This transcript is from a **Planning Commission** meeting (not a City Council meeting), as identified in the opening statement. Based on the dialogue and the roll call provided at [12:15] and [1:05:55], the participants are **Chair David Rody**, Commissioners **Windshuttle**, **Teske**, **Snowback**, and **Berg**, Planning Staff member **Tony**, and Applicant **Steve Trosky** from Lennar. [0:13] [Music] [0:37] [Music] [0:44] **Chair David Rody:** All right, we'll call the meeting to order. On behalf of the Planning Commission, I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of March 11th, 2025. On tonight's agenda, we have three discussion items. Before we get into those, we have one housekeeping item, and that would be the minutes from our February 11th regular meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? [1:18] **Commissioner Berg:** I'll make a motion. [1:20] **Chair David Rody:** Have a motion for approval. Is there a second? [1:22] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Second. [1:24] **Chair David Rody:** Motion and second. All in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). Minutes are approved. I mentioned we have three discussion items; they're listed on the agenda. With the commission's permission, I'd like to just modify the agenda and we'll move 4.1 to the end so that the applicant has time to arrive and be part of the discussion. Is that acceptable? All right. Is that acceptable with staff? [1:36] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Yes, sir. [1:40] **Chair David Rody:** All right, then we'll move on to the second one, which is the Vermillion Commons fifth edition final plat. Tony, you're going to take this? [1:42] **Tony (Planning Staff):** I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair, commission members. Before you this evening is the final plat for Vermillion Commons Fifth Edition. Lennar is the applicant, and they are seeking review and approval of the final plat for said fifth edition. The edition is located to the southeast of the Vermillion Commons Fourth Edition and just to the west of the intersection of Denmark Avenue and 220th Street West, as shown on the location map up on the screen. The red area is the portion that is being requested to be final platted this evening. The plat itself consists of 66 townhome lots spread over 7.25 acres of land. It is consistent with the approved preliminary plat. The preliminary plat also contains 67 single-family lots; these single-family lots were final platted as the fourth edition of Vermillion Commons last year. The property is zoned R3, which is our medium-density residential zoning district, and it's part of a planned unit development (PUD) again, which was approved last year. The PUD does allow for some deviations for the townhome-specific area—specifically private streets within the R3 zone and reduced width of the private streets. Typically those are at 26 feet; what was approved with the PUD is to reduce that down to 24 feet. The final plat does contain 12 outlots. Those outlots are labeled A through L. Outlot A contains the private road or roads which service the development, and the remaining outlots consist of common area that surrounds the townhome units. These areas will remain under control of the HOA as well as ownership of the HOA. This is the plat showing the layout of the townhome lots and the private streets. As far as transportation and parking access for this addition, it will come from two access points along 218th Street West. The first one would be on the north side of the development and the second near the southwest corner. As I had previously mentioned, all streets within the fifth edition are private and will have a width of 24 feet. Temporary access is shown extending from Rose Drive, which is that main north-south road through the townhome development, out to 220th Street West. This will provide a secondary emergency access for both the fourth and fifth editions. As 218th Street in the townhome development directly to the east, they will not be constructing 218th Street connecting into the fourth and fifth edition. We had this discussion with the fourth edition because of the gas pipelines that run through that property, and one of those pipelines is set to be decommissioned within a year or two, and it's just not cost-effective right now for them to put in a street just to have it ripped up in a year to do that work. So this additional access will help with providing a secondary or emergency access for the fourth and fifth editions. Code requires that 132 off-street parking spaces be provided with the fifth edition; that is two parking stalls per townhome dwelling. Each townhome unit will have a double car garage as well as additional parking provided on the driveway. Additionally, the developer is providing 26 off-street visitor parking spaces throughout the addition as well, so they're well in advance of meeting those requirements. As far as parks, trails, and sidewalks: a acre-and-a-half parcel was deeded to the city with the fourth edition. This is Outlot A of Vermillion Commons Fourth. This met the park dedication requirement for the entire preliminary plat, which does include the fifth edition. So with that, no additional park dedication or cash-in-lieu will be required with this particular final plat. And then as far as the sidewalk, there's a 5-foot sidewalk that will be provided in the fourth edition, specifically on the south and east side of 218th Street, essentially adjacent to this development, which will service the townhome units. The engineering department has reviewed the Vermillion Commons Fifth Edition final plat and recommend approval upon satisfaction of all engineering comments related to the construction plans for grading and utilities, as well as the developer entering into a development contract with the city and security fees and costs paid. So with that, I'll stand for any questions. [6:30] **Chair David Rody:** Tony, before we ask the applicant developer to come up here, can you just explain to the commission the process or progress of 220th Street being asphalted? And you know, 218th is going to tie into it someday, and it's going to be a pretty important intersection. [6:53] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Yep. Our city engineer has been working with Eureka Township. It is a town line road, so half of the road is in the township. We are working with them to pave the road; it'll likely be a rural section and also put utilities, specifically water for looping of our system, in that right-of-way. I believe they are going out for final construction drawings here relatively soon, so the anticipation is it should be happening relatively soon as far as the work out there. [7:26] **Chair David Rody:** Okay, and the length of it will be to the end of this development then? [7:29] **Tony (Planning Staff):** I believe that is correct. [7:31] **Chair David Rody:** Okay, thank you very much. Anything else from the commission yet for staff? If not, Mr. Trosky, do you have anything to add to the staff report? [7:39] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** No, I feel far away, though. [7:41] **Chair David Rody:** Yeah, come on up closer. You're always so shy and quiet, so please join us. [7:46] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** No one's ever called me quiet. I have nothing to add. I don't think he has anything to add. [7:53] **Chair David Rody:** All right, we'll start. And I suspect you're going to have questions because I have a couple for you, but so if you stay available... Commissioner Teske? [8:15] **Commissioner Teske:** Yeah, no, I think this looks good. I just had questions about the pipeline and finishing it out, but I don't have questions now that you cleared it up because you reminded me that we had talked about this at length. So thank you. [8:21] **Chair David Rody:** Commissioner Windshuttle? [8:21] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** I