[Music] streets. So, the the um the streets will have sidewalk on one side and trail on the other. We've included a condition that the sidewalks that are in the building need to extend out to those public street connections. On one side, it'll connect to a trail and then the other side to the sidewalk. And it's important that people be able to walk from the building uh out to the um street with the BMS. There's going to be a little wiggling through there because those are some pretty big BMS. You can't just cut through that, but I think they'll be able to get through there. Uh the two new public streets will be constructed by the applicant with the project. Uh both streets comply with county spacing guidelines. Natalie mentioned earlier that the uh county is in transition. We did not receive a formal review from the county on this, but they will have to issue the permits for the project. As part of the EAW, we did a feasibility study that did require turn lanes on that new north access. As part of Nelson, if you recall, they did uh build a turn lane uh at that southern access already. The uh southern street is the collector street intended ultimately uh to be the uh larger connection. Uh the northern street though will have a similar design and that will ultimately connect uh with a future street in Maple Grove. There is a on that north street there is a large retaining wall. So that north street sort of butts up against that large wetland I pointed out at the beginning. And so in order to um um build up the road to the 101 outside of the flood plan and wetland, there's a large retaining wall about 15 ft at its highest point. So when you're driving south down 101, as you look towards that street, you'll see a fairly large wall. And so we've included a condition uh that a large wall has two uh components. One, there's a design component. So we'll be looking at that as we drive into Corkland. So we want to make sure it's an attractive wall. So sort of an decorative design. And I think if you drive around the metro, you see, you know, things that uh look like your backyard retaining wall on the Holiday on Highway 55 and then some nicer sort of designs. So we'll work with them on the design. Additionally, there are utilities in that street and so depending on how the retaining wall is designed, it could have an impact on those utilities. So, we need to make sure that they're choosing a wall design uh that uh both now and in the future protects our city utilities. Um the developer is responsible, I mentioned a couple of them, but the developer is responsible for all of the improvements identified in that feasibility study in EA. Um I think I hit the high points on it, but there are some other things that are included in that study. Next slide. Again, this is in the Musa, so it's served by city sanitary sewer and water. To anticipate future needs, we have a potential future well site uh identified on this property, and the applicant has shown that as outlot B, sort of in the northwest corner of the the property. The final location and an access route to that outlot because it's sort of an island outlot, if you saw that on the plans, uh need to be determined. Storm water as I think the commission knows is always a significant design issue. We are still working through that with them to finalize that. But we do have storm water ponds shown on the plans. The FEMA flood plane elevation in this north part of the metro with Corkran Rogers, Dayton, and Maple Grove has been um something of a challenge. And so this as part of this project, all four cities came together with Elm Creek WHED to um request that the wershed do a flood plane study. They did do that and establish a flood plane for this area. The applicant's plans are consistent with that new flood plane elevation that was recently established. There is some flood plane fill proposed and so that will need to be mitigated in accordance with state rules. That's a very common part of development. So, um, that's just a permit that'll need to happen that's included as a condition in the engineers memo. Uh, the wetlands, the southern wetland, the southwest corner wetland is a DNR wetland. Uh, we talked about that with Nelson for those of you who were around when Nelson came through. Um, no impacts there, but there are some minor impacts um, uh, throughout the site. there are a number of wetland and so the wetland mitigation is subject to the city watershed uh TE review um usually that's by purchasing credits that's what they'll do they'll fill that and purchase credit credits so they'll have to get that mitigation plan approved next slide the northeast district again has additional standards beyond the rest of the city and one of those standards is that uh applicants provide resiliency uh components you You need to provide a minimum of three options outlined in that northeast district standard and they are choosing as their three landscaping with native species uh bio retention systems which are the storm water ponds. I note with this that again because that's not approved yet uh that bio retention system assumes infiltration and you all live in corporates so you know we have tough soil. So, if that doesn't work, they will need to find a third option, but that is something that'll work through with that storm water approval that I know they're working on as we speak. And their third option is the electric vehicle charging station. Six stations are provided split between the two buildings. So, I think that's an exciting addition to the city. Next slide. So, that was the site plan. Uh the second application is the preliminary plaque for two lots and five outlots. uh one of which is as I mentioned the city well site. Um as part of this uh project 6 and a half acres of the 80acre site are being deed for local and county streets and the project would be developed in two phases. Initially anticipated lot one which is the eastern lot would be developed first uh with a completion in 2026 and lot two the following year with a completion in 2027 dependent on market conditions. Next slide. Um again, the site is two buildings. Uh truck court in the middle uh screened. Uh next slide. Uh Madam Chair and Commissioner, staff finds that the applicant uh does comply with the preliminary flat and site plan uh conditions in the ordinance. And again, uh we recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the preliminary flat and site plan. uh following uh opening the public hearing and taking public testimony. So again, quick summary of a very long report. Happy to answer any questions before the public hearing if you'd like, Madam Chair. Thank you, Kendra. Uh does anyone have any specific questions right that they want to address right now before we have the public hearing? I have a whole bunch of them, but normally Yeah, typically we do it after, but if uh but Okay, why don't we wait till after Okay, sounds good. All right. So then at this point in time, we will go ahead and open the public hearing for the Brockton Business Park preliminary plat and site plan. And I will defer to staff to see if there are any comment cards. Madam Chair, we have no comment cards for six feet. Okay. Thank you so much. Uh but at this point in time, if there's anyone here with us in person who would like to speak um or make comments on this issue, just a reminder that you can come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Limit yourself to about five minutes and then just be prepared to make comments if you have specific questions. We'll wait until the public hearing is closed to address those questions because it's just not really a back and forth discussion. Uh is there anyone who would like to make public comment uh on the Brockton Business Park? Uh my name is Jim Hoe. Um I am part owner of the Kway Campground which is to the southeast of the development that you're talking about. Um one of the things that I'm concerned about is the traffic since we're now in a industrial park uh setting. We're having two warehouses. um more concerned about truck traffic. If I understood correctly, the road that's by Nelson International is going to become more of the major entry point to this facility. Is that correct? Yes. Um so when Nelson International came up, one of our main concerns is the trucks coming in and out of their facility. And at a bare minimum, the city council implemented, at least I believe they implemented a no Jake breaking policy for um trucks coming from the north or the south just for the um better enjoyment of their campers during the summer season. And ideally, we'd like to see the the the traffic the the main entry point move to the northern part of the the development. Um I understandably they're going to come in one side and they're probably going to go out the other side. I mean, so we're just trying to minimize the noise uh issue for the better enjoyment of the campers in the summer. Um, understandably the roads are going to connect into Maple Grove and we've seen plans for the development of the area around and connecting in there. Um, one of our other concerns is the road coming uh connecting Nelson into this is going to potentially connect in to a road that may uh come across the northern section of our campground uh which will ultimately make about uh 20 of our sites um unusable just because of the traffic noise. Understandably, that's not a um impact that you can have, but it's something of concern to us in the direction of where the road comes and connects into 101 um near the Nelson International um business. And that those are the Oh, and I do appreciate um your concerns about that you've expressed throughout the night about light pollution. Um I don't know what the accountability is. Uh we Nelson International has been a great business, a great neighbor for us. Uh they've abided by the rules. The only thing that I would suggest is to um make sure that the BMS are actually put in place and that the uh trees that are supposed to diminish light pollution are actually um substantial enough to do that. Uh, I can still see over across the street into the uh Nelson International's garages and I'm still waiting on the trees to actually um be large enough to diminish a vast majority of the light. Now granted, um they are living up to their part of the deal. though in terms of u shutting their doors and limiting their business at 9:00. But I just want to say that I appreciate that your concern uh in these developments in regards to light pollution. So all right and again u for the record Nelson International is a great neighbor and we do appreciate them. So all right thank you. Is there anyone else? Just a reminder to state your name and address for the record please. My name is Teresa Prescott. My address is 10660 Lane. I am directly across the street from where this is developing. I am the only house right there for now. Um last week, the city of Maple Grove approved 230 plus houses to go on my side behind me and around. Um that doesn't include um my immediate um land that will be developed future with I believe um py homes will be to be developing in the next couple years over there. So I I have light concerns, light pollution concerns, not only for me because my house is right there um sound and for the incoming uh Maple Grove community that will be developing their houses there in the next few years. Um, guess I'd rather see a quick drip in my front yard than this to be quite honest. Um, but yeah, I'd like to see some light pollution um kept a minimum. I don't know if the lights will be on 24 hours, you know, will it be turned off after hours or be kept on all the time? But yeah, those are my concerns. So, within 40 years, we have watched um sunsets from my front step with this going in. Um, my kids, my grandkids won't see those same sunsets. You know, 40 years ago, we moved into that house and I grew up there. My kids have grown up there. I'm still raising my kids there and my grandkids are there on a regular basis and they also enjoy the surrounding community and the quiet and the multitude of deer and wildlife that we see. So, we could maybe discuss with the developer at my other concerns. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? You're the developer. I'm going to give you a chance after we close the public hearing or the applicant, I should say. Sorry. Is there anyone else who would like to make public comment? I know sometimes people are a little shy, so we'll give it just a minute. Well, a few seconds and then otherwise um I will make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. And then uh sir, if you as the applicant would like to come up to the podium, uh you can have an opportunity. