site. And the operator of that business uh is seeking to change about half of the building from
being like the office type use uh into a banquet hall essentially. the kind of the big picture of what we're talking about here. And what they've been doing is they provided like architectural plans which you see in your packet and
it kind of shows like an area that's kind of a sport court. It says now that used to be the storage area that they want to convert largely that area and some of the office space into being. So it was like the warehouse area essentially and then some office space
convert that into the banquet hall type facility and then the remainder of the building would retain the medical type office use that they already have in the site. Okay. But when you do this, um,
it requires a conditional use permit because of our definition of what that is cuz they saying it's be like a dance hall like they'll have dances there. They'll have uh banquetss there. So that type of use requires a cup in the B2
zoning district which is your highway commercial zoning district. And because of the use change, uh it requires actually some additional parking to be placed on the site. Now, when they switched from the the former
use, the more light industrial storage warehouse office combo type use to what it is now, arguably there could have been a parking analysis done at that time where we could have perhaps checked the parking count and maybe it would
have required more, but but we didn't really do that as part of the change of occupancy at that time. it was viewed as being generally consistent with the zoning and it wasn't those numbers weren't exactly audited at this time at that time. Uh but with this type of use
change requiring a conditional use, we need to look at that parking count very closely. And what they're proposing is adding um parking on the site uh for there'll be like 114 total
stalls. 72 new stalls. There's 50 stalls now. Part of the 50 have to get removed to allow access to the area where the 72 new stalls are though. So we lose about 10 stalls and then add back 72 is what they're proposing. and they're proposing
it with like a oneway drive aisle through the site with angle parking off of it. We showed this to our building official who also does our reviews for things like uh accessibility and safety and everything and he said that it
generally looked okay and the dimensions of the stalls that they're proposing are generally acceptable and um there were some things of outdoor activities shown on the plan and we questioned that. We
talked with the applicant about this prior to the meeting though and they're not intending anything to be outside um pursuant to the discussions that we had about this leading up to tonight. So there's nothing proposed to be done outside. Uh currently there's an outside
area where people like uh there's like a patio where people go out there and that is still that's part of the office use and so that wouldn't be changing but there'd be no outdoor activity related to the banquet hall type use and um so
that would be left the same and we were questioning one of the things in the report that you see that we were questioning was the number of stalls And we still may want to discuss this with the applicant a little bit because um I believe what they're intending to
do is from what their explanation was is they took the capacity of the banquet hall and they divided it by four which in your parking ordinance there's two different parking couchs we could use on this one being uh the you know one per
four in a seating area for an assembly use and one being per square foot. And perhaps we want to take a moment um of time here to further review that to make sure that we've got the right amount of parking here. But what they are
proposing is uh the parking would be I'm assuming what the the thought is is that the stalls that are being provided are based on the capacity of the banquet hall area and that the use times of the banquet hall area would
be off cycle from the office use. So they're trying to provide where it would be, you know, joint parking essentially for the two uses where different offset times. But we would need to probably evaluate that
a little bit more closely to ensure that we have that uh right and come to a mutual agreement on what the parking calc should be. So parking is a big aspect of this because the type of use
that it had been in the past had a very low parking demand and the use that it's being changed into both the medical office which it already is and then the banquet hall type use those have different parking demands different like
peaks different you know total numbers and we just probably have to make sure that we've got this nailed down for the type of use that they're proposing. proposing and if that is going to take a little more time, we would want to take that time to make sure we got it right. But when you talk about the type of use
that they're proposing, it can be allowed by a cup. And you might say, "Well, Nate, why are we talking so much about parking?" Well, parking is one of the big deals with these types of use is because in the area that it's located, we do have parking issues in these areas. like we've got a church across
the street from here which has a joint parking uh agreement with the bowling alley which is next door already. So the thing is is that we're doing things like this because it's a residential neighborhood across the street. So when
you got the commercial use then a street then the residential area. The last thing that you want is a bunch of cars parked in the residential area, people getting out of a reception and opening and shutting doors, starting up engines, you know, like kind of at night and
disturbing the peace and quiet of the residential neighborhood. So, we just want to make sure that that's being adequately handled. Um, they provided, as I mentioned, a floor plan and they provided clarification
that there would be no outdoor anything on the site. And so, all of that, they've addressed those issues that I raised. Uh, lighting plan, they're working on providing a lighting plan for us. And then uh when it comes to the
building exterior, uh as you can see here, they're proposing some modifications to the building. And what we look at with that is does this modification, does this make it more conforming with your ordinances or consistency with your
ordinances or is it going out out of conformance? And as you can see, they're providing a new general entrance area on the front, which will be provide kind of an enhanced architectural look for the
for the site. Um, I mentioned that uh like with the signage, uh, you know, you you're allowed a certain amount of signage on a site and what they're proposing here meets that, but if there's additional signage that's going to be proposed, you might want to know about that to make sure that it fits
with code requirements so that there isn't an expectation. Um, this is the site layout. You can see on the um property kind of to the north and west of the building that whole area is being
changed into parking which increases the you know storm water runoff and uh the speed of that and everything. And so we've got some comments from the city engineer that will need to be met. And uh we may want to allow the applicant
time to review that and decide if they can meet that or need to discuss some things with the city engineer. Uh there will be some lighting in the parking lot. Lighting is required to be like cut off down shielded. So we'd need specs on the actual lighting that's being
installed to confirm that it meets that. And with that uh also in a parking lot of this size, we require like some planting islands. Uh reason for that being is just the large impervious area.
You know, it's common for cities to break that up with some some degree of plantings in the parking lot itself. And uh they could probably juggle some things around and find a way to make that work, I would think. But it it is only three uh planting islands that
would be necessary and perhaps we want to give them an opportunity to uh revise that for your review. But um with that, so big picture, what we're talking about here is they want to convert part of this office building into a banquet
hall. That requires additional parking. It requires a cup. on the context of the area. We want to make sure that because it's residential across the street and some institutional type uses, we just want to make sure that the parking
provided meets our requirements that you're any like deviation from any sort of standard where it's like off- peak different parking styles that we've got that hammered out. make sure that it's acceptable to both sides and so that we
can accommodate the the needs of this use without, you know, creating problems for the surrounding area, right? And so now there's going to be lighting included. They provided a landscaping plan like this site, you know, as it
currently sits, the landscaping would be an improvement that they're proposing, right? So what they're proposing to do is add some of these elements to the site. They're changing the facade of the building a little bit. And so when we
look at something like this, we look at the conditional use permit review criteria that is this consistent with the comprehensive plan and is this uh use compatible with the present and future land uses of the area that is
conform with all performance standards. Will it uh depreciate the area in which it's proposed and can it be accommodated by existing public services which includes transportation infrastructure. Now they're proposing a new access point
Hastings Avenue that is a county road. We sent this to the county looking for comment. We haven't received anything back. We don't know if the county is going to require if you add a new access point that you get rid of one for example. That's one thing that, you know, is up
to the county to decide. But, um, again, like we think that with what we've got here, if we could just get some more clarity on the landscaping, lighting, and the parking count, and make sure that the that you view that the parking
count is acceptable per code requirements. If you want more information on those things, you could table the request and come back next month with that fully fleshed out. Otherwise, you could forward it on to the council on condition that they
demonstrate that they are meeting the code requirements for those things. Um, and then if you feel that it's not meeting the review criteria though, then you should forward on a recommendation of denial to the city council. And if you do formulate a a recommendation of
approval, we'd be looking at that the conditions be just that no outdoor activity, no outdoor storage, uh which are requirements essentially of the zoning ordinance. Anyway, parking should meet the minimum code requirements. landscaping planting
islands put in the access points approved by Washington County phototric plan be provided and those would be the things that we'd be mainly looking for here. But with that though, I mean they've given you like a floor plan that clearly shows the areas of the building
and what they're proposing to do. They're very clear on that. It's just inserting like a banquet hall type use where they talk about different types of activities that they would put into that site. And with that, um, you know, they provided a narrative that I'm sure
you've, uh, had a chance to review on what they're proposing to do. And then we've got some comments from the city engineer that would need to be addressed as well. So, with that, if there's any questions for me, I'd be more than honored to answer them. the applicant is
here to answer any questions that you may have and um you know I think you know they've got some some uh you know just we just want to work out this parking thing make sure that the parking count is something that we all can agree
on and that the landscaping plan because these are kind of the things that mitigate the impacts of the use on the surrounding area per the cup review criteria and a minimum you know if you want to table it and have that come back to you, you can do that. If you want to
have them address it and then go to council, you can do that. Or if you feel that this use is too intense for the area and doesn't fit the area, then it would be that you'd want to forward it to council with a recommendation that it's not approved. So, those are your
options here. If you have any questions for me, I'm be more than honored to answer them. Otherwise, I turn it back to you, Mr. Chair. Um, well, the applicant's here. Maybe we'd like to have the applicant come up and uh speak.