got none. That was part of my question. [8:24] **Chair David Rody:** Commissioner Snowback? [8:24] **Commissioner Snowback:** I'm good, thank you. [8:25] **Chair David Rody:** Commissioner Berg? [8:26] **Commissioner Berg:** Just one quick question. I know at a previous meeting there were some residents here that had questions around dust and road mitigation while the construction was going on. I assume that was all... I think we had a discussion about that. I think they had some questions about added landscaping and screening. [8:48] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Right. I believe Lennar has been in contact with them. [8:53] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Steve Trosky, Lennar. It's great to be here without a coat on. So the neighbor to the immediate southeast of Vermillion Commons Fifth Edition was concerned about visual disruption, so Lennar is financing a solid fence for her. So we're going to pick that up, and she's going to pick the color and schedule her own contractor; we're going to write the check. So she seems to be very pleased with that and we're happy we found a solution. As far as noise and dust, general engineering and construction best practices—there was nothing specific to this addition, but whatever happened on the previous editions of Vermillion Commons would probably happen here as well. [9:25] **Commissioner Berg:** Okay, thank you. That's all I had. [9:29] **Chair David Rody:** Any other...? Okay, good. And Steve, we appreciate that. You know, I know Miss... I remember the young lady. I'm glad you worked with her. I mean, that's something we required or left it up to you to work with, and I appreciate you doing that. Could you give us a little timing of this phase and what your plans are? [10:00] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Yes. So we've got some more earthwork to do in the fourth edition. We were delayed due to some trout stream environmental issues. So we're going to come in and put 218th in, and then our hope is to build fourth and fifth editions at the same time. I don't know what the cards may hold there. The townhomes here will be the exact same as the rest of the Vermillion Commons addition. I think we all know they're doing well; we're happy we're moving on this quickly. As far as timing, you know what, our development folks that are out in the field, they hit it hard starting last week. So it's going to be expedited, but I don't have a specific date for you other than as soon as possible. [10:46] **Chair David Rody:** And just as a reminder of the commission and to the viewers, you know it's a fifth edition. The first four or three that I'm familiar with—the fourth one's going to be starting—have went well. Sounds like the product's being received well by people of the community and people from outside the community. You know, my concerns were again the residents, existing residents, the one you called to the southeast, you know, right next door to the fifth. And then the road getting done and getting done to the extent to the end of the development so somebody else in the future doesn't have to pick that up. So I appreciate that. I don't have any other questions. I appreciate it. All right, let's look at this. This is a final plat, so Tony, this is going to be a recommendation to our city council. So with that, is there a motion? [11:45] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Motion to approve. [11:47] **Chair David Rody:** We have a motion for a favorable recommendation to our city council. Tony's listed it with two contingencies. Is there a second? [11:53] **Commissioner Berg:** I'll second. [11:55] **Chair David Rody:** Have a motion and second. Call the roll, please. [12:15] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Windshuttle? **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yes. **Tony (Planning Staff):** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. **Tony (Planning Staff):** Rody? **Chair David Rody:** Yes. **Tony (Planning Staff):** Snowback? **Commissioner Snowback:** Yes. **Tony (Planning Staff):** Berg? **Commissioner Berg:** Yes. [12:21] **Chair David Rody:** All right. So our first applicant's not here yet, so we're going to keep going in order then. This one is the Harris property concept plan and, again, it's Lennar proposing this. Bear with me while I get this set up here. All right. [12:44] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Yes, thank you. This is a concept plan submitted by Lennar for the property generally known as the Harris property. This property is located directly south of the Mystic Meadows subdivision and is shown in red here on this location map. You can see Mystic Meadows is directly north with Parkview Ponds and 195th Street north of that as well. So you have the railroad tracks that are adjacent to the east. The property consists of two parcels of land totaling just over 153 acres. The parcels were annexed in 2022 as part of the incorporation of Empire Township as a city. The parcels contain approximately 20 acres of wetland and 3 acres of floodplain due to the North Creek tributary. This is a copy of the concept plan. We've gone through a couple different iterations of this to get to this point, just with discussions with the applicant over time on various components of the plan itself. The plan shows a total of 297 single-family lots. The lots range in width from 55 feet up to 75 feet. The breakdown of those lots: for 55-foot wide lots, there's 163; for the 65-foot wide lots shown, 129; and there are five that are 75-foot wide lots, and those are lots that are actually located within the Shoreland area. Lot area varies from 7,100 feet up to 8,400. The setbacks are the standard setbacks for our R1/R2 district; that would be a front yard setback of 20 feet, side and rear of 6 feet. As I had mentioned, five of the lots are shown in the Shoreland of the Middle Creek tributary. These five lots are required to have a minimum lot width of 75 feet per code, and impervious surface coverage of these lots may not exceed 25% lot area. Now, that's impervious surface coverage, so that includes everything from driveway to anything that does not let water go directly into the ground. It's different than our building coverage requirement that you typically see with our site plans or things like that, so I want to make you aware of that. But that is a contingency of being in the Shoreland. As far as comprehensive plan and zoning, the properties are zoned and comprehensively guided as agricultural currently. Rezoning the properties to likely an R2 low-medium density residential would be required. The development would also have to be processed as a PUD in order to address the 55-foot wide lots. Typically, our R2 district allows a minimum of 60-foot wide lot, so there's that deviation there. Comprehensive plan amendment would be required as well and would include basically three items: land use guidance change from agricultural to low-medium density residential; incorporate the properties within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA); and place the properties within a developed staging timeframe of 2020 to 2030. Parks and trails: a 9.7-acre park is shown in the northwest corner of the concept plan. The park location and size has been found acceptable by the city's Park and Recreation Commission. They actually reviewed and discussed that at their last meeting in February. Trails for the county greenway are shown along the eastern boundary of the site adjacent to the railroad, as well as bisecting the center portion of the development going east and west. The city is currently working with Dakota County on a preferred alignment for those trails. The location of those trails will likely shift or could shift based on conversations that are ongoing with the county. We actually just met with them again today to talk about another portion of this—not specifically here, but south of here for that greenway. As far as