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. I'm Brandon Champo, executive vice president with Hemple Development. Uh my address, 201 Balsson Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota. Uh first off, I just want to thank everybody, thank city staff. Uh we've been working on this project for over a year and are excited to finally get to this point. Um I'll address some of the initial or some of the concerns that were brought up here, but just want to make a couple opening comments. Kendra obviously explained the project well. Uh we've tried to do our best with this project to minimize impacts to the environment. Uh there's a lot of wetlands on the site. We're impacting 38 acres out of 20 plus wetlands. Um we are doing our best to address noise uh view corridors, the light pollution through heavy landscaping around the site through buffers that are I think more than twice the um city standard. Um this is a 78 acre site. We're we're really developing on about 34 total acres of it. So um the majority of the site will continue to stay um in its kind of natural state. Um we have also done our best with the city's northeast design standards here uh to to meet and exceed those standards with high quality building design again with with the landscaping um traffic improvements. I know traffic is a concern obviously with us bringing more employees and and trucks to uh this area. Um but this project will be carrying the installation of turn lane off of uh Highway 101, the two new public roads which are about $2 million of investment. Um the public or the um sorry the area wide charges that we're um paying as part of the project are about three three $3.5 million. So, there's about $6 million that this project is carrying just in what I would consider kind of public improvements or public infrastructure upgrades. Um, the trail connection, the sidewalks that we'll also be installing. Um, a couple other things. The the types of um companies and businesses that this type of project will attract um we think are exciting for the city of Corkran hopefully to potentially grow existing Corkran businesses or businesses that are uh want to relocate and make corporate their home. Um this type of building, a class A industrial building will will attract high quality employers. we expect probably 5 to 700 employees will be here at um any given time. Um and then obviously once the buildings are up the the tax base um that these buildings will generate um based on what tax rates are for existing industrial right now will probably be one and a half to$2 million annually to the city. I know. Not all that goes to the city, but um a significant amount of uh new tax generes that will uh uh hopefully go to serve other parts of the city as well. Um obviously we're here to seek your approval. We appreciate working with the city and staff over the last year. I'm happy to address the specific kind of comments right now. Um if you'd like to in particular the noise and the those concerns, that'd be great. Yep. Yep. Uh so a couple things. Um I'll I'll just maybe start with uh with traffic because I know that was a concern. Um the we can't really dictate where the trucks will come in and out of the site because it's two public roads. Um to your point, some trucks will will come in on the north side, some will come in on the south side. Where they decide to leave um the site will be up to them. But uh with two public roads, it's hard for us to uh really restrict that access. Um but we do just for safety purposes. Obviously, the truck cord of these buildings is self-contained between the two buildings. Um because we don't like to mix truck traffic with our employees. And so um we try to keep all the truck traffic or will be keeping all the truck traffic to the interior of the site. And then from a noise perspective, Kendra brought up the landscape BMS. Uh we've been very selective in kind of where we place enhanced landscaping, whether it's raising the um burn to 8 feet, installing uh trees that will uh hopefully uh do a better job of blocking noise and light uh from those areas. And then um from a light pollution perspective, uh all the lights on our site will be LED. Um they're designed to basically restrict the the spillage of the light from outside of um the the light bulb. Um the uh the technical term full cut full cut off LED lights. Um will be uh so hopefully nobody really sees lighting unless you're really standing underneath it. Um and I think there's a lot of examples around like this. You drive down highways now and you see a light kind of in distance, but you don't really feel the light until you're actually under it. Um, so so all the lighting in our site will be full cut off LEDs. Uh, again, as far as how we address noise, it's through it's through the buffer, the significant buffers on all sides of the site, um, the landscaping containing the truck traffic between the two buildings. The buildings themselves essentially act as a noise buffer to the surrounding area. And um obviously there's noise ordinances that are just kind of um a state requirement that all of our tenants will be required to u comply with as well. And if they're not complying with that then um somebody at the city's going to hear about it and our tenants will eventually hear about that as well. So um I don't know I don't know if that fully addresses the the concerns you guys have. I mean, we're we're doing everything we possibly can, obviously, to mitigate any impacts around the site um and trying to keep everything as as contained as possible within within the 34 acres that we're developing. Thank you. And if uh you'll remain available, then as you guys have any specific questions, um we can call you back up to the podium if that's acceptable. Thank you so much. Um so at this point in time we will go ahead and um begin any sort of discussion or recommendation or uh what have you regarding the what you guys have for the commission. I can kick off. Um, I had a question around the specific concern cited in the public safety plan around accommodating a fire truck and the space between the two buildings. And maybe that I don't know if staff should answer this one or the applicant, but I'm curious how you possibly accommodate for that other than changing the plan or what the thoughts are there. the the public safety had a couple of comments. One was to um provide turning radiuses. I'm getting to the memo here to ensure that we have adequate turning radiuses. I I think we do. Uh the applicant needs to dimension those. But um um the second um was the ladder trucks within 30 ft of the building, right? So, if you if you um couple of things, there is enough space between the parking of the the trailers in that center space and the um uh back of the building that a ladder truck can get in there. Uh it's not a multi-story building. So bringing a ladder truck in again that's you know we are very conservative about our public safety needs but I feel confident that uh uh the public safety um conditions will be met and it's a matter of dimensioning some things on the plans. Thank you. That's all I have right now. A question that I have for the city is just regarding the request for the no Jake breaking. I know that that was sort of just a uh um a request between two business owners, but I have seen in areas where there's like a sign put up. Uh is that possible? I believe we'd have to update our code and I Were you here when Nelson came in? No. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Um and or is there just something else that regulates that? So, the police chief, we can um we can have maybe have him add this to the memo. We did evaluate this and we did not um make that a condition. It was discussed as part of that and there were some the police chief did not recommend that for a variety of reasons. Okay. And I'm trying to recall the specifics, but I think we can follow up and bring that to the council. There was a an issue with why we did not end up signing that stretch for no Jakebreak or changing our code. And I don't recall uh because I do recall the comment being brought up with Nelson and then I recall the police chief bringing that to the council and I can't remember the reason why. So we can I just made a note that we will be prepared to bring that update when this goes to council. Appreciate that. Thank you. Um, and then I had a question, and this I guess is up to the county, but that northern street that will be new that it says will eventually connect with a Maple Grove that I'm assuming will have a turn lane off of 101, but right now all of our turn lanes that are being added are not those. Um, and I'm not going to get the proper name for the term, right? But you know where you've got like the you can turn left or you can turn right from the center lane. But that seems to be the popular way to go because but only when you have someplace that you can go left and right. Right. So initially when it gets put in if there's only this building to the left will they just then be responsible if eventually it connects to that right street of making it a left or do you know what I'm saying? That center turn. Yeah. Our feasibility study said they should build they need to build a right turn lane. Okay. Again, Henipin County is the permitting agency. They they have to review the location of the curb cut and any conditions. And so, um uh in some circumstances, we've worked with the county and and our neighbors in Maple Grove and there are some limits to prohibit left turn lanes. We don't expect that to be here. Uh, but I don't know that the the current feasibility study did not require them to do the the left turn lane at this. Okay. I'm just thinking because north of this is where that roundabout with access to 610 is. Um, and so the idea that more would be going right and then down seems less likely than turning left out of this property, but I don't work for the county, so we'll leave that up to them. And then Eagle's Nest that had been identified on the property. I'm assuming that even though we don't have a tree preservation clause as a city, there are some federal regulations around preserving. So, can you just address that quickly? Thanks. Thanks. Um, the EAW I mentioned had a number of mitigation strategies included as part of that and there's a condition in the resolution that they comply with all of those and one of them includes the um uh um animals including the eagle's nest, but there were some other protected species. I'm like Natalie, I'm losing my words. Uh, some endangered, some protected species. So, for example, Blandings turtles. There's some tools that we need to incorporate into the plans. I think there was a skink or something on here that we need to incorporate some protections for. There were a couple of animals that specifically are called out in the EAW with specific mitigation strategies. Um, and that eagle's nest, while it's far from the construction zone, is one of them and does have strategies for protection. Perfect. And then the only thing that I wanted to state because I meant to state it uh just as a matter of piece of education. Um I meant to say it during the quick trip, but is that what has come up more than once as um new development gets put in with landscaping is the size of the trunk of the tree when it's put in. And we we considered at one point in time changing the requirement to a larger trunk size. and we were just told by all of the landscape um uh owners in that that's just not feasible for the state of Minnesota. So that that's why that tree size the trunk is not larger when it gets put in. It'd be awesome if you could get a full grown mature tree to take in an in an area. But um so all that to say I wish that we could you know that you wouldn't have to wait quite as long for some of the screening to grow in. But unfortunately if we want that landscaping to be successful we have to take the recommendation of those experts on the size of the tree put in. That's all I have. Do you guys have any questions or discussion? I think they've done a really nice job on this one. We talked about this one last month a little bit. Well, with the amendment that we that we did, but um yeah, it came up and I I like the way you shared that center. I like the way you've got the freight moving inside between the two buildings where it's, you know, more muffled sound and everything. And it actually we were concerned because I think some of the medians had to come out of there to allow that turning radius for the for the big trucks, but it ended up being less overall in imperous pavement. So I think this has been done really thoughtfully. I think the eagles will be okay. I mean, if that eagle's nest on Highway 55 could handle all that construction. That eagle was out there watching that construction for Adam's pest control of all places. But yeah, I I saw both of them there on the nest just the other day, too. So, they're doing well. One quick question that when you mentioned the the um truck bay area in the center, so it does sound like this is staggered, right? So building one is going to go in first and then you do indicate that market conditions would that that's what building two is connected to. Totally understand where does that leave that shared truck bay because obviously until that second building goes in the the truck base is you know it's not uh shielded by that second building. Yeah, please. Yeah, it's a it's a great question. Uh we're still evaluating to what extent we'll put the next um truck court in. We'll if I had to guess it'll be just shortly um past our the property one or the lot one property line. Um sometimes we'll install it all the way up to the building just to speed up the