You want to come up to the the DS? And so, what we'll do is we'll just have uh both of you state your name and your address for the record and then just maybe tell us who you are, how you're related to the applicant. Want to go first? [Music]
Hi, my name is Anna Rinders. My address is 1261 Brier Street, Weisetta, Minnesota 55391. And I am the architect of record for this project. Okay. Oops. >> My name is Nichi. Last name is Mubio. My
address is 4373 Apple Drive, Woodbury, Minnesota, 55129. I bought the building 3 months ago. >> Okay. Okay. So, um, I know you guys have had a chance now to read sort of the
more detailed letter that came from Mr. Sparks, correct? >> Yeah. >> And I know you've had some correspondence with him per previously, right? >> So, you heard Mr. Sparks, right? There's there's a number of questions, a number of unresolved uh issues surrounding your proposal. So,
we've got some options and I guess I'd be interested in hearing what your thoughts are. Again, one option is now you've seen the letter and you kind of know all the things we want to talk more about and we want have addressed, you might want to take some time to sort of
rework your plan and have and come on back and then have us look at a fresh plan that addresses the the parking, the landscaping, the islands, the lights, etc., etc. The other option is you say, "No, we want to move forward. We want you to have have a public meeting. We
want you to put it to a vote and go and and send it on to the council with a recommendation or not. So, do you have any thoughts or any preferences about how you would want to proceed tonight since it is your application?
>> Yeah. Um, I mean, I can address some of the comments that um were in the letter. So, the exterior storage that is a holdover from a previous plan that will not be done. any exterior activities that is a holdover from a previous plan
that will not be done. Um it really seems like the lighting was a point that we need to address which yes we have somebody in the wings working on that. Um the plantings in the parking lot um we can address that as well. And um
regarding the number of parking stalls, it was our uh intent that those two uses would not be used concurrently. So the office spaces will maintain business hours 9 to5 and then the venue space will maintain evening and weekend hours.
So >> but I'm assume there will be some overlap for like staff and stuff like that. People I mean people working at the venue preparing it, right? >> Absolutely. Yeah. Okay. Absolutely. Um, so I guess I'll I'll go back back which is again as the applicant, you know, we've got some options. We got
some things we can do. Um, it sounds like Nate's presentation, I mean, I I I you know, maybe I'm not reading too much into it, which is there's a lot here to talk about and maybe would it be beneficial for you to have some time to address these issues and come back with
a more >> comprehensive detailed plan? I think we have everything we need right now. >> Pardon me. >> Do we have what do we need? >> Um, yeah. I think are we we need to make a decision now, right? We can
>> Well, I I'd be interested in hearing your position. Yeah. >> I guess at the end of the day, >> we're going to make a call if you say, "Hey, >> Mr. DS, can we have some more time because I I'd like to be able to work this plan and really come forward and really address these things because
because the only other option is Mr. Spark said which is if you say no move forward and then our recommendation has to be based upon what's in front of us with all the deficits. So um
>> you're and I hear you. I I think if I had and you can disagree. I would say we kind of tighten the dialogue of our drawings. Make sure we go back to the civil drawings and everything. Just make sure there's no holes in it. >> That's correct. and then come back
stronger so that the discussion is really over not these holdovers from previous plans or these things that it's like no we're not doing that. No. >> So my vote would be go back to the drawing board come back stronger to another planning commission.
>> Right. So what we could do is we could make a motion to table this and then you could make an arrangement >> which we talked to you Mr. Sparks or we should talked about maybe putting it on our calendar. Yeah. And again, um, is there a limit on the length of the tableing?
I can't recall. >> You have to table it to a specific meeting should be your next. >> All right. So, the next meeting for us would be November 10. So, Oh, >> just table it to your November meeting
and we'll clarify when >> Okay. So, you guys think that that would be a reasonable way of handling your application this evening? >> Yes, I think so. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, then I would be looking for a motion uh to table this application.
>> I move that we do that. Yeah. >> Is there a is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. I >> I >> Any opposed? >> So, we will table this until our next regular planning commission meeting.
>> Thank you for your time. We appreciate it. >> No, I know. Thank you for your application and and and thank you for your hard work. So, we appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Y >> I I guess there's only one other thing I can think of is to let the neighbors I don't know how many neighbors know about this. >> They'll Yeah. Well, so we we table Okay.
So, we tabled we tabled the application. So, we're not going to have the public hearing because that would trigger the need for us to make a decision or go to a vote. So, it's been sort of tabled now. So, we're going to have to have the we'll have the public hearing, right, >> Mr. Chair. Um, we noticed the public
hearing for tonight. >> So, yeah, we should probably open the public not to disagree with your >> I forgot I forgot you noticed it. I'm sorry. >> Okay. So, um I'm going to
open a public hearing on the application or on the for the Hastings Avenue property. So, if anybody wants to come up and speak on anyone from the public, you're you're welcome to speak on this topic. >> Hi, I'm Steve Harfield. I lived right
across the street, 1027 Aurora Avenue. Thank you for letting us address you. My wife and I came. Uh the big concern, well, parking was one of the things, but the the other concern that we have is the noise. Um there's been two parties there already. Um and the base that that goes on, it's just the reverberation.
Boom, boom, boom, boom. And the last time it went on till 3:30 in the morning. So, we really want to make sure we address the noise concern. We have a noise concern. We like to have you think about that. Um some type of noise reduction. We used to, you know, we had the same kind of problem with the bowling alley when they went to
Moonlight Bowling and they had that that thump thump thump thump thump and they were able to put in noise reducing materials that ended up resolving the problem. We don't hear them at all. Um, so that is that's our concern with the parking that you've already addressed. >> Right. So maybe having some clear hours
of operation would be helpful. >> Yep, that would be good. And also I just don't think we need to hear it in the neighborhood that somebody's got music playing. I >> So now when you said there was two parties there previously, were they indoors or outdoors? >> They were indoors. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Now, I haven't seen the plans. I don't know what the what the material is for the indoors, but I mean I'm, you know, I guess when you're looking at your architectural design and design the interior, I mean, I'm assuming it's not noise proof now because it was just a warehouse and whatever. Okay. So, it's
it's conceivable that when they come back with us, maybe as a part of your return, that might be an interesting thing to have as a bullet point or as um a part of your plan to really kind of touch on what is going to be some kind of noise reduction.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. No, thanks for coming. Yeah, >> I say in the hours of operation too. >> Oh, yeah. No, you go up. Yeah. name and address. >> Hi, my name is Peggy Hartfield. I live
at 1027 Aurora. Um, it's also the lateness of the hour. It was it was 1:00, then it was 2:00, then it was 3:00 when they finally got everybody out of there. And it was two different occasions this past summer that it happened. I think they had some wedding
or something there. And it was, you know, I don't normally complain, but when it was three o'clock, you know, 3 o'clock in the morning, I'm kind of like, um, can I come to your house at 6 when I have to get up and, you know, be disruptive to you. So, it was more I don't, you know, midnight, 1:00 is
doable, you know, if at the latest, but when it goes to 2 or 3, that's kind of asking a lot. And our bedroom is on that side of the street. So, I mean it is my bedroom is right on the corner. >> Okay.
>> So, that was kind of my I mean as far as it's I like you know I don't mind that there's people and there was one time they parked in front of the fire hydrant but if parking will be addressed that's fine but as far as it was more the noise and the the the base was thump thump
thump vibrating everything in our house. And we've done it, like I said, we've done it before with the bowling alley and we addressed it and I didn't call the police because I thought, well, it's a oneoff, but if it was going to be when I got the letter, I'm kind of like, oh no, >> no, no. I get and and hopefully the
applicant is has heard that concern and um they'll be addressing it. >> Yeah. So, that's that's their only concern. Otherwise, we're we're welcome to the neighborhood. >> Well, thank you. >> Yep. Anybody else on 940 Hastings Avenue?
All right, I'm going to close the public meeting. Um, I don't have any other comments, thoughts, concerns. We want to let the applicant know. Anticipate. Yeah, anticipate that they're going to come back. >> Yeah. No, I I don't have anything. I just like that they're going to address the hours. That was something that was
going through my mind, too. You know, uh, you know, 3:00, 4:00 in the morning that that's or 1:00 shut down like bars do. And the one thing I thought of, and that's kind of going up what Mr. Sparks was talking about, which is um
you may or may not want to address how you can make sure that the parking for your business is at your business and doesn't maybe bleed over into um the bowling alley. I mean, you're lot I mean, there's no natural barrier.