transportation is concerned, the plan shows the extension of both Delwood Avenue and Deerbrook Path south from the Mystic Meadow neighborhood into the proposed development. Diamond Path will need to be extended south and connect to this development. Staff is suggesting that the northernmost and southernmost east-west road connect to Diamond Path. Specifically, staff is going to recommend that based on... if you just do the north connection, you still have a potential of cutting off basically that southern half of that development. It would be very difficult. The way this property is located, it provides some challenges from a transportation network circulation and even emergency service standpoint. So that's something that we'll certainly have to work with Lennar on if this moves forward. So the action requested this evening is to review and provide feedback to staff and the developer regarding the attached concept plan. So I'll move it back to that. [17:39] **Chair David Rody:** All right, thank you, Tony. Mr. Trosky, anything to add to this one? [17:42] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Steve Trosky, Lennar. Thank you. I'm hoping this can just kind of be an open dialogue. I think that'll be best for certainly me, just to talk through the issues. I do want to start out by saying we have put a lot of thought into this. We did meet with the Parks Commission; there were some members of the public at that meeting. So we've tried to take in their feedback, and we understand it's a very challenging site. There's a pipeline, there's a creek, there's a river, there's a required bike trail from Dakota County, there are some topographic challenges. So I'm sharing all that to say the site looks a little unique the way it's broken up, but unfortunately, that's the way it has to go with the unique characteristics of the site. So we're happy to be here with this project with the new community. So with that, I'd open it up for questions. [18:38] **Chair David Rody:** All right. Bill, you want to start? [19:24] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Sure. Where to begin? Looking at it from a traffic standpoint, you know, and I think Tony and staff brought up a good point that Diamond Path has to be connected to this development somehow. You look at Deerbrook Path; it's a wide road to begin with and then, you know, from where it dead-ends there north is a wide street, wider than normal. And where your development starts, it starts to narrow. So there's a concern there of the traffic, the number of vehicles going in and out of there. And looking at this map, unless I'm missing something, so to the east, they would basically have to go south and then hit some of these cul-de-sac streets to get to go back north to Deerbrook. They would have to go basically through the entire neighborhood to get out. [20:10] **Tony (Planning Staff):** That was also one of the reasons why staff was looking at that southern road connection as well because, again, the only way you're going to get that very eastern portion or southern portion... you know, even from an emergency services standpoint, if either one of those roads to the north are blocked, how do you get in and out? It is a concern. [21:18] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** So if you're looking at Deerbrook Path just north of where this development would start, there's that... it's a path there now, but looking at this, it looks like it's going to be a connector road to the east of this development? [21:30] **Tony (Planning Staff):** It could potentially be. [21:32] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Why doesn't that just get developed within this? [21:34] **Tony (Planning Staff):** It is a separate property owner who at this point has no interest in selling property. [21:40] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** We did reach out to them to acquire the land and they said no. [21:42] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Even that small portion? [21:43] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Correct. [21:44] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** And you know, I guess looking at face value what I'm looking at here, there certainly is concerns on traffic in and out. That's my biggest take from it because I just... you take this development all the way in and you only have one way in and one way out, maybe an additional south street, but I feel like somehow there should be an exit on the east side through that development or that other land area there. [22:15] **Tony (Planning Staff):** There likely won't be any access out to the east just because of the railroad, unless you build a bridge or something. [22:25] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yeah, and that certainly just isn't feasible from an amount of land it would take to do that, as well as approval from the railroad to do that. [22:31] **Tony (Planning Staff):** So if you live on this far eastern edge, though, your only way in and out is down Deerbrook and then through that whole queue, all those cul-de-sacs and streets? Correct. And again, that's why staff is looking at that very southern access connecting out to Diamond Path as well. And again, that's still a long route to get out, but yeah. [23:17] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Well, even the further furthest furthest east northeast part there where it literally dead-ends. You know, then you look at that as a public safety issue there, you know, as far as firetrucks and stuff getting there. How are they ever going to get turned around? A police... you know, it's almost like, you know, like we've done in other developments—you vacate two or three of those lots just to make it a turnaround at the very least, a cul-de-sac. I'll have more questions I'm sure, but we can move on. [24:02] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Typically what we would see with where it basically terminates—that area you're referring to—typically what we do is they either put in a temporary cul-de-sac or temporary hammerheads until that connects up to the north typically. [24:12] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** But is that property owner going to give...? [24:14] **Tony (Planning Staff):** You would have to do that on your own property unless you're able to get an easement from the property to the north. Likelihood, two or three of those lots may be temporarily a turnaround until it goes through. [24:26] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Right right here. If there's an opportunity to dig into the second access to Diamond Path, I'd welcome that conversation. There are some financial challenges and land ownership challenges in doing that. So when we... when you feel it's appropriate, Chair, I'd like to get into that if possible. [24:48] **Chair David Rody:** Is the land to the west of the park area...? There's nothing with that as of now? The owners are just leaving...? [25:12] **Tony (Planning Staff):** No, that's all owned by the Murphy family. And as of right now, I don't know that they've expressed any immediate interest in development. I think they'd be willing to listen and entertain a conversation, but I don't know that they've expressed dire interest in development right now. [25:34] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** So realistically, there's no way to get a road connected to Diamond Path because we'd be going through their property? [25:40] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Well, again, unless you obtain an easement from them to do so. [25:43] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Which we have. They've committed to selling us the required land for both the collector right-of-way and a construction easement. [25:52] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** One connection through their property? [25:54] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Just one. [25:54] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** That