construction of that next building. But I think just to maintain some flexibility potentially if you know the second building user turned two buildings or something like that. We just to keep that flexibility, we'll we'll probably minimize that construction um to just where building one needs. Okay. Thank you. The only other thing I wanted to say real quick, sorry. Um I'm glad to hear that Nelson International is is a good neighbor for you guys at the campground, too. And it seems like a very similar um development here. and the amount of screening that you've got around the edges. I mean, it'll take a little time to grow, but I think that's really excellent. Thanks. You know, Kendra Kendra, you know, the last time we met just we talked about the ends of a of a a facility. This is the kind of ends I like where you bring up the BMS. And so, that was I I applaud you for that. That's really quite nicely done. Do we need 393 stalls? Do we really need all that parking? Probably 500 to 700 employees. Possibly 500 to 700 employees. I kind of question I'm always going to go for green space. So that's why I bring it up. Yeah, it is a good question. I had the same question. Then he told me. So I'm I'm just going to bring that up. Um, the other question I have is this when you build the first building, are you bringing in Phil to how because I noticed on the plans that there's a 20 foot difference between the finished floor and Brockton. Yep. And so when you look at Brockton standing out on the north side of that building and then you look at the building, it's 20 ft higher just by the floor. And then it's going to be another up to 45 ft. So that's that's a significant elevation that's being exposed on on the east side and the north side. Yeah. The uh Sorry to interrupt you. No, that's okay. I'm done with my statement. Uh the the crazy thing, a site this large, we're we're actually about even in our cut and fill. So on the south side of the site, um I don't know if the exhibit was provided with the drawings that we submitted. We do have a cut fill exhibit that I can share. I didn't see it, but it's uh the south side of the site is long, so it's it's higher. So we'll be pushing a lot of that further uh north to obviously accommodate that um change. And then where there's ponds, there's excavation in those pond areas. So, we'll pull that out. But I I believe we're like 8,000 cubic yards off. Sounds like a lot, but it's not for a site of the size. So, okay. So, that's all most of the fill is coming from on site. Okay. So, you we're not going to have the a lot of truck truck traffic coming down 101 into the Okay. Um Okay. Do you have are there building lights? Are there building lights on the building or is it just Yeah, there's there's typically I don't know I think there's some standard for that but like wall or whatever the entrances. Okay. So, the other the other uh comment I had is I know I was at the town council meeting um was it last week and council per person Nichols was talking about pre-cast and what was allowed in this district. Mhm. And is this he he it seemed to suggest he seemed to suggest that the smooth face pre-cast is something that would not be desirable in this area. Is that true? He didn't want to see it in the business park district. Okay. I think he wanted a slightly higher quality. I think he preferred the brick pre-cast. Yeah. Thin brick. Yeah. So for the industrial, the light industrial, he was okay with the they voted to change it to allow for the smooth concrete for the smooth. Okay. And I think it's important because it we there has been some concern in creating distinction between the two uh districts as well. So Okay. I feel like this is what are are we is the city comfortable with the fact that this building is painted? It's it's the I don't believe the it's the color is not integral with the pre-cast. Correct. So it's it's painted. Madam chair, that's very typical in these industrial applications. We do feel like the uh painted pre-cast is a durable product um and uh consistent with the intent of an industrial district like this. So yes, this is a big building. It's it's 1100 more than 1100 ft long and from my calculations only doing using the graphic scale it's 160 ft wide. Um I I again my concerns are obviously the lighting if there's anything that we can do to ameliate the light pollution specifically to the people who live east of the facility. If there's anything that we could do to me that would be that would be great. Um, and then also the uh I'm not I I looked at the facade and I'm not real happy with the facade and I think you can first of all I think the the the requirement of the spacing I think right now from my again from my crude measuring measuring using the graphic scale is at 120 ft and I believe it needs to be 80 ft and that's a condition of approval is that it would be that 80 ft. Okay, good. But I would like to see a little bit more articulation on that facade and a little bit more variety. It's just I mean it's it's just one big mass. Yeah. and anything you can do to begin to break that mass down, you know, by adding more um not overhangs per se, but light shades just to begin to provide shadow on that facade to begin to articulate it as well as instead of having all I mean I don't want to design your building for you, but I'm just going to pass along my thoughts. But if there's a way that you could um vary the entrances so they're not all the same thing and perhaps not all the same color that you introduce different colors or something different just to break up help break up that mass. I think we could certainly look at I mean the other kind of accent material that we have is this metal paneling. We could look at adding some some more metal paneling around those secondary entrances, those interior entrances. Um certainly happy to look at at the since it's a painted building. I mean, you can certainly articulate other areas with different color paint, too. Yeah. And and I I don't I do recall that they were also talking about fall windows, and I don't know how that plays into this. I last the last town council meeting again I think it was council person Nichols was talking about I I think you may be talking about the commercial and industrial industrial update discussion about our commercial and industrial standards for the city overall. So there was a desire to have some kind of window or glass component added as a required building material. That has not been adopted yet. That is part of the update that's coming. So this this proposal wouldn't be subject to that, but I think it I just so that you're aware that it has been stated as a desire of the city council. So that could also be something to incorporate. But we could we could ask for it, couldn't we? As a condition of approval. Well, technically this one. Yeah, because if it's if they meet the standards with their proposal, my understanding is we cannot require as a condition of approval additional standards. We can ask for it, but we can't have it as a stipulation of Okay. Well, I'm gonna ask for it. And the request is just for more glass. Is that just Again, it's it's it's really the composition of the facade. It's it's, you know, the form, the uh color, the articulation. I think I think you could improve upon it. So, I will say it's not reflected in these plans, but we just got our updated construction pricing this week and uh I have instructed our design team to add, I believe, 30 more windows to the east elevation of building one. Um just to bring more light into the warehouse primarily um so we are we will be adding uh more windows to to this facade already. I don't know if it'll Yep. class is always good. Yeah. And I think that really is the extent of my comments. Do you have anything you want to circle back on, Commissioner W? Okay. Is there anyone who feels like they are in a position that they are ready to make a motion? Yeah. I just want to also say, you know, this pro proposal seems super complete. there were, you know, it it is um great to see the BMS. I love the BMS. The the diagrams to see the different viewpoints are really really helpful. So, thank you for that work that you did to put that in and help us and the citizens to see that. Um so, I'll make a recommendation to approve and will you the that you are recommending the approval of preliminary plat and site plan and I will second that motion. All those in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Okay. And so that's a recommendation for approval that will go to the the council. Thank you. Thank you so much for your time. Thanks. And uh how are we doing? Checking in. All right. Chugging along. Okay. We are going to uh item number three or item C on the um new business agenda, which is the Chastic Family Farm Preliminary Plat and Reszoning, which is city file 25-001. and we're going to begin with a staff report. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, this is the third public hearing for tonight. The applicant is Truck Real Estate in Development with Temple Real Estate doing business as Emerald Rose LLC. They are proposing a 104 Single Family Residential Development with three outlots. Um, and this is for the property at 7600 Maple Hill Road. So, it is northeast of the Maple Hill Road and County Road 10 intersection. So the uh it has two components again. There's a reasonzoning and then there's a preliminary plot. So right now the site is guy uh is zoned RSF2 and they are requesting to reszone it as RSF3. RSF3 is meant to be the primary res single family residential district within our MUSA area. Uh so the MUSA is where we have uh planned utilities or city utilities. Uh so there are a number of criteria outlined for when we consider a resoning. Um and that is outlined in the staff report. Ultimately staff finds there is reasoning to support the resoning request. Uh one of the primary beings that the RSF2 district really is not going to allow them on this site to hit that three units an acre. What they are proposing right now is 3.04 units an acre roughly give or take. Um and the so even the loss of um I would say more than one lot we are starting to get below that three units an acre that you need to hit per the land use guidance of our comprehensive plan. So I would say just that alone that does support reguiding or reszoning this property to RSF3 to allow for a slightly reduced lot size and lot width so that we can hit the 104 units. Um but that is a policy choice of the city where there is a high degree of discretion and so that would be an area that we would need planning commission's feedback tonight. Assuming that there's support for the resoning, the preliminary plat has 104 single family lots with the lot range lot size ranging from about 7,800 square ft to 28,000 square ft where the minimum lot area is 7,500 square ft. All lots comply with the minimum lot width of 65 feet. Um and then the um all building lo pad locations comply with the setback requirements. The all homes must comply with the design construction standards that are are in all of our Musa single family districts. Um and so they have submitted um elevations, example elevations that look to comply. Some more information is needed on some of the minimum dimensions and the percentage of the garage, but overall they look to be able to comply and that would be reviewed as part of the building permit. There are four full accesses uh proposed to the development uh into the development. So, there's two on the west side and there's two on the east side going into the improved fairway shores development to the east. Um, we'll get a little bit more into the four the four access points though. Um, for landscaping and wetlands, there is um the there are a number of wetlands on the site. a couple will be impacted or there may be an extent where they're impacted and then the wetlands that are remaining will require buffers and then the landscaping plan does comply with the exception of that we need to um address the buffer yard class A um specifically there it was there was a couple of areas of inconsistency with the width proposed and the plantings proposed and then the northern boundary also needed to include sorry the northern boundary agree with the exception piece right here also needed to include um some plantings and I the applicant did already submit a revised landscaping plan today that I think addresses that so she's on top of it. Um so overall though they are complying with the minimum landscaping standards and we'll work through that buffer. As far as the streets and access again we have four bull access into the development currently shown. However, the northern connection on onto Maple Hill Road does not comply with the road network spacing showing in our southeast district plan and creates a conflict with the two driveways to the church existing driveways to the church over to the west. Um, so the staff recommendation continues to be that that northern access be closed and have it either needs to be a culde-sac is preferred. It can be any other city's standard turnaround such as a hammerhead and then allowing a or still requiring a emergency access into the site to allow for that emergency services concern to be addressed but the really the there is concerns that this current spacing will create a public safety hazard as well. So that is a condition of approval that the it be revised to either a culde-sac or other city standard turnaround. Uh the property or the project will require improvements. County Road 10 um there required dedicated right lane and an eastbound left lane uh turn lane I should say. I apologize. And then Maple Hill Road will also need to be improved up to the northernmost access. um that is discussed in the feasibility study that was completed and that it was initially completed with the previous proposal and then it was updated with this proposal and that condition does for me. I don't mean to interrupt your staff report but can you clarify is it to the northernmost property line or the northernmost access? Northernmost access. So if Okay. So if that secondary access does not becomes a culde-sac does that change? Um it does. So I believe we looked at this before with the last one. So I believe the emergency access might still require some improvement. It might be that it's a slightly different extent. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. So that'll be something that they continue to work through with our engineering team. Okay. Um so for the trails uh the 2040 comprehensive plan does identifi identify a proposed trail uh that would connect to um the fairway shores development to the east and it goes all the way to Maple Hill Road. However, the site constraints with the current proposal does not allow for a continuous trail experience throughout the site. It's interrupted. It ends up kind of wrapping around this wetland going to the sidewalk to wrap around my point. I apologize. Um, so it right here is Maple Hill. They're proposing the trail alignment along here. It has to come down to the sidewalk because of the wetland and our public works director does not want to deal with another boardwalk. Um, and And I think the sentiment is shared amongst staff and council. Um, but then we have it goes back again around the homes and then comes back because of the wetland storm water pond over here. We can't we looked at trying to fit it through the wetland and storm water pond and there's just not enough space to comply with our other setbacks. Um, so it goes back to the sidewalk. Taking a look at this, staff's very concerned about the fact that it's pretty interrupted and so what is the likelihood of that actually being used? I think most people are just going to end up using the sidewalk. Um, an alternative would be to have an on-road trail. Uh, but again, our public works team is very concerned about a trail where there's so many proposed driveways and where that intersection would be. So, at this time, staff uh recommends removing the trail um not taking a trail easement for this project, just focusing on the sidewalk that is proposed. And the parks and trails commission did agree with that recommendation as well when they reviewed it. So, we are departing from our comprehensive plan. It doesn't seem to make sense with the site design. Um and then park dedication would be taken entirely cash in lie of land. Um, so those are the big components. It's actually pretty straightforward. They're not asking for any variances. Um, they've done a lot of work to have this comply with our RSF3 standards. So staff does recommend they open the public hearing and take testimony. We did receive one public comment. Um, believe it was just one public comment that we received. Um, and then so that should be considered as it was read or spoken. Um, and then staff recommends approval of the draft resolutions of uh approving the resoning to RSF3 and approving the preliminary plot. I'm sorry, it's a draft ordinance approving the resoning with a draft resolution of fact and then a draft resolution approving the preliminary plot. So, two resolutions. Two resolutions and one ordinance. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you, Natalie. Okay. At this point in time, we did receive a comment that was included in the packet. So, you guys have all had a chance to review that. And then now we're going to go ahead and give anyone who's here um the opportunity to speak on this um item. So if you are here to give public comment for the Chastic Family Farm Preliminary Plat and Reszoning, uh you are invited to come up to the podium, state your name and address for the record and just try to keep your comments limited to five minutes, please. Is there anyone who's here and would like to make comment? All right, no one is jumping the gun, so I am going to go ahead and make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. And I'm actually going to begin the commission discussion and recommendation. I don't usually do that, but I remember this from May of 2024. And so what I wanted to indicate just for those who maybe haven't been here is that this um this actually has fewer homes than was uh than is what came to us a year ago. So I just wanted to point out a few of the things because I know when we see reszoning to RSF 3, it can cause your heart to like pitterpatter and have some quick palpitations. So I looked up the numbers um and went back and reviewed. So I just want to say them and and have them out there just for you guys to know. So what's being proposed right now is 104 single family homes. What was uh included a year ago, not that it has a bearing on this, but it just gives some history, was6 single family homes with seven outlets. At that time it was also requested to be reszoned to RSF3 um for the lot width minimum, not to actually have town homes um built in the area. And at that time there was actually it was done as a PUD. So, there was a request to have a 60% maximum garage frontage, whereas what's being proposed right now is 55%. Um, so I just wanted to to tell you where we were at with some of that. Um, and now tonight, instead of coming as a PUD, it's just coming as a resoning request with the preliminary plat. So, with that in mind, who would like to begin their discussion or uh raise any questions that they have? Go ahead. Go board. Commissioner Kabuki. Um the upper left corner lot 10 if that street is turned into a culdeac. Um it it it couldn't go south. It couldn't be a centered on the road culde-sac. It would probably have to be a circle that kind of goes up halfway into that lot 10. And you wouldn't have that lot 10 anymore as a house, but it would probably only take up half of that lot if you were going to put a culde-sac in there. Yeah. A culde-sac or a hammerhead would have to go there. So, it's likely that it would lose that lot. Yeah. But they wouldn't lose all of it. So then what happens with the other portion of it get absorbed into the outot. Okay. It just become an outlot or it could get absorbed into one of the neighboring lots too. So, it also said there's no specific builder. Um, concept elevations provided with the application are from M&I Homes. Do any of these subdivisions ever just sell individual lots and let people come in with their own builders so that you don't have Kendra made a pace at that theoretically. Um, however, typically it gets sold to a single builder. Um, I think it allows for more economic um, construction of the site, but I it sometimes in our rural it they could do that. But I also would say that we're seeing um we're seeing subdivisions where it's a builder that's coming in and doing the subdividing so that they can sell, but they are custom made lots or custom built homes. So there's a little bit more for the actual property owner. I guess my main question regarding that is just most of these subdivisions they look very generic. Most of the houses look kind of alike. So you don't have a lot of variety in housing. And I don't know if there's a way to get more variety in housing. Was it this neighborhood that had we had talked about before and they were talking about even colors of homes like couldn't have the same color as the house on the other side or something? So that's all in our basic architectural standards for the district to to try to or non monotony clauses. So um they would be expected to comply with those standards because I've seen some kind of fairly monotonous neighborhoods. Uh, all right. Let's see here. [Applause] um the build the the lot that um the ghost that the ghost plat is required for so that if it develops in the in the future it's the existing home on the property. That one's going to continue to have access from Maple Hill Road the same as always. Correct. I yeah, I believe it's it's time there's there's not a requirement that that lot be um served by the new public road, but we do want to go plot showing how that could be served in the future. My other question is it says here on page 15 there appear to be multiple driveways that will need to be increased in length by at least two feet so that you can have that parking space. Is that an issue with with this? They would have to potentially reduce the building pad side pad size that they're showing um or shift things a little bit to the south. They could theoretically um the outlot. They they could extend the property line to the back of the outlaw all the way. And if I'm talking about this northwest corner um and then they should still be able to comply. There's a couple strategies they can do to get that 2 ft. But yeah, we do need the 22 foot long driveways as a minimum. Okay. And then the only other thing I noticed in here, I think it was in the C that's showing the houses and I think that was the that's what they were referring to as like they haven't committed with this fire, but those are examples of what could be built. Yeah, there was one in there that had a larger garage facade than but not not not a big deal at this point, I take it. Yeah, we we so every building permit would essentially be that would all be reviewed on individual basis as they come in and they'd have to provide dimensions of the the garage structure as compared to the rest of the facade. And if there was anything that was requesting a variance from the standard, then they would have to come back and ask for a variance. So otherwise we wouldn't see it again. Okay. All right. That's that's all I had. Do you want to go or you want me to go? Go ahead. Oh, somebody go cuz I think I think I've asked you this question before. Um, in what world can this property Okay, I'll just reiterate this is a polies policy decision. So, I understand your point about the prior application and how it's better, but this I'm just going to look at it the way it is, right? Um, RSF staying RSF2 and developing it. What I'm reading is it's not possible because it needs to stay, it needs to be at three acres, three units an acre. Is that a true statement? I would say what's in front of us is a pretty convincing argument that RSF2 is not going to be possible with at three units an acre for this site. I don't think that that's necessarily true of all sites, but I think because of the exception piece, because of the drainage on the site, because of the where the wetlands are located, that that is true of this site and the three units an acre is required because it is guided for low density residential in our comprehensive plan and that's requires three to five units an acre. Okay, because just looking at this like long term, you have a PUD going in to the west. It's going to be probably a pretty significant development. You have developments to the south like this. This looks like this area is going to be quite quite congested. I don't know, you know, um if this develops. And so I'm just trying to think about, you know, this policy decision to make it a much more developed area than was maybe intended or guided originally to make a change. I'm just trying to think through that. So I was just sharing that thought with my fellow council or commissioners. So the property, just just to be clear, the property is currently guided for density at 3 to five units an acre and this is coming in at the bottom of that. So they're not proposing changing the guiding, they're proposing changing the zoning so that they can meet the land use guiding. But it was anticipated that roughly 100 at least 103 homes would be on this acreage in the comprehensive plan. Correct. Because we in our comprehensive plan, we said this lot would be three units an acre at least, three to five. So is it fair to say that the surrounding properties that are RSF2 will have a similar request? The surrounding properties, so to the east, they came in as a PUD. Um, yep. And they were able to res regguide to conservation residential allowing two to three units an acre. And they were able to do that because of the preservation efforts they're doing along Cook Lake. The site doesn't have those kind of natural resources. So, it doesn't make it eligible for that conservation residential standing as easily. Um, it was discussed with council if they would want to see that, but the they weren't really convinced that the drainage on the site account made sense to have this acreage move out of the low density residential designation. Um, and then forgot what the sorry, oh to the to the south that is um, Bass Lake Crossing and