There's no obvious barrier. It just it looks like just one big parking lot. So, I'm going to imagine there will come a day when there's a couple of cars that wander and somebody at the bowling alley is going to see it and, you know, somebody may or may not be, you know,
happy about it and they may make some calls. So, and again, I don't know what the answer is to that if you line it differently or if you mark the mark differently. Um, but I could imagine that would be something down the line that somebody somewhere is going to
complain about. So, okay. Other thoughts? Nothing. Okay. Okay. So, um I guess we can move on to the second
action today, which is the comprehensive plan amendment public hearing. Honorable Mr. Chair, honorable members of the planning commission, um we have back before you
uh the topic of the Geneva Meadows subdivision which um has been an ongoing discussion. Uh essentially what has happened is when the
application was approved, their final plat was approved, they went to get their sewer permit from the Met Council. The Met Council uh reviewed it and disagreed with the density calculation. So what does that mean? Well, what that
means is in your comprehensive plan, you have certain properties that are classified as a minimum of two units per acre, some that are a minimum of three units per acre, some that are minimum of five units per acre, some 10 and uh some
even more than that. Right? So, you have to have it categorized in the right category, right? So you have to in the comp plan it has to be put in the right group for what the minimum density is and then you have like a table that
tracks how many units you're bringing in and at what density the units are. So when this subdivision came up, we kind of calculated the acreage of the subdivision, which was 30
acres gross, and then we deducted all these areas. We could have possibly deducted the slope areas, but didn't feel it was necessary. But then the metropolitan council said that the right of way for Cottage Grove,
the railroad right ofway, the pipeline easement, things that we routinely don't count towards because it's not developable land. So we didn't view it as being issued, but they said that that should have counted in the the calculation so that the density isn't
meeting the three units per acre. And rather than adding 30 more units to this subdivision, it was viewed as that it would be more aligned with what the community was thinking to change the classification to put it in the 2 to
five bin instead of the 3 to five bin as it was already. Now I mean I will note that as the planning commission is well aware when we began with this subdivision at the very beginning one of the things that you were seeking
was you know that the density be kind of lower because this site is kind of at the end of these roads uh end of Ashlin Summit and uh Lincoln and that the public didn't want a bunch
of traffic being generated from this site that would be like greater on those roads as they're extending south. And then also noting that the site itself has severe topographical issues. It's got a lot of sloped areas. And then it's
also got the railroad running right by it where you typically would want people to have as much space between the railroad and the property, the single family properties as possible, much like it is to the property to the north. And
so it was kind of expressed to the applicant that you wanted the density to be as low as possible. So noting that that that was your general intent through this process, we took the liberty of just initiating this process
at the request of the Met Council and um the alternative would be that we would have them redo the subdivision to include more units, which was viewed as not being a preferred option based on the discussions that you have had in the
past on this topic. So with that, um, the comprehensive plan amendment is essentially to just reclassify the property to be a minimum of two units per acre instead of a minimum of three and then send that into the Met Council
and recommend that the council do that. And then the Met Council would consider reclassifying it as two units per acre. you have the density capacity in your comprehensive plan because you're developing
currently the lands you have available for development is over four units per acre. So this going to two does not drop you below a threshold that you need to be at. It's actually um would be something that you could
easily do um based on the analysis that we did with the Met Council. So that's the gist of it. Um, you can take public comment on this, but I would assume that the preference is that we have the
lesser density than the more density on this project. Um, unless there's some change of opinion on that matter on the planning commission, but if you have questions for me. >> Okay. Yeah, I got some. >> Okay. So this is currently zoned
right low density right uh >> it's zoned R1 it's guided low density residential you have a comp plan designation that allows for density to be reduced to two units per acre
>> okay but okay so it's a low density residential 3 to five units per acre right that's R1 that's just the baseline right Y >> now the only and again you can correct me if I'm wrong but the only other zoning thing that we have in our
code which is the critical area which you could go down two to five >> right >> right but critical area is actually I mean this isn't the critical area is the is the area further to the west right closer to the river that's that's what
it is now >> right >> so I guess What I'm saying, what I'm questioning is, are are you asking us to just take a zoning definition that is in the Mer, you know, in the the Murka area, right? Sort of pick it up and then just drop it
on top of this particular spot. >> Well, I should clarify something. To do that, we have to add like a sentence of text into the comp plan saying that areas outside of the Murka can be in this designation provided they meet, you
know, so cuz >> so >> zoning and comp plan are two different things, right? And so by zoning this meets the the plan meets your zoning ordinance. The the issue is that in St.
Hall Park. Most all of the undeveloped property that's in this designation with the exception of the BNSF property and the uh property that Gordon Nesvig owns on the river is already got the rights
of way put in. Right. So like that whole area that used to be in Greycloud that was like the area between Greycloud and the the properties to the south all the rights of way are already platted in that area. So you're not deducting
anything for roads being put in. The issue we run into with this property in particular is that it can't really be developed at any higher of a density because of its topography and the high bedrock and the issues already with
developing it, right? that the fact that the railroad right ofway, excuse me, the road rights of way would be counted out of that because they're not already platted in there means that you would either have to increase the
density of the development to be more of like a you know duplex type density small lot single family and it wouldn't be meeting your zoning. So essentially the choice is do we meet the the pure zoning of the
R1 or do we tweak the comp plan? And to tweak the comp plan right now there's text in the comp plan that says that this low density area um is supposed to meet the R1 and then
but that's in most cases possible because the the road rights of way are already in in this case it's not. So our only option is if we're counting the road rights of way into the developable area would be to put it into the the
same bin that the critical area is in but then make an exception stating that certain areas can other areas can also be within that provided they have development constraints that are similar in nature but
that the DNR our rules that are on that area would not count on this area. >> Okay. I mean, okay. So, I guess I want to go back to like the beginning here, which is Okay.
the the the developer, right? They've got engineers. I mean they they are these things that were foreseeable are the were these were these issues that should have been apparent or because I'm going to be
really honest with you which is there see this this is this is a real problematic piece of property and now we're running into a really big problem right so there was you know criteria that was out there right that had to be
followed planners the city every everybody you know you puts their plans together, they send it out to the Met Council, and they come back and say, "Well, no, we're just not doing these things. You can't do these things. You can't do those things." So, there seems to be like places where people are making errors or they're
they're not developing the plans and property and they're not assessing the property properly to know whether or not they can do what they want to do. So there's a bunch of people out there doing things that we have no control over, no say
over, no input into, which are becoming problematic. And now my perception, which could be right or wrong, and we can argue about it, but my perception is now they're coming to us, the planning commission, and ultimately the city council and asking, "Hey, can
you guys basically either change or rewrite or redo the rules to let us do what we want, the way we want it, and we want you to solve the problems that they should have been hopefully able to
anticipate. ipate or see or plan around. So, and again, anyone here is free to argue about whether my perception is right or wrong or or relevant or not, but I just see there's a lot of people doing a lot of things.
A lot of plans happened and these and this is LAR there there are a sophisticated, experienced um developer, right? Um but here we are today asking
um that we I mean we that we completely rewrite the rules that we completely redo everything to make it so that they can have their development and so I'm just concerned that I mean has there been any attempt
to again take the recommendations take the comments take the suggestions from that council and go back to the drawing board and say, "Okay, given these constraints, which no offense, maybe they might have and should have maybe known already, can we develop this
property?" And again, I don't want to get hung up on whether there's 61 units or whether there's 90 units. Can we develop this property in a way that meets the MET council's requirements to get the sewer in right and meets our comp plan as is
and meets our zoning requirements as is? Has anybody made that attempt? Has LAR or anybody made that attempt? Do we know that? City staff asked them not to do that and to proceed in this fashion because it was viewed as being inconsistent with the actions taken by the planning
commission and city council to increase the density in this subdivision and redo it and come back through. So we had asked them that to not go down that path that instead we'd proceed on this path. Now you want to talk about potential
like errors or whatever. I would say they're differences of opinion between how things are, you know, traditionally looked at and how things are being looked at today. And so in the past, we would take like this area is going to
develop at 1.7 units per acre, but this one's going to develop at 17 units per acre. And you add the numbers together and you do the math and they come out that they're in the right range, right? And that had been how we had done things in the past. And also like things that
we count out of property acreages like personally I find it completely absurd that a railroad rightway would count as part of the developable property of a property. However, the method by which the railroad rightway was conveyed is viewed
that way at this juncture. Um, and our options are, do we continue down this path and have lengthy debates on the topic or do we do what we what meets the intent of what the approvals on this
project were, which is to have this this level of density because, you know, we could have been all right, let's do a PUD and let's get as many units in here as possible or we could meet the zoning and do the minimum number of units possible. That was the path, the policy
decision that was made by the planning commission and council. And so we're trying to be true to that that decision-making process. Now, like I said, what we have done in the past is sometimes you would allow a
person maybe to divide a lot in two and he's not going to be meeting that like minimum range, for example. But as long as it balanced out with other development, it was viewed as not an issue necessarily. In this case, there's
new ways of looking at things that now it's that anything that you do would have to be a minimum of three units per acre in that designation >> in R1 >> in in the low density residential designation, which by the way, if they
would have done a development consistent with your R1 zoning district, it would have been impossible to do that and meet that three units per acre threshold. which is how we ended up here. And that's because we require certain
property to be removed from the development. Now, had that property not been removed from the development, as it's turning out that it has to be, it doesn't meet the three units per acre. But when that property is removed
from the development site, it does meet it because you're just looking at the roads that serve the development and the lots in the development. But if we can't make those deductions in the manner that we felt that we should be able to make them, it doesn't meet that minimum
standard. So your options are crammd or change the designation to two units per acre. So those are the two options that you have. And then going forward, we know that the next development like
this, we'd have to do a PUD and come up with custom zoning standards if we can't make the deductions or we'd have to work out the deductions beforehand, which we didn't believe we had to do because they deferred to the judgment of
the local government more in the past is in the experience that we've had here. So those are our options before us. Now, you know, this is something that came up recently and so we, you know, bring this
forward to try to correct this now. and seeing that the idea would be that we're trying to be true to the zoning which was definitely the policy that the city officials had expressed that we wanted
this to meet the minimum zoning of the R1 and if that means that there's a something that has to give on the comp plan side then that would be acceptable and that's the path that we're following here. So is it an ideal situation? No, it's
not. I mean, rather not be in this position, but because we couldn't balance the units off of other developments, >> this is the situation we end up in. >> If we make the amendment, is the number of houses in the development going to
change? No. Or it would remain the same? >> It would remain the same. Okay. Development would remain the same. No change would mean the development would have to change and more units would have to be added. >> Okay. So, we're talking about 60 units versus 90 units, >> more or less. >> More or less something around that.