northern one? [25:55] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Correct. [25:56] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yeah, you know, then you add the park in there with people coming and going to that. And I believe, Steve, is there a traffic study being currently done as part of this? [26:11] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Correct. So due to the size of the community, state law requires an environmental assessment study on it, which includes environmental study, state historic preservation study, traffic study, etc. So that's going to be a required document that will funnel from the city then up through the state of Minnesota and back down before we have permission to put a shovel in the ground. So traffic will be a major component of that. [26:38] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Traffic study will be, and I would be certainly interested to see what that data shows. You know, and coming from somebody that lives in the neighborhood, you know, from a city perspective too, I think it's important that the residents out there know what's going on because there were these cameras on poles and people had no clue what they were. The city didn't know. So somewhere in between, the miscommunication certainly raised red flags for people living out there. [27:05] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** We do have a traffic sub-consultant that is doing the necessary research. I don't know the specifics on how they do their analysis. [27:12] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** They just had them attached to the stop signs? [27:15] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Okay. [27:16] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** And they were decent-sized poles. You know, you could look at it and see there was a camera sticking out of it. [27:20] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Okay. [27:21] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** But I'm just from the perspective of the community and letting people know what's going on and that the development is, you know, in the early stages and that there are cameras out there, you know, is certainly something they'd like to know. That's it for now, thank you. [27:35] **Chair David Rody:** Opportunity again, Bill, if you need to. Christa, how about you? [27:38] **Commissioner Teske:** Yeah, so much like Commissioner Windshuttle, I have some concerns around transportation and just the access to and from the development, considering the density and quantity of homes in the area. So that's one of my bigger concerns. A lot of that area is wetland off to the east; is that correct? [28:22] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Today? I mean, there's a significant amount. Correct. [28:24] **Commissioner Teske:** Right, there is. And so are we adding fill to...? [28:30] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Not to the wetland. [28:31] **Commissioner Teske:** Okay. And then they'll be slab-on-grade type of homes or...? [28:35] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** I can't answer that. We're too early in the process. There will be a mix—there'll be a mix of sizes, price ranges, garage stalls, etc. [28:41] **Commissioner Teske:** And then my other question is with regard to the railroad and and the homes—is there any sound additional soundproofing added to these homes when they're built? [28:51] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** So a sound study as part of the EA study that is being analyzed right now. [28:55] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Can I interrupt you there? Because North Creek butts up to the railroad further north, and in hindsight, I think the commission could have required a berm or some kind of sound... there is a berm out there; it's not overly right. I mean, the residents that live up against it, it just isn't sufficient enough. So I think if this proceeds, Christa, I think if you could remember that, I think that might be something good because you don't know who the people will be, but they will need something. I mean, the residents out in North Creek, they certainly hear it, and unfortunately, the trains idle—they sit and idle in that location—and so they're loud. And I think in hindsight, that would have been smarter, but you will hear it. [29:43] **Commissioner Teske:** So I'm just wondering about that. And then, oh, my other question was, the studies, the traffic studies—do you know when they'll be completed? [29:53] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** No. [29:54] **Commissioner Teske:** Okay, that's it. [29:56] **Chair David Rody:** What are they looking for in the traffic study? Do you know as far as is it just counting vehicles or is it types of vehicles, speeds? [30:14] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** So all of the above. So in the engineering manuals that those folks have when they do their analysis, they've done studies that say each type of home generates or attracts a certain number of vehicular trips per home per day—A.M., P.M., noon time, all of the above. And so what they do is they say 297 homes is going to generate X trips in the morning, X trips in the evening, X trips on the weekend, etc. And then they figure out, based on the road layout within that community and what's existing in the neighborhood, how are those trips, those vehicles, going to get out into the community, to the larger community—Target, grocery shopping, school, etc. So what the end result of the traffic study is, is essentially how heavily are each intersections going to be traveled at specific times during the day. So, you know, the goal is you don't want a 25-car backup at a stop sign, and the traffic study will analyze that and say, "Hey, if you have it, you need to move this or add another intersection or something like that." So it's really driven by the number of homes in a community; that's the main driver of all the data. [31:16] **Chair David Rody:** So with that study, are they studying 195th and Deerbrook, that connection point? [31:21] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** They would be studying every intersection. [31:23] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** There was a camera there. [31:24] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** There was a camera there. Okay. [31:25] **Chair David Rody:** Completely different question now. Those five homes that have Shoreline—what... can you define that a little bit? Because I know we've dealt in our community with water bodies of water and people building beaches and things of that nature, so can you just help me understand what that means? [32:17] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Shoreland is the... the beaches and whatnot that are around the stormwater ponds do not have a Shoreland because it's not a water of the state. In this instance, the Shoreland is typically... I think it's a 300-foot buffer, if you will, from the various tributaries that we have within the community, and five of the lots happen to fall within that. We have a zoning ordinance for Shoreland, and that's where we get into the minimum lot width, the total impervious coverage, those type of things. Those standards then become in place if they are to develop in that area. [32:55] **Chair David Rody:** Okay, very good. That's it? [33:00] **Commissioner Teske:** Yep. [33:01] **Chair David Rody:** There'll be another opportunity for you if you have any. Mitch, how about you? [33:04] **Commissioner Snowback:** Just interested: the ponds, are those existing ponds or will some of those be created as stormwater ponds? [33:14] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** They will all be created. [33:16] **Commissioner Snowback:** Okay. And then the reasoning for going down to 55-foot lots—what was the background on that? You guys have any background? [33:24] **Tony (Planning