STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Speaker numbers apply only to this recording. Names come from transcript evidence. “Possibly” marks uncertain attribution.
Mayor Tim Litfin and Council Member Derek Siddons were absent. Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Grengs called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM and adjourned it at 7:00 PM. The central focus of the evening was a public hearing on an annexation petition, which was ultimately tabled to the April 20, 2026 meeting. The Council also awarded the Downtown Phase 4 reconstruction contract, initiated the preliminary work for the 2027 Sugarbush Neighborhood Street Construction Project, and approved a 13-item consent agenda.
Welcome everyone. I'll call the meeting to order. March second, twenty twenty-six as the Mayor Pro Tem with Mayor Lidfin and Council Member Siddons absent. If you'll all rise and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. Once this catches up with me, you see it highlighted in red here on the screen. Uh property is you see County Road 10 kind of on the west side here. We'll zoom into this. County Road 10 on the west side, country ponds here on the east side, community drive, and then the high school to the south. So everything in red is what's being proposed for annexation. Um comp plan guides the property as medium density residential. So think about you know, there's a couple of concepts that were included in your packet, but it's usually around four to twelve units per acre. Uh generally, when people say what does that mean? Usually I tell them townhomes, you know, just to give them a ballpark idea. The one property that isn't included in the application, which has kind of been the the crux of the conversation I've had with the property owners, uh, both this property owner and the surrounding property owners about annexation is 1705 Wilconia Parkway cell. So that wasn't included in this application uh petition for annexation. So process for annexation, right? Um you can petition for annexation if you're directly adjacent and utilities are are close, right? You could be served by those utilities. Then it goes into review and consideration by the township, and then we hold a public hearing, which is what we're doing this evening at the council level. And then if the annexation is approved, then we would submit that to the state to formalize or actually bring that property into the city limits. So in the conversations I've had with the uh property owners and the developers as part of this property, I told them it was a little premature to bring forward this application until we figured out that central piece. When you look at it from a comp plan standpoint and you think about it as part of efficient and compact growth, this really isn't reflecting that. Really kind of annexing a donut and leaving that central parcel. It just it causes conflicts not only from code enforcement standpoint from a city standpoint, but also from a county standpoint. I had some conversation with my counterpart in Carver County. He had some similar concerns. If it's an ag zoning and you guys are packing in four, you know, 12, four to twelve units per acre directly adjacent, and it could be a farm use and never comes into the city limits, we would run into ongoing complaints. So you know, in working with them, you know, even at that direction, they decided to come forward this evening with this annexation request. So it has gone to the township. The township has reviewed the information and they were okay with it. They said, Yeah, you can go ahead and annex that property if you like. They did that on January 29th, and then in working with the Summergate team, they indicated that this was the best date for them, would be March 2nd. So we're bringing it here on public hearing. We noticed it in the paper. We sent out some notices. We only received one comment, which was included in your packet. Um, and so tonight, really, there's you hold the public hearing, and then there's two options would be a recommendation of denial of the application based on kind of what I was talking about. Otherwise, there is the joint resolution, right? That's in the packet that was considered by the township on the 29th of January.