>> And if we update the comp plan to allow for the two units per acre, that would apply to all future developments as well for R1. >> It would only apply to this one. Other ones that you would want to do, you would have to do this amendment concurrent with the development process.
But you should note that on your comp plan map, you have certain areas designated for different things. And in most cases, this isn't going to be an issue because, as I was mentioning, the road rights of
way are already in. So those don't get counted out of the development site. They're part of the development site. So I mean, it's already the situation. So they would meet it. In this case, it would have met it too had that had that
like outlot that we required them to put in that was the lowland with the high bedrock and the slope down to the railroad tracks. The city required that to be given to us is the city to take that land. and we were thinking we could count that out of the total and they
disagreed with our math on this and said that they want us to correct this and put it in the proper designation in order for them to get the sewer permit. But, you know, I believe that had we been able to count that out, they would have met the three units per acre.
>> But didn't the Met Council say if you had put it out through a a different kind of easement? >> Well, potentially. So, we could have potentially, but they also had an issue with the fact that I
mean, we're kind of getting deep into some uh stuff here, but I mean, part of the fact that we allowed storm water ponds to be on the property made them not like how we did that as well. >> And was that just a concession to the
topography and the nature of this piece of property? >> Right. I mean, yes, because the fact that it kind of goes in that direction already and the high bedrock means you got to have these weirder shaped storm areas where water can collect so it
can't go underneath you. You know, it's it was a lot of engineering went into this. This site was very tricky to engineer with. And we didn't count out like if you look here there's these areas of very steep slopes which we
didn't try to count out because we were like well there obviously figured out a way around that slope so we counted that into the development site but I guess I was not thinking that the railroad right ofway the pipeline easement and then a
right ofway that serves only Cottage Grove would count towards the development density here but then that outlot they disagreed with as well. But again, I mean, if you want to follow forward with the
policy that you've enacted that this would be meeting the zoning, the minimum zoning with no forgiveness to that, then making this change would be or attempting to make this change because we have to go back to them and say, "All right, we agree to change it
and see what the response is." But this was their suggestion. So, we can do this, see if this works, and if it does, we can go forward with this. But we're trying to avoid the scenario where we're asking the developer to redo the development to put more units in
here. And by changing this, it wouldn't affect anything else. >> No. So even if we even if we agree even if we make a recommendation to the city council to
amend the comp plan and it goes to the me I mean they could just say no we're not really we're not really interested in in your proposed amendment. Theoretically that could happen, but I mean they suggested this path. So I would I would think that you know that
would be kind of strange for them to but who knows? >> It could just be really sadistic people. I mean we don't know. >> Could be. >> Um I think the neighbors would like less homes instead of more. >> I agree with that. Based on the feedback
I've heard, I think people would be happier with 60 homes versus 90 homes in that plot. >> I bet there's people who probably even want zero homes there. >> Not on the table. >> Yeah, I know. Um,
does anybody else have questions for Nate? Otherwise, we're going to we'll help we'll I'll open up the public hearing. All right. So let's open up the public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment for Geneva de Meadows. Anybody would like to get up and speak
on the topic is welcome to go to the de and speak their mind. No takers. Okay. I will close the public hearing on Geneva Meadows comprehensive plan amendment. I guess I would open it up to
commission members and the liaison to make any comments or ask any other questions. Um, my understanding of what was said is if we had a crystal ball and could read more more requirements earlier on, it would
have helped, you know, probably avoid some of this discussion. But I think you're correct that the the citizens that have been vocal would rather see fewer homes than more. Um I think it covers the
things that are in the ground and and you know the the weeks of efforts that have put on top of the ground. And I um assuming Nate would be there to explain this to council that there would be plenty of uh maybe it would bring some
questions, but I think it would uh paint a relatively clear understanding of what we are discussing here tonight. >> Yeah, it just seems like there's a difference in how the right of ways are being classified to calculate the units per acre. So
you probably wouldn't be able to develop these right ofways traditionally, but since they're being calculated in this units per acre calculation, we would have to pass this amendment for Geneva Meadows to to move forward with the fewer amount of units. That's the way I
see the problem. >> I think it's a good idea to allow the fewer units. Well, with that in mind, I will make a motion to amend the comprehensive plan for Geneva Meadows to allow for uh two units per acre for lowdensity
residential R1 zoning. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. All those in favor, please say I. I. >> All those all those opposed I. >> Motion carries 3 to one.
All right. Uh, next on the agenda is the public hearing for the subdivision con subdivision concept plan for Tamarak development on the Burlington Northern property. >> Good evening again. Um
many many years ago on the south end of the city, the city annexed a large chunk of Greycloud Island Township and the intention was for a housing development to go in that was going to be on both sides of Grey Cloud Island Trail. Uh
both a property on the river and then a a property that was between the county road and the railroad tracks. And that concept was uh being thoroughly reviewed by the city when the great housing market crash
happened and the housing market recession began which kind of made the development not really feasible. Uh then Burlington Northern bought the property with showed the city council some different concepts of turning it into
like a railbased industrial park and there were some issues with that from the city's perspective because uh city of St. Paul Park didn't want all that truck traffic going north through the city
um and trying to get on to the highway through the downtown of St. Paul Park. So, that had kind of uh been waiting for some sort of solution. But then we've now been presented though with an
opportunity. Tamarak Land Development along with uh AEL Land Holdings is attempting to uh purchase the property and then create a master plan for a residential housing development on the
property. So it's a 250 acre site generally and it's guided in the comp plan for 3 to five units per acre. It's mostly zoned R1. There's a part portion of it that's zoned commercial
and um the applicant is proposing a mix of housing types in this area. Um and then this is the general proposal. So you can see that they've got
some areas of smaller lot single family um some more medium. So, it's like 45 foot wide lots, 55 foot wide lots, and 65 foot wide lots that would provide variety of housing types. There's some
areas that show some um medium density type housing like uh town homes and some areas that show apartments being put in here as well. Um, as we were talking about with that previous development
issue that we had was that in this area, you know, the roads aren't already built in there. So, the density, you know, the reason why you're seeing some smaller lots is despite all of this, they're still within the proposed density ranges
allowed by this and we can't control those density ranges. In this case, um it may make sense that if you view this plan and you like it that and they go to a pre-plat that you do comp plan
amendments where you take the apartment area and say this is the apartment area. So that way the apartment area is the apartment area and that's it. The town home area is a town home area and then the single family area is a single family. So that was one of the things
that we note. But um with this proposal, I mean they're showing a variety. It's predominantly single family variety of housing and it is just the portion that is to the east of Greycloud Island Drive
because the property on the west side on the river is owned by somebody else now and would be developed separately. I believe you guys saw a concept plan on that. was that a year or two ago which was just a single family development
and um you know we have to balance densities for the Met Council as we were just talking about that is required and there may be some benefit to potentially moving some density from other areas in the city where you don't maybe want it
anymore to this area and expanding some of that u different housing types. That's something that you could think about. But for the most part, what we have here is an intent by a developer to come up with a concept plan that shows a
master plan community where the different housing types are kind of laid out with some thoughtfulness in order to create an amount of housing that meets what the requirements are for the city for placing housing in this area.
Uh we should know, you know, like you the area that's to the north of this, there's a portion of that area that's industrial guided and zoned for industrial use more to the east. So that would be the area where they're putting
the apartments on to the south of that. And then there's the single family housing on the north side would connect with the existing single family housing that's to the south of there. So, it would be just a connection to that. And then the commercial area would be
near the entrance, main entrance to the development off of the county road. And uh we did have it in the comp plan that that would be about 10 acres. They're proposing right now about five. And I mean perhaps,
you know, that could get looked at more at the time of a preliminary plat. But with the different types of housing, like I I mentioned, you know, when you have this property and you can't you have to count the roads within the density that are being built, that means
that you probably can't get, you know, 9,000 square foot single family lots in this area. You're going to have to figure out a way to hit the minimum densities with this. And even with balancing some apartment areas and town
home areas, you do end up with a uh you know some somewhat of a smaller lot size in some cases. So, but they're providing a range of different different lot sizes and types that would fit
different uh housing markets. And you know the layout was you know pretty thoughtful where the town homes and apartments are mostly along the railroad tracks and that the single family away from that which is kind of how you would
typically lay out a subdivision. Right. So like you know the apartments and town homes would buffer the single family to that use and it would also buffer the industrial area that's planned for to the north of here to that use as well. So they're following some good
conceptual um you know land use sighting criteria through that and the proposed number of units that they've gotten here is around 950. I would anticipate that as they more
thoroughly move into an engineeringbased phase that that could be go up or down a little bit. But um I guess that this uh type number of housing units and everything can be accommodated by the
uh housing projections that are in your comprehensive plan. Uh this was put in front of the Met Council. ment council concurred with that assessment and that um so we've got a
you know kind of these different types of housing and they're proposing a park which is required by the park plan. This will require an EAW which is an environmental assessment worksheet which determines if an EIS is necessary.