Staff):** I think they're just looking to get a variety of home types within the development. [33:30] **Commissioner Snowback:** Then one last question is what was the Parks and Rec discussion about? Was it the placement of the land or amount of land? [33:38] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Mainly the placement of the land; that was the biggest concern. If you don't know, the city did a master plan for the Mystic Meadows Park back in 2006, I believe it was, or 2008—one of the two—for a larger community park that would service this entire area. That plan is... it's outdated now, and I believe that the Park and Rec Commission will likely do an update to that plan. Basically, it was to account for I think 40 acres of land in total: 20 coming from this Harris property and 20 coming from the Murphy property. The Park and Rec Commission is fine taking less land than that because if we went any more, we would actually have to purchase land in order to accommodate that. What's being shown here is consistent with what we would be requiring for park dedication. So really, it boiled down to the location, and that was the biggest discussion last month with the Park and Rec Commission, was the location. And this is the location that the Park and Rec Commission ultimately wanted and Lennar has agreed to it at this time. [35:10] **Commissioner Snowback:** So is it partly due to the location next to the pre-existing community, is that why that's where they were looking at? [35:16] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Well, it's that, and we can still acquire additional land when the Murphy property to the west develops. So you can still have a larger park, albeit probably not as large as originally envisioned with that master plan from the mid-2000s. [35:34] **Commissioner Snowback:** Well, thank you, appreciate it. [35:36] **Chair David Rody:** Andy? [35:41] **Commissioner Berg:** Yeah, I think along with the traffic questions, my questions are really around the construction timing when it comes to that. What I mean is, are all the construction equipment coming down Deerbrook, or is the plan to build an access road off of Diamond Path prior to construction of those properties? [36:00] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** It would be the latter. At the beginning, as they begin to construct Diamond Path and the connection, there may be some vehicles down Deerbrook, but after the connection is made out to Diamond Path, we would sign that no construction traffic whatsoever. [36:18] **Commissioner Berg:** I think that would be something for me I'd want to see pretty well put in place before any construction began, just to limit the amount of construction traffic coming down Deerbrook—a very busy residential street. Okay, that's all I had. [36:34] **Chair David Rody:** Derek? All right. Steve, I'm going to have one comment then one question, and then I'll let you get into what you wanted to talk to the commission about. But my comment is geared more towards... I'm glad you want to develop it, but you know, sometimes development could and should occur naturally so that it's kind of contiguous and you got good traffic flow and not concerns. You heard some, or most, of the commissioners have a little bit of issue with traffic and the inability to build roads because there's another parcel there that I know you don't own and I know you've worked with them, but sometimes it becomes an issue. So then my question is, and you run the numbers and you got a lot of people that you work with that run the numbers: Is this project feasible with all the roadwork that you're looking to do? [37:48] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Is it feasible with all the roadwork? Yes, it is. [37:51] **Chair David Rody:** Okay, because I mean, it seems like quite a bit just to get it... and you know, I mean you're going out and everything else. But that's something you guys got to do. I just... when you started looking at, when I started looking at, all the roads got to be... I go, "Man, there's quite a bit and you're going through other properties and all that." And you know, to me again back to my first comment is that if the development would happen to the property to the west, which you know you referred to as the Murphy, that would make this so much easier. Then I think the commission wouldn't have some of the issues that you're hearing tonight. But I know you want to get into your comments on what you've been working on and how you've been working through it. [38:34] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Well, thank you. Thank you for the honest feedback here. We were expecting some of this. If we could acquire the Murphy property tomorrow, we'd do it. So it's not a matter of not wanting it or a financial issue; we would like it. And the owner's aware of that; they've been working with our acquisition folks on the right-of-way and things like that. So I'm not necessarily privy to all those discussions—I'm a city guy, not a land acquisition, so forgive me for not having all the details. We could only develop what's for sale, and this property happens to be for sale with a willing seller. We would like the Murphy property, we'd like the property to the north, we'd like the property to the south; we would take it all if it was available on the market. Unfortunately, it's not, so we need to progress through the challenges of the location of this site. When it comes to the access to Diamond Path on a property that we do not control, there's a couple issues at play that are really important. Financially, the first is it's general good practice to not build a road and just leave it there and say, "All right, we're done," because then the next developer comes in and says, "Free road!" The landowner says, "My property just increased by 20% because now I have better access." So the folks that are smarter than me and the attorneys come up with ways to say, "All right, we will front the money to build the road, and then there's either a reimbursement as the property sells or we have a first right of refusal or some other mix of options" that I just don't know right now. And so Lennar wouldn't be building the road and then walking away; there would be some sort of tie-in with the hope to acquire that land as soon as possible. That's the goal here. The owner knows it, it's not a secret. When it comes to a secondary access to the south, there's a couple more issues that are more challenging. The first is we have been given the right to develop one collector road out to Diamond Path. That collector is about 1,200 linear feet, about $1,000 a linear foot to build, plus the land acquisition cost of doing that. So just the one east-west road connection is about a million and a half bucks, give or take, plus you have to build Diamond Path. So if you want a secondary road to the south, which will be built when it's developed, hopefully sooner rather than later, you'd have to acquire another right of access from the property owner, which we don't have. You'd have about another million and a half dollars that would go onto this community. So that's about $6,800 per home just for another road; the price would increase plus whatever the cost of the Diamond Path extension is. So the little swoop—you can see the yellow dashed line kind of swoops up north to connect into that drive that's there—that's good because it connects into it'll make a full intersection, but also it shortens the need to build Diamond Path. No one's going to use it until it connects all the way down to the south. So if you have another connection all the way on the south side to Diamond Path, you're really talking about millions and millions and millions of dollars of infrastructure cost that the project simply can't support. I think there's things that Lennar would be willing to talk through with staff and the leaders here. We tried to avoid crossing that wetland in the northeast corner—that kind of the L-shaped