that's a PUD and those lot sizes are smaller than what is proposed here for the most part. So, I would say that these are actually fairly large lots compared to what's coming, what is currently there on the south side. And I hear what you're saying. I think that the intent of this since the land to the west is a part of the um what is what has currently been decided that downtown area. It makes sense that this is a more densely populated area. I think that we do need to and especially with the upcoming comprehensive plan, we do need to look at uh how do we um create good transitions from like sort of what you're what someone in the past called legacy neighborhoods, right? Where there are larger lots, how do we transition well from those larger lots to higher density areas? So, like I definitely hear what you're saying and I don't I don't believe that a reszoning would be fit for every area but for this area where the uh you know you have the multi- uh housing units across in Maple Grove across the street and then you've got Vast Lake Crossings which is like she said the smaller lots. It does feel like sort of a transition to then now you're getting to a larger lot and then you've got Fairway Shores which is the largest lot right and then you're going to go across the street to the west and the intent there is to have multi- um what am I saying like some of the density of those are going to be like 8 to 10 and so it seems like in terms of a flow it would be an area where the concentration was intended. Does that mean though that like we shouldn't begin to look strategically at where are these conservation uh you know densities best served like where do we actually have area that we want to conserve in Corkran and then also how can we transition better from some lower density to uh so that we don't have high density right abuing you know right yeah so I I am just saying I really hear you um uh but based on the location of this on. Um I would be in agreement with the reasonzoning, but do you have other things that you would like to Well, the only other thing, and you you can tell me if this does this question doesn't make sense, but given the Met Council's recent statements of changing density requirements for outer suburbs. I think we fall in that. Correct me if I'm wrong. And thus, our plan will maybe change due to that. I don't know. I know we're talking hypotheticals that three units an acre is we can make decisions on what we have in front of us right now but I'm just saying these are things I'm thinking about because does that in the future does that three units an acre requirement change at this time they're moving forward with a average of 3.5 units an acre within the Musa for our designation of community our community designation so um I think to your point if the more development that we approve at the lower end of the density right now may mean that future development at least in some areas we can be strategic about it might have to come in a little bit higher. However, we do have a lot of our developments have been coming in on the higher end. Um and we're starting to see I would say a few that are coming in on the lower end. So it we would have to basically redo the math. So, that's going to be a part of the 2050 update, looking at that, seeing what what credits we have. Um, and then looking at where does strategic density make sense, where does strategic low density make sense. Yeah, I agree. I think that's these kinds of things when we make policy decisions that are really important. So, that's where I struggle. Do you guys have some kind of a map that kind of shows the densities? because it's overall the 3.5 density designation for our community is like overall incorrect. It's the overall density. So you might have some that are, you know, 10 per acre. There might be some that are two and a half per acre, but it's the overall Yeah, it's overall within the it have to be 3.5. Yeah. So yeah, that's our our our land use map to some extent shows that it's not it's not shows the different land use designations. It goes tandem with the verbiage in our comprehensive plan land use chapter about what is expected for each land use category. Um so but I think for the application in front of us tonight the land today is currently guided 3 to five units per acre. Um and it is coming in at 3.04 4 with under RSF3 zoning standards, which is pretty pretty much the same houses as if they didn't reszone it, but they they're doing it. I think if they don't reszone it, they're not going to be able to hit the three units anymore, especially if they have take off that one lot for the culde-sac. Correct. Um I am wondering if the if it becomes a culde-sac, the northern entrance, um would that just ultimately be the ghost plat? Wouldn't that serve as the ghost plat for access to the um individual property? That I mean that's ultimately their decision, but yeah, I think it's just showing the driveway because the goal would not be to keep or maintain a a culde-sac in the future if that land to the south or to do you know what I'm saying to develop. So if the land to the south were to develop redevelop they're they're not going to have a driveway out onto Maple Hill Road. So they might need to have So basically the plat showing it being redeveloped so that access is coming from that local roadway. Okay. Um okay that Yeah. And then I guess my question would be uh what does the timing look like for road improvements on Maple Hill? Like do you do you typically do like all the construction and then at the end you're going to go ahead and I mean that makes sense to me, right? then improve Maple Hill um so that you don't have all of this construction traffic going back and and forth on a brand new updated road. But that's ultimately individual choice. Well, I think it's more of what the phase comes in, what requirements will be triggered. So, it is a two-phase. It is a two-phase. At this point, they're proposing two-phase that can change, but right now what they're showing is a two-phase development. So, there will be likely certain thresholds of when each improvement will be required. And so it might be that um engineering would ultimately have a final say. So it might be that they don't do necessarily all the improvements with the first phase, but then the second phase they would have to do improvements. And then I know that uh this was an issue a year ago was the question regarding Furlane being a construction access or a construction road because it didn't right. So do you know what I'm saying? And it is getting late. But if if Furl Lane right now stops because that's the edge of of uh Bass Lake crossings and Fairway Shores has not started construction or have they I Okay. So then they have not started construction. Their final plat application has been submitted. Okay. And so right so this would all depend on timing what ultimately so we can't answer yes for lane is going to be available for construction traffic or not. Yeah, I believe that we've handled it as conditions of approval that they may but I would say at this point the first phase of Fairway Shores has come in for a final plat review and they're a bit ahead of this one. So those questions would be answered by the time this gets to a final plat I anticipate. Okay. And then I'm in agreement with the trail like it seems just kind of wonky. So, uh to to let it go. And then there was a question about a fence um buting up to the um property to the north. Yep. And the recommendation was removal of the fence if I'm correct. Um let me refresh myself on that. I think it was more if we kept the trail. We wanted the fence to at least be consistent because at one point the the trail was on the um I'm sorry, the fence was on the north side of the trail and then it switched to be on the south side of the trail uh by the houses. So it it so it if we were going to continue with the trail, we'd want the fence to at least be consistent. I think the fence needs to remain out of certain easements. I think that was the concern. A fence could definitely go on the properties. is just making sure that it's out of any required utility easements beyond the typical drainage and utility perimeter easements that you get. Okay. And then just two comments for you guys. I um um I would look into I mean hopefully you have an interested a different interested builder. Okay. I would highly recommend um seeing where that leads. Oh, what do you mean by different? Uh, maybe not M and I would be my recommendation, but okay. Well, we don't get to say on that. I know we don't. I But I led with that. I led with that because I know um but then the other thing is this uh 30 the rear setback the 30 foot rear setback and just how that affects the property um the future property owner's ability to put a shed or uh any permanent structure at that back because they just wouldn't have room. So, I know they'd have space for a patio off the deck. And I ultimately know you do not sell the houses, but this is a concern because what if all of a sudden we're selling these properties now? We have people living in these homes and they have an unmet expectation they're going to come to us. Um, and so that is a concern um of mine. I know we can't could put in HOA documents, right? That'd be awesome. I mean, not that people read them, but at least you could say, yeah, there'll there'll be an agreement that has to get recorded against the properties, too, that have that limitation. So, um, and then, yeah, documentation in the HOA makes sense as well. So, perfect. I also wanted to express just, you know, the volume of applications with HOAs. I know we've talked about this before, too. It's significant. Unless I'm wrong, correct me if I'm wrong, but you know, we're talking about how this development can serve as a buffer or no, a transition from the property to the north, from the property to the south. perhaps I finding a way whether that means no HOA or finding a way to kind of diversify the look and appearance and feel of that community um that would normally be a cookie cutter HOA might help us with that transition if that's what we're intending to do. I think the primary You had to stand up on that. I'm sorry. [Applause] Hello Benz with Hemple Real Estate, one of the applicants. I think the goal of the just that the HOA is to maintain like the wetlands and um and uh the different drainage areas. So that was an extra requirement of the city staff. Oh, okay. I thought I saw in the report it was not said if it was going to be an HOA or not. So it it wasn't stated by the applicants narrative whether it was going to be an HOA, but for them to have storm water and wetlands and outwocks, then that would require an HOA. I will say that working through um some storm water on an unrelated project, working through some they didn't want to do an HOA, they have storm water on individual lots. Um it can be really burdensome for the individual lot owners uh to be responsible of that which would be the alternative. So it's uh in some extent it's easier to do these maintenance of storm water ponding and wetlands if if there's an HOA that's in charge with coordinating that rather than having it fall on one property owner for or a few property owners for the entire development. Fair enough. Maybe maybe the point I'm trying to make still resonates or somehow can be incorporated about how it can maybe look like a diversified community to rather than homogeneous to drive that transition from community to the south and the community to the north. That's all. Makes sense. Thanks. Okay. Where we at folks? Is anybody ready to I have um make a motion? Yeah, I will make a motion to approve the zoning and preliminary plot to RSF3. Um I like the hydraulic drain. I like what you guys have done with the drainage. I think the AOA the HOA definitely makes sense in this regard. Do we want to put any conditions on that? I think there already are some written in as far as driveway length and things like that that might still have to be looked at. Yeah, staff noted a few conditions of approval. And so those are if you make a recommendation for the resolution as it's written, those would be included. Okay. I second it. All those in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Hi. Okay. You take it. Okay. So, that takes us to our last um new business item tonight, which is the Lothar Comprehensive Plan Amendment, City File 25-002. And we're going to begin with the staff report, and we get to hear from Dwight. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. So, yeah. Item 6D tonight, um, Lother comprehensive plan amendment. Um, the request comes to you, uh, from Brian and Jackie Lther who are requesting approval of a comprehensive plan amendment to rekey their property from existing residential to conservation conservation residential. Um, the subject address is 10110 County Road 116. Um the site itself is um just a a little bit under 10 acres. Um currently zone single family residential and um is currently guided existing residential and is located in the first stage of the 2040 um staging plan. The request itself um well context uh the current land use guidance for the property is existing residential. Um the anticipated density within the existing residential is um half a unit per acre but in this instance um it would not allow for subdivision of the parcel. So the applicants are requesting that um the land use be reguided to conservation residential which would allow for an anticipated density of two to three units per acre. um this is the lowest um density allowed that's um not the existing residential um land use guidance. So it's the next step up um in in the residential categories. Um there isn't a formal plat being submitted with this application right now. So I can't speak too much as to the transportation impacts from the application. But I do want to point out that um a requirement of a development of this site would require um the installation of a public road through it. And with that installation um that would allow for the driveway for the um water treatment facility directly north to um be relocated off of County Road 116 and be redirected to the newly installed um public road within the development. Um this was um a design comp um contemplation um with the facility when it was um approved in 2022. Um the density calculations currently within the Musa are roughly 3.353 units per acre. Um, if this request were to be approved, the overall density within the MUSA would increase ever so slightly to 3.357 units per acre. So, um, not a huge increase on the overall density within the Musa, but I I want to point that out because a lot of times when we get these conservation residential requests to be reuided, um the the density within the Musa is a serious contemplation and a lot of times um those are um going from higher densities down to lower densities and does impact this overall calculation a lot more than this application does. So, um I'm just wanted to highlight that um with this request, it actually would even though it's very small would increase the density within the MUSA. Um the comprehensive plan itself is a living document and the city has a relatively high level of discretion when considering um such such amendments. Um so when the city does find evidence that support a change in the plan, it um can approve the change. And in the packet, I did highlight some considerations for the the commission to um consider as the discussion goes on. Um namely um has that applicant provided evidence demonstrating the reason the plan should be changed? Um is the change needed to allow reasonable development of the site? And does the request uh does the requested change have merit beyond the interest of the proponent? And I know the applicant is here and not to put you on the spot, I believe they'd be willing to speak to some of those a bit further, but those some some of those questions were um considered within their narrative that is included in your report. So, at this point, um staff recommends that you open the public hearing and take testimony um from the public. And we also recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the comprehensive plan amendment as requested. Thank you. All right. At this point in time, do we have any comment cards? Madam Chair, we have one comment card from um Jason Bartell's. Okay, so we are going to open up the public hearing regarding the Lothor comprehensive plan amendment. Um and so if you would uh Mr. Bartles, if you'd want to come up to the podium, we'll start with you. Uh just state your name and address for the record. [Applause] Jason Bartell's 1979 Hunter Ridge. Um, good evening, Chair Braumman and attending commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I live on the south side of Hunter Ridge. My wife and I have roughly 400 ft of property that will look directly across the street at the applicant's proposed 22 home development in what is now a Farmfield. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of several neighbors. We know the city staff is recommending approval and no disrespect to staff, but obviously we the residents are looking at this criteria from a different perspective, that being our own front yards. The criteria outlined in the packet and and mentioned by Dwight uh includes items such as the following. The applicant needs to demonstrate the amendment has merit beyond the interest of the proponent. In the agenda packet, it states that the safety on Highway 116 is the merit for the change. I expect the city could find a way to put a road from the water plant to Hunter Ridge for safety without having to surround it with 22 new homes. Sounds a lot like Quick Trip. You want to take the 116 access away from the water plant just like the 101 access away from Mama G's for safety. Well, Quick Trip has a new road. Looks just fine. It's not surrounded by 22 homes. Natalie called it an internal road network. I don't see why that can't be considered uh in this situation as well. I've spoken about safety with the intersection of 116 and Hunter's Ridge for quite a while now. Sharing concerns about Bellweather and Hope Church development traffic created an unsafe intersection. Now traffic from all these new potential properties, the water treatment plant, and even the applicant's property itself will only increase that risk. I mentioned this topic as transportation is a consideration listed in the packet. The applicant states they're proposing a density that respects the neighbors. Well, that sounds great, but when you do the math, the proposed properties that border existing residences average less than a quarter acre each compared to directly adjacent properties that are between two and 10 acres. Longtime corporate residents accustomed to having land, open spaces, and privacy are just lining up to have multiple property owners sandwiched into less than quarter acre lots staring right into their backyards. Perhaps the most interesting line of the applicant's narrative reads as follows. Expanding the municipal sewer network helps offset the city's fixed cost. The city's fixed cost. I thought this was a private property applicant for personal development consideration. I mean, we understand the city built the water tower and the treatment plant in anticipation of new residential usage. Bellweather and the Hope Church development will certainly be providing plenty of that. This proposal needs to stand on its own merit or lack thereof without consideration for extra water and sewer revenue for the city. It's interesting and and the more I think about it, disappointing that there's no plot map included uh in this. Maybe the applicant will have one later. I don't know. Um I saw one at the January 23rd council meeting uh when this was first introduced. Um if you guys are going to vote on on changing the zoning to see what the applicant wants to do with it, I think it's only fair that you get to see the map of what they actually want to turn this field into. Um, I'm glad to hear lots of conversation about lights and screening. Um, the last map I saw, most all, if not all, the headlights from this development will shine directly into our property when they're leaving. Existing screening requirements will be absolutely necessary and consistently applied across all adjacent properties. The applicant can't do what they want with the existing code in place, so they're asking you to change it. Please hold the applicant accountable for complying with existing code. I respectfully request the commission determine that this resoning is not in the best interest of corporate residents and therefore deny the application for the change. Thank you. Thank [Applause] you. Those were all the comment cards that we had, but if there's anyone else who would like to make public comment regarding the Lther comprehensive plan amendment, please state your name and address. My name is Dave Thompson. I'm at 19780 Hunter Ridge. My wife and I had our custom home built uh on the lot directly next to the Loather property uh which is to the to the east um back in 2001. So I've been there for 24 years. Uh, I would have never built that house there if I would have known there was going to be a a high density housing complex put in next to me. Matter of fact, my wife used to my wife passed away two years ago. She used to always worry about that. I would and I would tell her the city would never allow that. It doesn't go with the character of our development. And you and you spoke about legacy development. That's what we're in, right? A legacy neighborhood. This is all part of a neighborhood as Jason said that is um you know low low density. That's what we bought into when we moved in 24 years ago. So um it greatly concerns me especially with my property and you know there isn't u you know that preliminary plat that was shown at the council meeting included in this packet. I don't know why, but it was shown to the council and that had six properties backed up against my property that would be overlooking my my yard, my house. You know, my sense of private privacy would be affected by that. Um, now obviously, you know, and I've talked to Brian and and Jo was it Josh? Yes, Josh. And um they said that the developer would put in screening and I'm sure that the city would require it as well. But how good is that screening going to be? Is it up to I I don't know. But the point is there there isn't a transition like you were you were talking about going from um our traditional development into a you know a much higher density. Um, matter of fact, if you look at the Dell web on the other on the other side or further to the east, they at least put a holding pond in between the Anderson resident and, you know, all the all the houses that go there. These are going to be lined up right against my property. So, I'd like you to take that into consideration. You know, I just want I want to to let you know um that, you know, that is a big concern for me. So, thank you. Thank you. And thank you guys for sticking with the long meeting tonight. Those who are here to make public comment regarding this issue and the applicant, we appreciate that. So, is there anyone else who would like to I'm Kathy Dickinson, 1972 Hunter Ridge. I wasn't going to speak tonight, but I've been spending these hours looking at what Corkran was. When we moved in in the late 90s, this this representation is so lovely. And we bought on a farmer's field. And I remember our builder saying that they weren't going to there was one council member that wasn't going to approve his u proposal because she only wanted to sell to another farmer and he had to say there's no farmer that's waiting to buy this kind of land. So, we understand things change and we have always been so grateful to be there, but I I just am concerned about the opportunity just if there's a piece of land and somebody can benefit from it, just selling it to just keep putting houses on there. We welcome neighbors that that have the same requirements when we bought. And if that's if that can be changed that quickly, it it concerns me about Corpin and what it is and what it would what it would turn out to be. Thank you for listening to us. Thank you. And I keep getting a headshake from the last one. I don't think he's popping up to the podium. Okay. So, on that note, um we will close the public hearing or I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. And all those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? And then we will give the applicant or uh or his or his developer. I'm You are the applicant. Okay. We'll give you an opportunity to address. Fantastic. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Josh McKini with measure group. I'm a consultant uh for the applicant which is Brian and Jackie Latherther. Um just kind of setting the table here. A couple of the residents had mentioned it. Uh we had sought uh some feedback and a sketch plan review at with city council for this kind of direction and how to best proceed uh in order to kind of uh facilitate the lother's abil lo's desire and ability to subdivide their property um just as kind of a matter of next steps just wanting to have understanding of feedback. So we did provide kind of a sketch planned council and the feedback that we received at that at that point was really um you know you need to if you need to subdivide or would like to subdivide you're trying to do something at the lowest density possible uh that that the me council allows. So that's really what we're talking about tonight is, you know, this idea to regguide from an existing residential which wouldn't allow the LOS to subdivide at all um to the lowest possible density that could still be within the Musa. Um I understand um I guess let me just address a couple of the concerns here um uh regarding the road to the water plant um and just that could just apparently just cut across the loader property. Uh if the city would like to purchase the lother property, I'm sure that Brian and Jackie would entertain that for a road. I'm not sure that that would be the highest and best use for that property, but that is something that's not been on the table and something that was not something that's kind of a matter of feasibility in this case at all. In which case, we'd still need some sort of guidance change. In which case, we'd still be up here talking about what that would look like. Um with regards to um the the the comment within uh the narrative that I prepared regarding uh city's fixed costs, it's exactly right. The city has invested a significant amount of money in water and sewer uh for this uh for this the expansion or the you know the expansion of housing within the Musa. This development does a small part to help offset those fixed costs in order to install that system. Um, regarding the no plat map, there is a concept I'm sure I'm welcoming you to go to the city council with our next step if you guys decide to make a recommendation for approval would be to be working with uh the city council uh at their meeting and then proceed with preliminary plat and kind of the next step of documents which provide so much additional detail on screening on location of lots on you know what are means and methods of kind of mitigating on the impacts to the neighbors would be. We are not at that point yet. Um and we're specifically asking for the comp plan amendment um kind of a recommendation of the comp plan amendment before we go spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in engineering in order to do so. And so what we're trying to get to tonight is is the planning commission um does the planning commission agree with us that we think you know changing the guidance to the lowest possible lowest dense possible residential development that the Met Council allows is a wise decision or not. That's I guess that's that's kind of the decision point we're looking for. And then with that, if you've got any feedback on when, you know, what we should be looking at as we bring in an application for Plat um to help mitigate some of the concerns the neighbors, I'd be open to hearing feedback on that as well. But let me first talk about kind of what I've committed to um and if I haven't had a discussion with you, please I I'll give you my card. I I would like to I think I've had a discussion or at least reached out to some of you uh which is uh when we move forward for preliminary plat. I would welcome feedback in terms of how how we can deploy things like screening, grading, uh even you know offering trees or strategic tree placements that might be you know exceeding minimum sizes um on on the owner the existing owner's lots to try to basically address some of these initial concerns because I get it. I understand that what we're proposing is not a farm field. it is a housing development, albeit the less least dense we possibly could. Um, and so I guess I'm looking for feedback tonight. If you have any questions, I'm happy to take them. But that's really kind of what we're we're talking about tonight. Great. Thank you. Uh, and then we'll uh keep you available as questions come up. Um, but we will at this point in time begin discussion. Is there anyone who is really ready to go? I have mixed feelings about this one and the reason I do well I have two reasons so I'll start. Um I I am worried because the conservation uh zone residential I'm going to start to mix all of the commission words together. Um has been used three times. Am I correct? Two two or three. This would be the third. Okay. And so and this is a sliver of our city. And what concerns me is that if we're one off looking at a comprehensive plan amendment, um we are not what are the natural resources that are on this property that make this a conservation worthy zone compared to what is left to be developed in the rest of the city. Not just like in the 2050, but I'm talking like the rest of the, you know what I mean, the rest of the city. Because when you use something too frequently because it just serves a one-off purpose, we're not getting a bird's eye view on where it's best used. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. Um, so my understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, Natalie, but I think the the phrase conservation is less geared towards the actual conservation of natural resources and more so more towards the conservation of like a lower density uh of the land use or kind of it's supposed to be supposed to be some natural resour because you just indicated that we couldn't apply that to Chastic because it didn't have anything. So there is an existing tree line on the site that they are working to um develop around and to retain to the extent possible. So that was the natural resources proposed when they discussed this with city council. Okay. So I feel like this has all come about real quickly a separate from a comprehensive plan amendment. And so if we're just saying this tree line counts as something that's worth preserving but we haven't looked at it as a whole. Right. So, I guess what I'm saying is is doing this outside of the 2050, which we're right on the cusp of makes me a little uncomfortable. um because I feel like it would maybe be better served to look at the the all of the areas and then also to get a feel for are we going to keep I mean right now the Met Council is the one setting these densities and and I know that that I know that it is a serious thing we have to consider but I also know that they are an unelected body who has been three times over budget and years over deadlines on projects and I think that there is an appetite for some serious reform in that area. So again, it just feels like because this is a it's changing that comp plan as a one-off. Doing it aside from uh the big picture is where I'm hesitant right now. I do have significant appreciation for the fact that this is you are aiming for the lowest density. I think that that should be a requirement around some of these legacy neighborhoods because what we don't want to see, which is what's happening in Maple Grove, is subdivision of all of those larger neighborhoods and now you have big home next to big home next to big home without the ability to have some of the larger lots. So, if we can transition that well, so I do appreciate that that we're aiming to go for the lowest possible density. Um, the other reason is when we look at is it serving someone other than the applicant, I think that we have a little bit of tension between who we're calling the city. And so I can see that the city is saying they gave us this water, they sold us the land for the water treatment plant. You know, we uh we have all of these residential homes going in. But then when we look at the city as the makeup of the residents, there seems to be a big dichotomy in who is in agreement that this is a benefit and this is not a benefit. And so because this is where we have the most uh discretion because of the ask, it's not something that is like the previous application we see. That's why I am am hesitant in doing this apart from the next comprehensive plan review. I I I agree that this one is this one's really hard because this neighbor it seems out of place with the surrounding neighborhoods to the east and to the south, but then just right across 116 you've got high density. Can I ask is the existing home and buildings planning on staying or is it the whole Yeah. thing you're that you want to redevelop into 20 22 homes, right? Well, 22 is what we showed on the previous sketch. It's likely going to reduce to 21 just with how just from additional feasibility. The existing home would remain. The barn would be disassembled for use elsewhere within the city. We're having discussions on how that could occur. Um just because it's a sort it is a historic structure. You get a chance to go in. It's really cool. Um but it's just there's it's kind of at a point of disrepair um with significant costs needed to kind of make that change. So the existing home would remain, the existing garage would remain. Um and then basically um we provide an access or kind of a road kind of snaking through this site uh up into the water treatment facility. Um would it be on the border? I'm sorry. Would it be on the border of your property in the water treatment property? Sorry, we don't get concept plans. They they only go to the council. So, I'm asking Dwayne to just say subject to change would really be helpful to see. But but what what I'd say here I mean um Madam Chair, one of the things that we're looking at with this is it's funny that you kind of you're the the discussion is going towards 2050 comp plan. We're actually concerned the other way where hey, you've got the comp plan coming up. what's the chance that we're able to maintain as low of a density as what we have right now? And so what we're trying to do is say, hey, if we have if we have this ability to do this and make a change now and get a development going now, we can kind of lock in at a lower density and preserve a little bit better buffer than if we're forced to be at three and a half units an acre, three units an acre, whatever that is. Um, and then I think the thing I would just say is, you know, we're in a kind of a weird spot with the way the existing residential guidance works and that like how's Brian if he wants to to subdivide his home, he's stuck. So, we're kind of in a spot where like if it's not this, what is it? Um, and so I understand your concern. I get it. You're right. I mean, I would have we would love to figure out a way to put less homes on here. I can't. Um, and so this is kind of just the sketch that we've presented to city staff uh, city staff and city council. There's going to be some minor revisions to kind of address some of the public works comments uh, regarding some utility routing and whatnot, but this is generally the character we're looking at and that these lots are, you know, anywhere between, let's call it, it's basically 2 acres plus or minus as a minimum. Um, and so I guess I would just say like these lots compared to what we were just looking at some of these other things like these are significantly bigger. Um, and probably some of this one of the more significant new subdivisions in terms of lot sizes you'd see uh in Corkr and so uh we're I guess my point being we're trying to kind of be that transition because we recognize there's town homes across the street. We recognize that there's going to be some additional development pressure to the south. you know, there's just it's while yes, I can appreciate Hunter Ridge developed into five plus acre lots, we are not afforded that luxury anymore. So, we're looking at this and saying, what's the next best thing? And this is what we came up with. And so, I guess my my question would be is if it's not this, what is it? Um, I hear you. I'm just ready to fight the it's not possible any longer. Um because because I I so I guess that's personally where I'm coming. I hear that uh it should not be that having a reasonable size lot in Minnesota. I mean we're we're looking at lot sizes my anyway have family lives in California 10 years ago we went out there never bring lot sizes like that to Minnesota and yet here we are. Um and so uh so whether or not that's right uh I I like I appreciate that you're doing it. I guess why at this point if it's RSF1, why can't that be subdivided? Like it can be not under existing residential. So, and I would so I'd say that's one area that arguably when the water treatment plant went through, the ghost platting on there did suggest that future subdivision was contemplated because the long-term access is supposed to come from a local roadway that comes when this property redevelops. So, I would say right now with the current land use guiding as existing residential, they cannot the subdivide. It says in there that it's not meant for redevelopment. So they would have to reguide the property and to their point this is the next available in the the continuum of density. This is the next available land use. How do we get to a point where you have zoning that you can't even actually build at but we just had this problem in the last application like it doesn't make any sense right that that I mean that that's a problem. I have a problem with it. I have a huge problem with it. Yeah. Well, it compi. So, just to be clear, RSF1, that lot complies with the RSF1 minimum standards. But to in order to subdivide, you can't you would not be able to do it under the current land use designation. Correct. But not even if you had but but if I'm understanding correctly, not if you even had development rights because you're in the Musa. Correct. Well, exactly. This is an RSF1, so the development rights are irrelevant. That's not it doesn't apply in the zoning district, right? So that yeah so you get our problem at this point. I do and I'm as frustrated as you are. I just don't think that saying okay this is the only thing we can do is a solution I'm willing to and I can appreciate that. It's just the only option afforded to us. I mean frankly our option is to go back and we can I'm not I want to be super clear. This is not a threat. Okay. because it's not is like I don't even know if it's technically legal to not allow subdivision within a Musa. I mean, I would need an attorney to look at that, but I've never seen that happen before. Uh, and so I'm just looking here and like, gosh, I don't I don't have another option for my client in terms of how we can proceed with a subdivision, uh, which is his right as a property owner or he could sell the property and then whoever buys