There was an AUR on this property previously with the River's Edge development, which is an alternative uh urban area review where you can do the same thing as an EAW EIS but in an
alternative method and that could also just be refreshed and renewed and brought back forward. um the utility system. You know, obviously there's a lot of comments from the city engineer on this. When River's Edge was being figured out, there's a
big feasibility study done for this whole area to the south. Basically, a lot of the assumptions from that are still holding true, right? And so, it just is now this is just going to be like half of that area, not the whole thing going forward. And so, there'll be
some utility infrastructure. I mean it's a large development and then with transportation infrastructure with the EAW process you have to do a transportation study to study how this traffic would disperse through this area
but uh it has been the city's policy and reasserted in the comprehensive plan that the idea is that this area would become a future residential predominantly residential area again and
not be used for like a railbased industrial park, which is what the property owner had wanted to do here. So, the idea would be that, you know, we're going to need to come up with some solutions here. Like for example, the
main thoroughfare of Third Street down to Greycloud Island Drive and the utility infrastructure would have to be brought down through that area. But we're going to need alternative areas like the storm sewer infrastructure is going to have to go out 15th, which is
on the north side most likely, or find another route to go. There will have to be a secondary utility corridor which is going to be, you know, bringing some utilities in through like maybe fifth, sixth or seventh street from the north
as well because you can't just have one line coming down into an area. So there's some decisions that need to be made and that will get fully fleshed out at the next phase. But from the standpoint of where we're at today, what we're trying to do is take a look at
this concept plan and basically do you want to explore opportunities for doing this site as a residential development in stages or do you want it to remain as
you know the potential industrial area? and the comprehensive plan supports what's being proposed here. Now, you could say, well, hey, we don't like all of the different types of housing and like some of the medium
density and higher density and the smaller smallalness of the lot sizes, but you have to hit certain density thresholds to get, you know, the sewer permits from the Met Council to actually effectuate the development, right? And
so if that necessitates a PUD, that's what it would be. I mean, we can't redesate this to two units per acre and do that on this one. It's too much land. And I should also note that when the next comp plan is done, you're
not going to be asked to develop at three units per acre by the Met Council. You're going to be asked to develop at seven units per acre. So putting some density into this area is probably a wise choice because then you're not putting it in existing parts of the
city. But again, when the developer, if you like what they're proposing to do here and you give them the green light to go ahead, they're going to go and they're going to do the engineering, they're going to do an EAW, they're going to do a traffic study, they're going to figure out how to handle this
amount of development in this area and present that to you. and then that will be up for your review at that time. But what they're seeking now is an endorsement of the idea of what they're doing. And I got to admit, I mean, I've
been pretty close to this personally for years trying to figure out ways where we could get this property to be developed residentially. And um you know, we're very grateful. Personally, I'm very grateful that the
developer is taking a chance on this. It's not an easy It's not easy to do. Uh like if you remember the River's Edge project, that was a big that was a big production and it was hard to balance all of those different things out. But
we largely had that figured out at that time in the past and now we're just taking this. It's just a portion of the area that they're proposing for this development and it's an exciting opportunity for the city. Will this all be developed all at the same time in one
year, like three years from now? No. This is a long-term project. They provided a sample phasing plan. That's all going to be market-based and market driven. And uh but this provides the city with an opportunity to reclaim this
as a residential area as was originally intended and is endorsed by the comprehensive plan and would then also by the nature of it provide utility opportunities for some areas where utilities aren't in that are to the north of it and provide some solutions
for traffic circulation. This does not include any of the property on the river. There was a lot of issues that were brought up during the AUAR process with the river properties namely like uh environmental natural
resource concerns. But this is the only the property that's between the railroad tracks and Greycloud Island Trail. So it doesn't include any of that property. So some of those concerns won't be present here. But the general gist of it is that
what we look at when we look at a concept plan is we look at the circulation, the lot layout. Do we think that they're generally meeting the uh intent of how you want a subdivision laid out? And are these uses what you
deem to be appropriate for this area? And again, I mean, it's largely single family. There is a spot for commercial. Uh there is some spots for apartments and town homes and they're only using those as like buffering to industrial
and railroad and as uh to the single family areas. Now they are putting in some smaller lot single family which is uh again just part of a creating a adequate mix of different types of units to ensure that there's a range of
potential buyers that could be into the subdivision. But with that, this is what the proposal is. And um again, I mean, this would be an opportunity for the city to reclaim this as a residential project instead of an industrial
railbased project. And um generally fits with your comprehensive plan. And with this, you need to express some thoughts to the applicant. the applicant's representative is here and he can speak to you on some particulars. Uh they're
open to hearing your thoughts and ideas and on ways to put this all together to um then proceed to the preliminary plat. And as we noted, I mean, this whole thing isn't going to be final platted all at once. Be a long-term buildout.
And there's access to the site from the south and to the north. And so they would build between those and that would be what we were looking at with this. If you have any questions for me, >> yeah, >> I'd be honored to answer them. >> Otherwise, I can turn it back to you, Mr. Chair.
>> As the plan stands, what's the density? >> The density is un it's like four units per acre. >> Okay. But again, the way that density calculations are done, we have to calculate out certain areas. And there
there isn't enough definition to certain things to know if they would be counted out or not. But right now, what their target was was to hit the 3 to five range, which your current comprehensive plan requires. Now, in the future, your comprehensive plan might change. It might be higher, lower, whatever, and
they would have to meet that at that time. Okay? But their their plan here was to hit your density requirements. >> So you mentioned that they had a plan for the phase ends. Am I missing that or is that where's that in the packet? >> That's the second the second version of
the There's two versions of the drawing. Second one, it just shows areas in blue circled in blue outlined in blue that are like different. Uh >> what are these areas circled in red? Is one. Those are just the different
types of housing. So like when it's circled in red, that's >> one area of the development. >> I see. >> Yeah, that one and this one up here. >> Okay, so phase one's top, the top left part. Phase two seems to be the right
edge in the middle. Phase three, four, and then five at the bottom, I guess. I mean, so the devil's advocate question is, I mean, let's say they're they get to the
first phase and they realize it just the market isn't going to support moving on. I mean, then what are we going to do? I mean, where what do we do then if it doesn't keep progressing, we don't get the density, and we don't get the units in there. And way you handle that is
when they do their pre-plat, they pre-plat the whole thing and then the areas that are because we're balancing density here. You can't bring in one that's too low, right? Because then you'll get in trouble. So then you would
guide the areas for high density as being high density in the comp plan. You'd regu the comp plan to balance the density. Or else you would just put covenants like on the or not covenants, you put like restrictions on the property saying this area has to be developed at this density to balance the
density here. But if you have it all master planned out like this, somebody could come in, pick up a different chunk of it, and propose something and you could say, "We know we want it to be the way that we approved this." And if you want to change it, you can ask, but
we're not obligated to do that. then you run the risk of I mean then of nobody wanting to develop it then right I mean right if the initial developer didn't like it or it wasn't economically feasible one would imagine it would you'd find the same circumstance for
subsequent developers >> well I mean if you look at it that way at one point in time somebody viewed this as being economically infeasible to develop but then here we are 15 years later and it's and we're back
>> well in the meantime time the comp plans changed and and and our requirements may have changed and >> and then you just have to meet the standards at that time. But if they pre-plat the whole thing and do each phase in an orderly fashion,
they can keep that approval alive. >> Do they have an estimated, you know, start to finish? I mean, is this I mean, I I know it based upon the market, but I mean, I I mean, they have a 5-year plan, a 10-year plan, a 20-year plan. I
believe I mean this I mean you could ask the applicant this um if you want to get into the details on that that might be a question for him but um but you know I guess it's it's phased but you know in
terms of when each phase exactly is going to happen is somewhat market based. So it could be 20 years for this to completely build out, but you know, if things go well, it could be quicker than
that. >> Again, I mean, have to do traffic studies, >> utility feasibility studies, and all of that. And that would happen before the preliminary plat. So you do the concept plan, then they do their EAW,
and then they would come in for pre-plat, and all of that data that they collect prior to the pre-plat, you'd have, and it would support what it is that they're going to do. They would have to. >> Okay. And once it gets to pre-plat, they
would be grandfathered in from the I see the comp plan's going to change in 2050 to 7 units an acre for development. They would be grandfathered in. This is four units an acre right now for this plan, >> right? So, um
>> know that's 25 years from now. I'm just, you know, >> if you have an approved preliminary plat and your final plat are based off of that approved preliminary plat, >> but if we had to increase density, and so this is something that you might want
to think about knowing that that density increase is coming. Again, if you don't put it here, you're going to have to put it somewhere in this part of the city. And that may not be preferable. like if you wanted it to be like on block 89 for
example or if you'd rather it be down here. That's a decision that you'd have to make when you're looking at the preliminary plat. But you know that that's coming that you're going to have to account for that at some point. But if you put it here then you don't have to put it somewhere else. So those are
things you can talk about at the next phase. Like if you want to say okay in a future phase we want you to add some more density so we don't have to put it in the main part of the city >> and it is fact that the 2050 comp plan will have seven units an acre. That's a
fact or that's a estimate. >> That's right now is >> that's the plan. >> That's the plan. But um again I mean we can provide comment to the Met Council that we don't >> want that density and see if they're willing to work with us on that. But
again, I mean, >> okay, >> it's something that we've got to be cognizant of, but as it stands right now, what they've proposed meets the comp plan. >> Okay. >> Any other questions for Nate? If the applicant, if the applicant wants to come up and >> I have a couple questions. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> No problem. >> I just have one and I've heard this on and off for a few years. Is there any discussion at all about possibly to the south aligning to 95th or 100th from Cottage Grove on that south end?