wetland that was brought up earlier. You can't get permission to fill in a wetland for a residential community; you can't do it. It's just not even an option, right? So we need to design our communities to avoid that as best as possible. That's why we have one very small crossing in the far southeast corner of that L-shaped wetland in order to access some of those homes on the northeast side. I think that we could build in another segment of road from the yellow off of Deerbrook straight east to those orange lots. (Mouse points) So can you see the mouse? Yeah, so kind of in this general area here potentially that would be an option that we could certainly consider to get access there in lieu of a second road out to Diamond Path. Our hope is that the Murphy parcel will be developed or acquired by us prior to that northeast quadrant being developed. That would be the last phase to be developed. This is a very large community; we can't build 297 homes at one time. So this will be a multi-year, multi-phase project. We would obviously start in the upper left-hand corner where access and infrastructure is available, and then as the market allows or demand increases for it, we would go south and then we would swing back up east to the little island area in the upper right. Another item is the two pipelines that cross. Best practice is to cross those at as close to a 90-degree angle as possible. The pipeline companies don't really like any work, any grading, any additional cover, any disturbance on their easements. So it is quite a challenge; we've got a project in your neighbor Lakeville, we've been working for seven or eight months to get approval from the pipeline company to build a road across it. So it is quite a challenge; so we're trying to minimize crossings there as much as we can. There's also two county-required bike trails. I don't remember who brought up the issue about separation from the railroad, but that is a great comment and it's something that the Parks Commission brought up. So we actually moved the rear of all those lots along the railroad track 100 feet to the west just to give a little bit more separation, and the county said, "Great, we can put a bike trail in there." So it has been thought about. If there needs to be more landscaping or berms, that's certainly something our engineers can take a look at, but we agree it's... you know, we want a nice quality of life for the purchasers who live there. The pond locations that were referenced, those are just best guesses as of right now. We just completed the wetland delineation and that's at the review authorities now. The wetland delineation actually tells us specifically where the wetlands begin and end, that way we have a nice solid line on a map of where we can build and where we cannot build. So that was just wrapped up. I have a note about the traffic study; I actually have a meeting with the team tomorrow. I'll get a best guess; I will email Tony and he can disperse that information as necessary on when that will be done so we can get it in your hands. But I do want to remind you that there is a public review process—public notice... it goes to the city council here and then it goes back to the city council here. So the state has really set up these EA processes to have a lot of public interaction and public engagement. It will not slip by; it can't slip by. Let's see... those were my talking points here. Any other questions I could address for you? [46:30] **Chair David Rody:** I just got a couple more and then I'll ask the other commissioners. Tony, other than the 55-foot lot, what other PUD accommodations would this development be looking at? [47:04] **Tony (Planning Staff):** It might be a little too early to tell. Some of that would likely be fleshed out during the preliminary plat and PUD. As of right now, the only thing I could really see would be the lot size. [47:11] **Chair David Rody:** Okay. So how far down would Diamond Path be constructed? [47:15] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Well, again, it depends on ultimately what we require. If there's only one access, I'm sure Lennar would only build it to that first intersection, or just south of that first intersection. [47:28] **Chair David Rody:** Well, it's kind of premature to ask, and Steve, I understand your concern. Sometimes things are just premature—that's why I'm telling you that's why we're struggling here a little bit. And I know roads cost a lot of money, I really do. That's why I asked you the feasibility of this, because I didn't know how far Diamond Path was going to be constructed, or are easements going to be obtained or are they already obtained? [48:01] **Tony (Planning Staff):** He have... they do have easements for that northern road out to Diamond Path. [48:07] **Chair David Rody:** But Diamond Path—what's the status of that, the easements and everything else going south? [48:15] **Tony (Planning Staff):** I think they they have the portion that connects into that first east-west road. That's it, then. [48:22] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Nothing further. That would be my understanding. [48:25] **Chair David Rody:** Okay. What's your timing, Steve, for this project? What's your timing on this? Because I know you wished that you had more time to negotiate with other property owners in the area. [48:38] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** That is a good question. Something I was thinking about in the car on the way here. We probably wouldn't move dirt until '26 at the very earliest, and this is a multi-month effort to move dirt out there for the mass grading. So I would think '27 would be when the first pipes go in the ground. Now, that's a guess as we sit here; I'd have to talk to the construction folks. [49:05] **Chair David Rody:** Okay, so give you some time. And my concern is this: that you know, we got residents to the north that are going to have some issues with this, are going to want to know about it, and you know, we're bringing in something that we're saying, "Well, we're not sure yet." And then we got our city council that deserves, you know, a plan that's put in front of them that isn't a question. Maybe I'll leave it at that. You know, and just that the roads are there for a good transportation plan and... so you know, we got a couple other entities to consider here. It's, you know, the commission is one, certainly, but it's our residents and it's our city council that ultimately will see this and do the final approval for it at some point. That's why I ask you the timing; we have some time. So I'm going to go back to the commission members. Do anything else come up to you? [50:11] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** No, I'll just again reiterate: I think you need another street connecting to Diamond Path. You know, I don't think it's safety-wise and feasible with all these development to the east not to have something further to the south. You know, if you have it the way it is now, Deerbrook Path is going to be a... it's going to be like a highway. It's going to be... that's one way in and one way out, and people aren't going to go further west out of this development to drive. They're going to go right up and down Deerbrook. So I'm worried about speeds up and down Deerbrook when you've got that many cars. [50:18] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** May I make a comment to that? Thank you. Right now there are no connections to the west from Diamond Path; there are no connections to the south from Diamond Path. So whether you had one connection or two connections, every single vehicle is going north. So they're all going to end up at the very same spot until Diamond Path is connected through a city project to the south. Until that happens, every car, whether it's us or it's another developer, will have to go north on Diamond Path. [51:04] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yeah, and I'm fine with that whole development