>> Not at the I mean it's they're proposing to use the existing road layout. There was some talk about some way of going over the tracks at one point and that's not something that we're talking about at this point in time.
>> Okay. Um, how about alignments on the north side to either fourth or fifth? Would there be any coordinating of that or would they be independent? >> We have to that's something that we need to figure out cuz uh when the utilities
come down, we have to connect in more than one spot. So, one of those roads is going to have to be connected through and fifth, 6th, 7th, one of those is going to have to come in through somewhere. And one of the options would
be that industrial area. Maybe that gets developed around the same time as this and then that resolves itself then. But uh if everything were to stay exactly the same as it is today until the date that they do the the future first phase,
chances are that we would just probably have two connections near each other in the grid pattern and it would go through that area. But it may be if other areas develop that we could broaden that out a bit. But there will be more connections,
more work done between here and the properties to the north because there is some vacant land in between. So there'll be some opportunities to uh obtain utilities for private property owners to the north of here.
Okay. >> All right. applicant wants to come up. Just have you state your name and your address for the record. Good evening, chair, members of the council. I'm sorry, members of the planning commission, council member uh
Reed Schultz with Tamarak Land Development, 712 Vista Boulevard in Wakonia, Minnesota. Um, before we get into the nitty-g gritties, I just wanted to introduce myself and Tamarak a little bit uh for you guys. Uh, Tamarack Land Development uh is a locally uh a local
developer, but we are nationally uh we do national developments throughout. So, we are Minnesota based uh develop uh nationwide. So, um we uh we are just a developer. We are not a builder. Uh so, we we develop for builders. We sell off
lots uh for builders. Um we generally uh market towards the national builders. Um so the the big four national builders in Minnesota uh are LAR, Dr. Horton, PY, MI Homes. Uh we do uh a handful of developments uh with other builders as
well. Um obviously before you tonight is quite a large development. Um so there's uh a potential that it be uh could be one builder, it could be many builders. Um we aren't at that stage yet to disclose that information. Um but it it
is a possibility that there could be a mixture of different builders and different uh architectural types and stuff like that. So um so we do um I'm the development manager for Minnesota. Um I do have active projects throughout the Twin Cities. Um we have projects in Cottage Grove and
Woodbury um close to you guys here. Uh we've got developments uh in Lakeville uh Chaza, Chanhassen, uh Wakonia and and so so forth kind of around there. So u very established here in Minnesota. Uh
personally I've been in the engineering and development field for 20 years um here in Minnesota uh doing civil engineering and and development work. Um so a lot of these uh challenges uh we are not immune to. We are very aware of uh bedrock issues, uh utility
challenges, transportation needs, all of those things uh very adequately um um able to to handle those challenges. So um a little bit about the development uh master planning uh as as planner uh Nate
had kind of indicated to you guys, we are looking for uh your guys's feedback tonight um and then subsequently city council's feedback next week. um just about density, product type, lot sizes, uh general layouts, big picture items.
Um this is a very much conceptual plan. There hasn't been a ton of engineering done on it. Um as we progress forward into plinary plat, that's when those items are usually flushed out. So we'll do bedrock analysis. Uh we'll look at utilities, transportation studies will
be done. Um and and those will kind of guide how this development ends up ultimately shaping out where the ponds will go, how the traffic flow happens. Um and and also how the development phases out. Uh what we do know um is that utilities come from the north. Uh
and so from a phasing standpoint, uh this development likely would develop from the north to the south just because the utilities are there if that makes sense. So, um, with that, I guess just kind of breaking down the plan for you
guys. As, uh, as Nate had indicated, um, a variety of product types, town homes, um, small lot, 45s, 55s, and 65 foot wide, single family, traditional, uh, detached, single family homes. Uh, those product types are developed, uh, around
the Twin Cities. Um they're they're uh this is not a new lot size or a new concept to you guys. Uh the national builders that I've indicated all develop these types of lots throughout the Twin Cities. Um so nothing new, nothing um
super uh unique for this one. Um the reason I mention that is is just the concerns of you know if this development never gets to phase two or three um we are very confident uh that these product types will do very well. um they're
proven in this market uh to sell um and we're confident uh that this is an area that uh will be very desirable for people to come and and nestle in and create their families and homes here. So, um, with that, um, you know, single family, the apartments, um, you know,
that's kind of the the kind of the wild card, I guess, would be the best way to put it. Um, as far as how they shape out, you know, how many stories they are, you know, are they chunked into blocks? Are they more of a larger building? Um, ultimately, it's no surprise u, the railroad is next to us.
We're we're using amenities uh as storm water amenities, open space areas, apartments to use as buffers along railroads. That's very common in the development world to see those type of buffers uh to keep the single family uh homes a little bit away and having some
of those multi-story units um as a as a as a buffer. Um, generally town homes and apartment buildings are uh more adequately uh soundproofed with windows and and other finishes like that that can withstand some of that noise and stuff. Um, so it's very desirable for
single family lots to to have those type of buffers and stuff like that. Obviously, density uh Nate had had uh elaborated on in in quite a lot of detail there. Uh, obviously apartments and town homes are one way to increase that density, offsetting the the single
family Um 65 foot wide lots are a very traditional um lot size. If you were to do a traditional single family development in the Twin Cities uh and you include storm water ponding and and roadway networks and all of that, it's
actually a very challenging to get to three units per acre with a 65 foot wide lot. And so if you are looking to target anything that's density greater than three units per acre, which mech council wants three units per acre, you need to include either smaller lots or uh more
of a multifamily type product or an attached product like town homes or or apartments. So just highlighting that aspect of it. Um with that um you know commercial uh pad this one, you know, we're we're generally not a commercial
developer. Uh we would be looking to sell this vacant lot to a neighborhood um you know daycare, gas station, convenience store, some sort of neighborhood uh commercial type user that would be in there. Um we are
proposing a five acre lot. Uh 5acre lot's actually a fairly large lot uh for a commercial lot. Uh to put it in perspective, a daycare um can go on a acre and a half lot in a commercial. a gas station can fit on a 1.25 acre lot.
So, uh we're proposing five a five acre lot. It could be a multi-tenant building of some sort. It might be a couple different commercial lots. Um but we would like to shy away from from doing anything more than than 5 acres or so. if we start getting into 10 acre
commercial lots, um we may not find enough users in the the near term to to fill up 10 acres because that could be 10 different commercial unions users in that area. So, um we are proposing a community park as well as some pocket neighborhood parks throughout there. Uh
staff did a a great job in providing us some staff comments. Um so, we'll we'll incorporate some of those staff comments into um into the preliminary plat. Uh, one of those comments indicates adding some greenways and buffers on the south side to kind of break up that uh, big
plot of of single family down there. So, we'll look for ways to incorporate some trails or some greenway areas through there just to uh, kind of break those things up. But, a lot of that will be flushed out as we kind of get through some of the engineering. So, uh, with that, I I don't want to talk too more too much more, but I'm here to answer
any questions you guys have about the development or about Tamarak land. Um, from a timing standpoint, um, you know, the, uh, EAW, the environmental assessment worksheet that we need to do, um, is generally about a 90-day, um,
process. There's 30 days of public comment period in there, um, and so on and so forth. Uh, the engineering, uh, traffic studies, all of that. So, all of that would be done, um, during the winter months here and then kind of into next year. Um, our hope would be that we
could maybe break ground and and start moving some dirt um, fall of next year. Um, and likely doing uh, the utilities and streets and all of that in spring of 2027 would be our would to be our goal. Um, with that, as far as uh, how fast
that moves, uh, Nate did a wonderful job of kind of, you know, market driven analysis. Um, generally builders look to develop about um 30 lots of product of each different product type. Um, uh, uh,
throughout the throughout the year. Um, so if you have four or five different product types, you can do the math and kind of figure out that's kind of where we're kind of coming in with maybe five a fivephase development over about a 5year period. Um, kind of fluctuating depending on how that market goes.
Certainly ramping up if things go well. Uh we could certainly break this into four four phases. If things slow down, we we may break it into smaller phases um and maybe more product dependent on how those phases work. So the phasing plan that was presented to you again is
very conceptual. It was just our first stab at potentially just outline coming from the north to the south basically is is what that gear is. So um happy to to stand and answer any questions you guys have uh for the development or myself. So you talk about phasing in, you're
talking about, you know, 30 units of each type. So let's say, let's take this phase one. So we've got a couple of, you got the town homes, we've got the single families. >> So when you you say we're going to greenlight phase one, how much of
how much of that entire area is going to be worked on and and what would be your estimated time like to complete everything in phase one? >> Yeah, that's a good question. Um so we we develop um kind of in in two two fa
two uh blocks phase is kind of a bad terminology for it but we generally will grade a site um in in an area and sometimes that grading of that site needs to maybe incorporate one and phase two or maybe phase one through three or
something just on an earthwork balance of of how we do it. So, uh, the grading aspect of it could span a little further than what you would actually take down in what we would call our first edition of the plan. And then we would go in and develop our utilities, our streets, and and ultimately our our finished lots of
that. Um, and those generally would be would be smaller than what we ultimately grade up. Um we would we would develop um each phase or first edition, second edition, third edition. Those those additions generally are developed all
within that that year or what our construction season is here in Minnesota is unfortunately only about 7 8 months worth of construction timing. But uh generally speaking from about May 1st to about Thanksgiving is our development window. So uh generally we would do each
addition each phase that we could what we could actually develop in that that year. >> So would you be having like so would would all the parcels be worked on not necessarily simultaneously but like we're going to build like the single family homes this season then next season we're going to do the town homes
or or is it like we're all parts of the of that section are being worked on simultaneously? They generally are worked on simultaneously. Um we are a finish lot builder. So we would finish like we we we actually don't do the homes themselves nor would we do the apartments but um we look at a
commercial pad like an apartment building very similar to how we would do a single family home. We we developed we get the utilities in there. We we correct the site. We the soils and all that get it up to grade. Uh and then we sell those lots off to a residential
single lot, you know, builder or uh a multifamily apartment builder. Um and so we develop all of those, get the roadway networks in, utilities, all of that stuff in and then sell those off. Um if single family takes off and and they're
chewing up more of those at a faster pace, we may slow down and not develop as much of the town homes or the apartments may slow down a little bit depending on how how those things work out. But um based on the concept before you uh it's very feasible to uh think
that we're going to have all three product types in that first edition if if things still shape out the way they are. So we would develop single family, we would develop some town homes and some apartment pads up there. So >> even though the apartment pads I think
are technically in the phase two, right? But >> if we have an apartment builder that's that's wanting to get in there, absolutely we'll develop those. So, yep. So, yeah, I mean things could shift, right? If those apartments become part
of phase one or or not. I don't want to I don't want to tell you here at a conceptual level that that this phase one is what it's going to be and have the assumption before you that that the apartments are not going to be part of phase one. There's a very good chance that the apartments could be part of phase one. Yep.
So, it looks to be approximately 60 to 70% single family, >> give or take. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> my main my main concern is looking at Great Cloud Island Drive. So, it changes from Third Street in St. Paul Park down
to Great Cloud Island Drive. My biggest concern is going to be if you have 250 acres that you're developing, a thousand new units, two cars per unit, you have 2,000, you know, cars coming in and out of Great Cloud Island Drive. So, the
traffic study would probably be the biggest question mark in my mind when I'm looking at it from a feasibility standpoint. >> Absolutely. And and and you're not wrong to think that, right? And I'm sure the residents around here are have the same same concerns. Those traffic studies um go into a lot of great detail. They
analyze all the intersections nearby. It's not just a snapshot of just this 250 acres, but how do those how do this 250 acres get out to the the major highways and and all the intersections that are affected by all of that. So, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. I don't believe there is a proper
stoplight in St. Paul Park. So, I don't think that there is in Great Cloud Island either. So my thought is if you have a thousand cars added, you know, and this will be over a 5 to 10 year period, no stop lightss, no control, >> it seems problematic just outside
looking in. >> Understood. Yeah, absolutely. Um and in those traffic studies would give recommendations as well. >> Sure. So >> along with that is why I suggested if 95th or 100th if it's feasible to bring that in from the south that's going to
take some working with Cottage Grove obviously but it would alleviate those people that at least wishing to drive south and keep them off of Summit and Third or Summit and Broadway rather because everything's going to lead to there and that's already a problem.
>> Yeah. Our plan uh is to work really closely intimately with with the staff as well as you guys and city council to come up with a plan that works for you guys as well as for us and whatever plan that is and if it's feasibly you know
fiscally possible we're definitely going to you know >> so just out of curiosity when when you're doing the traffic study is the traffic study going to focus on just how do we get these people through St. park or is this traffic study going to say we're going to see how we get people out of the area which would being through
other municipalities. So what what is the study going to do? >> Yeah. So this is step one of even getting to that study. We need to present to our traffic engineers a plan that that shows one our density our
units. From there it deres on what they call the amount of trips. So, a single family is going to have x amount of trips per day. That means a car leaves to go drop a kid off from school, comes back, goes, you know, so on and so forth. An apartment is going to have its number of trips that it's going to have.
And and they're going to be different because a single family generally has more people per home, which increases traffic versus an apartment may have more units in it, but less people in each unit. Um, and so there's numbers
that this is step one in that process. We turn this over to our traffic consultants. They would do one an existing traffic study out there and that's where the they're counting cars. Those are the little strips that you drive over and they come up with the existing data. From there, they look at
all of the intersections, how they function today, how is this impact going to be on the existing infrastructure. If we if we were to do nothing today and we drop in this, what does that look like? >> Well, my question is, like I said, are the engineers going to be looking at how
do we get these people through St. Paul Park or how do we get them out of this area? Meaning looking like are they going north, south, east, west? That's my my question is >> what what is their function or what is are they just saying how can we get as
many of these people out in a orderly fashion or how do we move them through St. Paul Park? Yeah. So, in all of that, they look at patterns that exist today. How do people in St. Paul Park get out of the city today? Where's the driven
traffic today? And with that existing um traffic counts and all of that, they mirror that to if this development came in and we did nothing else to this city, would they mirror that same traffic pattern today? Meaning if there's a thousand cars going up Greycloud Trail
today going north and only 200 going south, they're going to mirror that same principle or that same thought when they drop this in and say that same percentage generally would go in that direction. From there, they come up with recommendations. If we were to do this
at this intersection, it could help traffic flow, which may end up driving people to go that direction. So, is it conceivable that some of these recommendations would involve possibly changes to streets and property that would be in
Great Cloud Island and or Cottage Grove? >> Good. >> Right. The recommendations are they going to be exclusive to St. Paul Park or to the surrounding communities? >> It'll be the surrounding. Yeah. How do you get out to the freeways basically is where they want to what they want to get to. >> I'm because I'm guessing there's some people here want to know whether you know you know what what are we going to
do that's going to impact them. >> Absolutely. Okay. Yeah. >> Any other questions for Mr. Schultz? Otherwise, we can open up the public hearing. >> I just have one quick question. Given the topography and bedrock situation, do you see these homes being on grade or
basement? I mean, your elevation of soil that you'll be moving around. >> Yeah. >> Any idea there? >> Yeah, it's it's all going to come, you know, based on bedrock is where we go. Um bedrock is a challenge. um depends on the the this how how uh difficult the
bedrock is to to penetrate. Um there is bedrock that we can it's you know like a sandstone bedrock that we can go in and you can scrape out pretty easily uh that we can work through. When you get started to get it into the the bedrock of the granates and all of those ones, it's very not financially feasible to go
and start blasting that rock out to create basement. Um, so to answer your question, if we encounter bedrock that is of that density and that hardness, um, there likely would be some sort of shift to be slab on grade type homes,
which national builders have here in the Twin Cities all around. We do we do slab basements um or slab ongrade homes with no basements in them. So >> Okay. Yeah. >> And if a if a company like yourself or anybody else were to go after this kind
project of this scale, is there a time that that the development kind of just falls to no development? And if that happens, what what becomes of it with the changing criteria of, you know, uh
city codes and and MAC codes and all the rest of that? >> Yeah, it's a good question. And it's um you know we hope that there wouldn't be anything that we encounter on this site that would prohibit us from being able
to develop or anybody to come in and privately develop. There are things that come up that we just can't get past. Um there's going to be a certain price point that these builders are going to, you know, purchase lots from us at. Uh once you exceed that, they're going to
start looking elsewhere. Um, we are very driven by what our builders tell us. Uh, which is how a Minnesota company became nationally because we have our builders that say, "Go after this market. We want to be here." And so on and so forth. Uh,
we don't venture off into areas that we don't have partners that are willing to come with us. Um, we don't go off and venture and hope that this thing works out. We've got partners that are saying, "Yes, that's a great site. We would love to be in St. Paul Park. Let's go after
this aggressively. Let's come up with a plan that works for the city, that works for us, and let's get there. What we don't know yet is some of these challenges that we need to overcome. You know, utilities, a lift station likely is going to be required. Uh what kind of bedrock do we have? What kind of what's
the traffic study going to tell us? Um and and all of that. And we start chasing some of this stuff down the road where now we're building roundabouts and putting traffic lights and all of this stuff. at some point the project financially doesn't make sense and maybe it doesn't make sense for us now. Maybe it makes sense for somebody in another
15 years um to do it. Um but we're very optimistic. We're here in front of you because I think this is a great site. We've got partners um that are willing to to come in and and be that builder. Um we're not here just to kind of feel you guys out. This is a serious project.