to the south going out to Diamond Path. If you don't have a road to the south going out to Diamond Path, they're all going to go north on Deerbrook. So your only one, you know, easement and feeder street to Diamond Path is the dotted yellow, whereas the development further south, all those cars are going to go in all those houses and even to the east. You don't have... you have a dead end up to Deerbrook there; you don't have any way onto that land. So everything is going to go to Deerbrook North unless you have a street to the south for that development to go all to Diamond Path, which I think would be ideal. And I get the land part of it—the owner's not selling or whatever the case—but you know, if I feel like if you can make the connection to Diamond Path from the development on the northwest side, you should be able to work something out to get to the south. [52:00] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** May I ask, is the concern right now the location of the connection or the quantity of connections? [52:05] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Well, I would say the quantity of connections. You know, this whole development from Deerbrook East, you have one way in and that's going to be Deerbrook. You know, there's nothing to the south or to the west besides this yellow dotted line, and that's only going to take this small portion of properties, those people potentially to go to Diamond. I don't... you know, to be honest, I see all those cars going Deerbrook North anyways, or 195th to Diamond. But again, the big concern is just the amount of houses and potential traffic. Even to the far east, they're going to hit Diamond or they're going to hit Deerbrook, and that's going to be it. [52:45] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** May I approach that? [52:47] **Chair David Rody:** Yeah, I know others... yeah, you're good. [53:15] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** So I think some of the concern may come from the fact that this goes up and then goes at an angle to connect into Deerbrook. If this area went up here and there was a jog in Deerbrook so that you have to turns to go up there, that's something we would absolutely consider. I see your point of coming up, going this way, and then taking a left. Maybe we drive everything that way and have another jog coming in here to make it more challenging for people that want to... [53:50] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yeah, could you potentially where Deerbrook comes south and comes to that first intersection to the west, could you make that... I guess I don't know what you could do, but if you could make that the traffic there goes straight west and then have Deerbrook almost connect up to Delwood, or even you get what I'm trying to say there? So if you come south on Deerbrook and you got that your first intersection, you know, you can go west out to Diamond Path potentially. If you could keep it that way and almost close it off but yet take Delwood and connect it, you know, so like you said, the cars have to go to the west out of that kind of...? [54:20] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** So a cul-de-sac at the end of Deerbrook? That wouldn't be a bad idea, that like right at that first... [54:30] **Commissioner Berg:** Phil, what if they went... so you've got the dotted yellow line, right? If you go to the next orange section directly south and make that your connection out to Diamond Path, you're going to drive a lot more of the people in the southwest section of the map, and especially the east section, they're going to be a lot more likely I would think to go out to Diamond Path at that point. If you connected that versus the one directly north... is a cost prohibitive? Is that going to be your answer? [54:58] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Right, that's what I was just going to ask. This one right there? (Points to map) [55:01] **Commissioner Berg:** Correct. [55:02] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** In lieu of this one? (Points to map) [55:03] **Commissioner Berg:** Yep. [55:04] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Cost-wise, right? I understand that, the cost of building road, but just a thought, right? Because it's really that northwest section that is going to take advantage of the path out to Diamond Path. Everybody else is going to drive up to Deerbrook. [55:40] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** That's an option that we will strongly investigate. Diamond Path, I... is it a major collector? It's a collector, yes. It's our understanding the city of Farmington doesn't necessarily do road cost-sharing, but if if there's a conversation to be had with that to help extend the street south to connect up to the to the orange area, yep, absolutely we'd love that conversation. [56:39] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** And even, you know, not even just from a road design but even just a traffic safety. You know, Deerbrook's a straight street and this street is about as straight as you can get the whole way down. So if you... you know, it's almost better to have some sort of jaunt in the road or roundabout or something to prevent these cars from just opening it up on the whole street, right? [57:05] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** I will say we won't want to have a cul-de-sac at Deerbrook because that defeats the purpose of getting people in and out of the subdivision. [57:11] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yeah, maybe not a cul-de-sac but some sort of... I don't know, just ideas being thrown out. [57:15] **Chair David Rody:** And and Steve, I think you've heard a number of ideas where you can take it back to your your design engineers and mention to him about our conversation that at this point there's a some concern on traffic flow and and if they have any ideas or options to remedy it. I think you've heard enough and work with, you know, staff. And yeah, I know there's conversations on the financing of extending and all that—we don't get involved with that, but they're ones that have to be had. So I don't know. It's, you know, this is the concept. We always asked the commissioners and you asked when you got up here: "Give me all your thoughts." And you heard them. I mean, so... and I I don't know. [58:05] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** I can talk about this all day, but this whole development to the very east side—so you literally have to go to the furthest south part of this development to get out, all the way just to get out. That doesn't make any sense. [58:20] **Chair David Rody:** And he did talk about possibility that road on the north for the wetlands but... yeah, I don't know. I feel like something you would have to... I guess I wouldn't want to live back there. [58:35] **Commissioner Snowback:** You're still you're still putting them on Deerbrook then, though, if they do that road. [58:41] **Chair David Rody:** So yeah, it depends on the design of how... there's concern and I just... us looking at it, you know, I'm certainly not experts like your people, but we have issues. We'll leave it at that. And if you could talk to staff and talk to your people, I guess if it comes back this way, you're probably going to hear the same comments. [58:57] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** It's better for us to hear every minor comment or criticism right now than it is to start getting the engineers involved. So this is... this is quite helpful. We'd rather hear bad news than no news, and this is not bad news, this is good news because now we have a better direction on what the city wants to see. I will ask: we put the Deerbrook road in there, that straight shot, because it was our understanding that the transportation map wanted a north-south street all the way through the community. If that has changed, we'd be welcome to take that out. And I think that's