We have serious partners and we really want to make this project happen. So, >> you mentioned price point. So, I just want Do you have a theoretical shot in a dark kind of price point of >> We don't um it's it's no surprise you look around the Twin Cities, you're not
going to find a single family home brand new in especially in the the what we call the ring of the suburbs here. Um you're not going to find a new home that's that's not $400,000. That's that's the reality what we live in. Um, we obviously are are going to
try and figure out a way uh to keep this in a price point that's attractive especially to new families and those that want to come into St. Paul Park and raise their family here. Um, and we can certainly add amenities, community parks and and uh park, you know, pocket parks
throughout there that are walkable and, you know, people can navigate um without getting in their car to get those those attract families. Uh but we need to be real and realistic that we need to be in a price point that also works for for families and the working families and
those ones that want to be be close by. Um also have product types that um you know maybe somebody that's existing here in in St. Paul Park wants to to move into something that maybe works better for their family at that time. um get out of their maybe their two-story home
and get into a onelevel living type home or something like that that that's brand new, a little less maintenance. Um that attracts those type of people, too. So, >> all right. Thank you. >> No other questions. Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Um
I guess what we can do is we can uh open up the public meeting on this. Um, if anybody would like to come up and speak on uh the subdivision plan, uh, go the dis and address.
My name is Dick Bolt. I live down Greatcloud Township. I'm on a town board down there. And I got a few questions about this. First, you bring up the roads down there. The one you keep calling Greatcloud Island Drive, that's county road. So, you got to deal with the county on that. And our concern would be the county said once you do
anything with that we're going to turn that back over to the city and the township. Well, the portion that keeps going through the township we really don't want because we can't afford Greycloud Trail when you take a left at the Y that's a joint own road it we own
half St. Paul Park owns half. You got involve us in that half. Then I see on the south end of that you show a road coming out to it on the very southeast corner. Well, that's right on a curve there. And we got a problem there with traffic right now with the Mississippi
Dunes development and traffic is increasing more every day down there. People come around there about 40 miles an hour. So, that's really not a good place to be coming out on the road. And then I'd question the drainage and the runoff and that what you're going to do
with it on there cuz I've been down there a long time. And when it rains or the spring comes and the ground and the uh snow melts, that whole southeast corner of that area is filled with water and it don't just soak away right away. Kind of notice you don't have many uh
what do you want to call it? Ponds for water to go and I know runoff has already been brought up. So that's kind of our biggest concerns. uh when you do your traffic study, better take into concern Mississippi Dunes, the the Cottage Grove development
cuz that's, you know, they told us, well, most of that traffic was going to go up 103rd Street, up under Dead Man's Hill or 103rd Street. Well, it's not. I live down there and most of the people down there, you come through St. Paul Park and out and you come back the other way. Um,
so traffic is a big concern down there and I don't know what you do with Great Cloud Trail. Uh, we're not interested in putting any money into it for a St. Paul Parks developer, you know. Uh, so would you guys be redoing the whole street or what? Cuz the street is not adequate
right now for what you're proposing. It's just barely adequate for what Mississippi Dunes put into it. Um, that's probably the key things. Uh the bedrock, I'd suggest before you put too much money into it, you go drill the whole site and take a look at it because
there's places of rock sticking out of the ground. Other places you might have four or five feet of dirt. So you might be able to save a lot of money by just looking at it right off the the get-go. So that's about our concern. And like I say, you got to be you be dealing with
us in a road and uh you know, unless you want to take take the whole road over, we'll give you our half cuz we don't really want to maintain it anyway. In fact, we just went through quite a rigomearo between us, St. Paul Park, and Cottage Grove on the Mississippi Dunes
on doing damage to it. You know, we had to come to a joint agreement between the three municipalities on who's going to fix it. So, I'm sure we'll have the same thing when you come in there. So that's about it. >> Thank you.
>> Did you want to address the I mean is that something that that is appropriate to address now like runoff and stuff like that or is that just is that a future >> this project will meet all the requirements of the state of Minnesota, the local wersheds, the city? >> Okay.
Any other comments from members of the public concerning the uh concept plan? >> Any other questions or comments from council or >> I I just see this as being a big project, you know, and that's I think
everyone is looking at and they're thinking about um all all the questions I think we have the infrastructure, you know, drainage, sewage, uh traffic, you know, it's all pretty much on top of the table right there. the I don't know you can maybe just five items right you know
traffic drainage sewage electricity um do we need to put a a road in as wide as a four-lane road for for traffic to go in and out >> what's it going to be like going on off the freeway what's it going to be >> and that'll be part of the traffic study
>> all right well seeing no other members of the public wanting to comment I'm going to close the public hearing >> oh do it from here. >> Well, but they can't hear you. So, Mr. Pock, jump up there. Yeah. >> I just questioned I just questioned the
impact on St. Paul Parks uh police, public works and stuff. Like I was with your public works guy and he said, you know, he says we don't have the infrastructure or the capability to take care of that addition. So, we're going to need a new public works building, more equipment, more stuff. uh talked to
one of your guys in the fire department and he said anything so high we don't have fire trucks and equipment to you know to adequately protect that. So they're looking at uh fire trucks and equipment. He says and our fire station ain't big enough for anything more. So I
just look at what's the cost going to be to St. Paul Park. You know there's you got them additional costs headed your way too. >> Well no you're right with when you grow there's some pain right. I get that. Yeah. >> Yeah. And then you know where would you like I had I he was kind of laughing he
said I see a nice spot right there for the new public works building you know well unless there's space for that where else would you put one in the city I mean you hear people talking about well other spaces we use density and this and that St. Paul Park don't have a lot of other spaces you know there isn't a
whole lot of vacant area in St. Paul Park to be putting additional homes or densities and expand your densities out. So, >> okay. >> All right. There's no other comments from the members of the public. I'm
going to close the public hearing. So, I guess it's up to commission members and our our visiting council member if you have any comments, concerns, or things we want to or messages or ideas we want to give to the uh the applicant.
Personally, I think that it was presented pretty well for the conceptual project that it's, you know, stands to be. And I so a lot of legitimate questions and I'm trusting that you wrote those down and um you talked about
engineers and all the other people with the smart pens and they should be able to put the ink to paper and come up with some good solutions with uh the things that were brought forward. My only thought would be that, you know,
given kind of, and you wouldn't know this, some of the issues we've had in the city with the Geneva development, which is if you're serious and if you're going to come in and you're going to work on this property,
it would probably be appreciated and it would probably go a lot smoother if we had a a more detailed idea of what you want to do and what lengths to which you're going to have to prep this site. Um,
our development right now, they were they've hauled in I an unimaginable number of trucks and amount of dirt into their site to deal with, you know, the rock and just leveling it out. So, um, a lot of people felt like we weren't quite
informed as to so the extent and the nature of of what it was going to take to prep that site. So, um, if you guys are going to have a development plan, maybe sharing it with the planning commission, the city council, Mr.
Sparks, like what's a realistic sort of timetable and sort of what's going to happen? what do we need to do to prep this site? Um because it's caused a lot of real I don't want to use the word problems.
It's caused a lot of people to be quite upset um and to really kind of have some bad feeling about development and about expanding the city and expanding, you know, our housing stock. So, anything you could do to kind of give us a heads up, to give us some kind of indication
of what it's going to take the development of this site would be probably well, I'm going to say it's going to be appreciative. I I I don't know that we're how much we can demand, but I think it would be really helpful um to see this project be successful and and to see it get supported by the
community. >> Other thoughts, other comments? I guess you know um you know we can't keep it uh we can't hold back development forever you know um and I guess looking at this if they are going to put apartments on down here
in the future I guess down this way I would rather see him down kind of where he has them on on the on the map right now rather than mixing live with the small homes that we have right now you
Um I don't know. >> Well, it's a question of where you want the density, right? That's what Mr. Sparks was saying, right? Which is, you know, at some point we have to have so many units per acre. We have to have so much development in our city. We have to figure out where we want it, right? So
this is an opportunity >> to place some density in a development that is appropriate to the area, appropriate to the space, isn't nec it it it it doesn't necessarily, you know, stand out against the the properties
that are around it. So it's it's it's a reasonable uh accommodation. All right. Um well, unless there's any more comments or concerns, if anybody has questions for the builder, Mr. Sparks, um we can move on to
the next agenda item, which is new business. Anybody have any new business they want to discuss? Uh we don't have any uh staff reports. Uh to the best of my knowledge, we have no unfinished business. So, seeing as that there's nothing left
on the agenda, I guess I would be looking for a motion to adjurnn. Have a >> motion to adjurnn. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Thank you. That voice in the distance.
Uh, this meeting is adjourned.