a conversation we'll have to have with the staff right about that. But just to summarize to make sure that I have my notes correct: the amount of traffic onto Deerbrook Path is a concern; the accessibility of the northeast quadrant across the wetland is a concern; the access to Diamond Path for the southern half of the community is a concern. I think there's answers out there that we can find; we just need to go dig for them. [59:44] **Chair David Rody:** And maybe you mentioned this, and something Phil mentioned a couple times, is all the traffic on the east and the south have to go all the way around. It seems like a a long drive to get out of your subdivision. Maybe that was your second point; I didn't quite understand if it was. [1:00:21] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** That was the gist of a second point. I even look at it just even from a public safety thing, you know, fire truck having to go all the way down around and then back up just to get to a house fire or, you know, medical emergency something anything. Yeah, we did offer to deed that whole quadrant to the city for park purposes. I think some of their comments were the same as your comments here: "It's great, but how do we access it?" So now we have looked at it a number of different ways. And again, we removed a crossing for that L-shaped wetland simply because it's quite challenging through the environmental regulators to cross a wetland. If there is direction and a mandate from the city to do that, it's possible, but to do that voluntarily, it's much more challenging. So I think we have better direction about that crossing now. Anything else? [1:01:30] **Commissioner Snowback:** I do have one quick question, if you don't mind. On the northeast quadrant behind the yellow houses, in between the yellow and the red, there's a... it looks like a drawn-out island. Is that something specific or is that...? [1:01:45] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Drawn-out island? So between the red dotted line and the yellow? Oh, that's right here. I'm wondering if that's not some ponding that's just didn't get shown. That's what I was wondering, but I didn't... okay, that's what I was wondering. Thanks. [1:01:55] **Chair David Rody:** Tony? Phil? Christa? Anything else that you want to... I mean, you gave a lot of comments. I think it's the work in progress that's, you know, yeah for sure. How about you? [1:02:05] **Commissioner Snowback:** We're dead-set on the park being in the upper left-hand quadrant? [1:02:10] **Tony (Planning Staff):** That is the direction from the Park and Rec Commission. [1:02:12] **Commissioner Snowback:** Okay. And what... I guess out of the... what were they... what kind of park? Any idea what they were going to do with it? [1:02:15] **Tony (Planning Staff):** No, not yet. They'll flush that out as part of the master plan update, which will have neighborhood involvement and all of that. [1:02:22] **Commissioner Snowback:** Yeah, I was just wondering if you know if they had something in mind. [1:02:25] **Tony (Planning Staff):** No, I mean, right now the master plan shows, I want to say, a handful of ball fields, and I don't know that that's the direction that they'll go with the park. So actually, I know that's not the direction they'll go with the park. [1:02:45] **Commissioner Snowback:** So what you're saying is it's going to be a splash pad or something? [1:02:48] **Tony (Planning Staff):** That has yet to be determined. [1:02:49] **Chair David Rody:** Don't know. Pickleball, Phil, all pickleball. [1:02:51] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** Steve, do we believe you enough? This has been good. If I may respectfully ask if there's any need-to-haves or mandates you could think of, please let me know now so we can incorporate that. If not, I've I've got a lot of notes. [1:03:00] **Chair David Rody:** Yeah, you had some good... when you replied, I thought they were good comments. Me—I'm not speaking for the commission, I'm speaking for myself—but I don't expect to see the same plat back when it continues. Is that fair to say? Yep. With the transportation... and there were just to me there's enough concern by enough commissioners to where if you brought the same thing in next week, next month, next year, it probably would not fly. I gathered that. Okay, I just want to make clear. [1:03:50] **Steve Trosky (Lennar):** So understood. Yeah, there's work to be done. [1:04:10] **Chair David Rody:** So anything else from the commission? No, thank you. Okay, thank you, Steve. Thanks. Sorry it was a long discussion, but I think it was a good discussion. Tony, you had something you wanted to do after the meeting. And our the applicant for our first discussion item, R&L Carriers, is not with us yet. Do you want to try to give him another 10, 15, or do you just want... what do you want to do with that item? [1:04:30] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Let's continue on. [1:04:32] **Chair David Rody:** Continue on. Explain that. Let's just... if you're fine with it, let's just go with the item. Okay, it it does something that that that I raised as a concern to me and that the commission decided in the past that if the applicant is not here—and and that is within your right... it is, I know. So I'm going to leave it up to the commission. We can certainly discuss R&L Carriers. It, you know, it is a site plan. Site plan is a commission decision; doesn't go on. So what does the commission want to do? Do you want to discuss it tonight and and make a decision, or do you want to continue to our next meeting? [1:05:05] **Commissioner Berg:** I would say continue it to the next meeting. That's just my opinion, being the new guy; I would love the opportunity to have him here to discuss with. [1:05:15] **Chair David Rody:** Seems fair to me, too. Fair. Fair. You know, we did it... we've had a few in the past where, you know, it isn't fair to... I mean, again, this is a commission decision, but it certainly is nice to have them, the applicant, here. I know we've talked about it with staff and all that. So is it going to put R&L in a bind? [1:05:35] **Tony (Planning Staff):** I don't believe so. [1:05:40] **Chair David Rody:** Okay, all right. Then we will continue that to our next regular meeting unless, Tony, we hear from you that it's of urgent urgency to to deal with it. Okay? Absolutely. All right, thank you. Do you need a motion on that or not really? Let's have a motion to continue it to the April regular meeting, April 8th. Yep. All right, is there a motion to continue the discussion on the site plan for R&L Carriers? [1:05:50] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Motion. [1:05:51] **Chair David Rody:** There's a motion. Is there a second? [1:05:52] **Commissioner Teske:** I'll second. [1:05:54] **Chair David Rody:** Motion and second. Any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. [1:05:55] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. **Tony (Planning Staff):** Rody? **Chair David Rody:** Yes. **Tony (Planning Staff):** Snowback? **Commissioner Snowback:** Yes. **Tony (Planning Staff):** Berg? **Commissioner Berg:** Yes. **Tony (Planning Staff):** Windshuttle? **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yes. [1:06:10] **Chair David Rody:** All right, thank you. Anything else from staff? [1:06:15] **Tony (Planning Staff):** Nothing as far as the meeting is concerned. [1:06:18] **Chair David Rody:** Anything else from the commission? If not, I'll remind our viewers and the commission our next regular meeting is April 8th, and with that, I'd look for a motion to adjourn. [1:06:25] **Commissioner Windshuttle:** A motion to adjourn. [1:06:27] **Chair David Rody:** We have a motion. Is there a second? [1:06:29] **Commissioner Berg:** I'll second. [1:06:30] **Chair David Rody:** Motion and second. All in favor say aye. (Group: Aye). This commission is adjourned. Thank you, everybody. [1:06:35] [Music] [1:06:53] [Music]