it is obviously going to subdivide it like that. It's one of the two. That's why they're buying the property. Not necessarily. People still do like to farm around here. It's just that we don't have access to land. But uh anyway, it's a totally different point. Let's just say somebody wanted to buy farmland. Now it's a sewer lot. That's farmland. It's not there's the acreage price isn't going to support farmland. No. So once the city water and sewer comes in, I think it's dumb question. I mean, it's going to happen to the entirety of Corkran eventually. I mean, even out No, because people need to eat and so we cannot continue to have the loss of 2,000 acres of farmland. The the areas in in the seven county metro in the metro area that they're reserving for farmland is Corkran is not included in that. Corkran is going to be what do they call it? Uh suburban edge. So, to be clear, our view says the suburban edge. So, our rural residential is not designated as but it's not designated as an area that the Met Council wants to preserve as agricultural either. I was just looking at that today and those agricultural I have really strong feelings about that and we have the opportunity to say that doesn't work for me as a citizen of this state because I would like access to my food without having to rely on an infrastructure. But that is a different aside. I'm just really frustrated with this um with this process. Yeah. And I can imagine I mean I imagine that you guys are. I just uh don't feel like there's a win uh in this. Yeah. I I think this it's unfortunate, but if you're in the Musa unless you want to keep your property and keep it zoned the way it is, that's sounds like that's the only way you can keep a large lot in the Musa. I won't say that comment. I to your point if residents in the Musa that want to keep their property there there's nothing that we are doing actively to force them to connect to city sewer and water um at this time that that has really been the policy from the city that we don't force um and so there we're not trying to force anyone to be put in position to subdivide but the people that it isn't just them there's other people that would have large pe fairly it's large relatively speaking so it's not a 40 acre lot and we're talking about 10 acres where they would like to subdivide and to even subdivide into two. We're talking about having to reguide reszone. So, it's um that's kind of where we are with that. That's where my question comes in. In what world can they regu or reszone and just have three lots matching the character of the properties to the east? Wait, we going this is the lowest density we can possibly do. Your hands are tied. Your hands are tied. Why are they tied? Because to establish a new land use designation that would allow for that density and then we're talking about a much more drastic departure from our three units an acre average or 3.3 might not exist. We can do it. Um but we still have to hit the overall average. And so there's just a little bit more of an impact when we're talking about um one to two or um two three vers. So we'd have to do the math as if there's more of an impact. And I also say because of the infrastructure required, it might not be financially feasible to put in the the required local roadway, the required utilities without a certain number of lots. So it's it's not just the there's also a financial component for it to be a viable development. Get that. But do Sorry, I I was gonna say I think um get that. But 22 homes to four homes, multi-million dollar homes, I don't know. There's a big difference there to me to make that I if we're running into this, and again, this is a high discretion policy decision, so bear with us here while we're trying to figure this out. Um, I think that, um, we may need to look into creating something like that because we're running into this all the time and people need to have options, but we need to also have something that continues to promote our character of our city that we've heard from residents that we've had, you know, as our vision this whole time. That's our logo. So um I don't know what and then there was another point that I can't oh based on the report and I was a little bit confused on the different density like current state tables the one that I saw says we're over if we exclude the southwest boundaries southern boundary we're over 3.5 today is that a true statement 3.357 but if you exclude the south southern boundary. So we're over 3.5. We are we are within if you're excluding that southeast district we're at uh 3.35 right now. What was the number that was 3.5 something that's what they're going to that's so right include if we include that southwest area it's more like 3.10 3.11. Okay. So what I I just am looking at you know again we've talked about this a couple times but as we you know have multiple proposals we've approved today our numbers are shifting and so if I look at the argument for this and the benefit that is providing for the city and the community and I agree with you that seems like there's a couple things that are particularly related to the city and this dealing and the broader um impact of hope um you know, the entrance on 116 and removing that. I don't me I don't see that as a huge value because this the city didn't want to have an entrance on 116. They probably wouldn't have had one or they would have figured out how to solve that in my own opinion. Um fixed costs, helping with the fixed costs, the city incorporated this plan based on an investment analysis that I don't think it's relevant. Um, and so I don't see an immense amount of immediate value to the community. I obviously see it for the applicant. Um, so that's what I'd like to kind of see and discuss more and understand how we can come to a a middle ground here. So that's where I stand. That might have not been a articulate uh decision, but and I understand what you're saying about the concern that if we wait till 2050, this could change the other direction. I mean, that's the thing. Like I think everybody who lives around there could could know, but I don't want to live under the the like threat that things could get worse and I don't have a say in it. I just feel frustrated with that because eventually at a certain point if we just keep accepting what is without saying what could be or what can we do differently or what isn't working and then work to change that. Like I just then then we might as well just say that the government gets to say whatever they want about what happens to my land, right? I I'm feeling like I'm studying the feudal system in England right now with my kids in history and it's feeling like when the Lord's walked in and were like, "Hey, we own all the land and now you get to just farm it and serve us." And so that's I guess maybe where I'm feeling really really frustrated about the oper like the fact that I'm being told that there is no other option. Um that just feels really frustrating. And so even if it is completely like gone a different direction from council, I just feel like this would be a a better sound like I feel like I could justify or consider this as a part of a larger um discussion rather than just specific to this property. And I guess I'm still hung up there and it is getting late. And so all due respect to uh to everybody's time, unless there's something new that kind of a point someone wants to to discuss or bring up, I feel like we should begin to just move in the direction of what our recommendation is going to be. Absolutely. I do not want to you've waited all night with us. So Brian Lair, one road 116. I'm the applicant for this. Uh the question really that also needs to be part of this discussion is do I have the right as a property owner to subdivide my property according to the ordinances that exist today as of this moment? Not what the ordinances might be 6 months or 12 months or 24 months or 20 years from now. Do I have the right as a property owner in the city of Corkran to subdivide my property? And if I do have that right, then what is the existing ordinance say that that density needs to be when I subdivide? That was our approach to this whole process. I know our neighbors feel like uh this is like the worst thing that could ever happen to them because of 20 or 21 or 22 homes coming. Uh, the reason I just didn't sell it to a developer is because I want to preserve my home and I want to preserve some of the integrity in the history of our community. I do have an intention to sell my home, but not until after this decision has been made to have this site developed because that's how I can preserve or prevent the developer from coming in just tearing down my home that was built in 1912. So, I care about this city. I care about the history of this city, but I do have a right as a property owner to subdivide my property according to the ordinances of the city of Cork. And that is what we need to deliberate on tonight and make a recommendation. So, thank you. I guess the question for that would be is that every property owner is subject to the ordinances of the city because I cannot just say I have 10 development rights, you know, because I want to subdivide my property. So, we we've touched on these conversations, right? And so the argument there is that this is it it can you address that argument for me, please? I'm sorry. So the development rights are a little bit different because the development rights is how we control density, right? But I'm saying he is saying that we're not allowing him to subdivide the property according to city ordinances if we don't approve this comprehensive plan amendment. And I'm saying if it is in accordance with the the city's ordinances, then why is it requiring a comprehensive plan amendment? I guess that's where I'm stuck. So the existing resident it's again the existing residential land use category does not contemplate further subdivision. So in order for a subdivision to move forward, it would have to be reged to a different land use category. So it is within the current zoning, his property is being used and allowed, right? According to the current standard, I So I have a question. if he were to he he wants to subdivide it now because then he can keep it less dense than if he sold it outright and he can keep his property that he wants to continue living in if he were to if he were to sell it because he's not allowed. We don't let him reszone it. So he sells it. He says I'm out of here. Then whoever buys this property, do they buy it with the same zoning that he currently has or does or does the zoning become the Musa zoning? So it is the Musa zoning right now. So the RS it would not change RSF1. So whoever buys this property then would also have to come to the council and ask for it to be reszoned either as a PUL amendment. You have to start you have to start with the Could you do a conditional use permit the way we've seen some of the other lots developed? We don't No, we don't do cups for residential development. You'd have to start with reguiduing it for subdivision. That's what the step is is reguiding it. So in residential the only option for reszoning is this conservation. So resoning is different. So resoning is the zoning district. So there so that would be like the last application the land use designation wasn't up for debate. They were trying to work within the land use designation that we had and we were reszoning to a district with a slightly smaller lot size. So that so that's basically the first layer is the land use designation and the next layer is a compatible zoning district with what was contemplated for that land use guidance. Um and then you get into things like site like the specific site use like for site plan or subdivision or conditional use permit. So um this is like the first like the basis of all land use or land use decisions for the site are based off of the land use designation. So he's right now low density residential. Right now he's existing residential. Yep. RSF1 is zoning district. It would be the same process that anyone who had a lot on Hunter Ridge and wanted to subdivide would have to go through. Yes. Yeah. I I think it I would say one difference with this is the rest of the Hunter Ridge neighborhood I believe is zoned urban reserve where this one is RSF1. Um and um Can you pull up the the land use? Yeah, I can. show us because again we had to we had to subdivide the property for the water treatment plant. Um and then we had to as part of that consider access um once this property redeveloped. So let me just pull up the Oh, you're pulling it up. Would it be fair to say that this land owner as well as anyone else in Hunter Ridge knows about these constraints or did things change significantly when the music came in? Like things did change when the music came in? Yes. So if they I I don't know that there was necessarily door knocking to explain how the Musa changed. I know that there as part of the comprehensive plan up uh updates that we do, there is extensive attempt to do outreach to discuss the land use decisions and any changes in guiding. Um but as far as this one, I'll just say what's different about this property in particular is um the land use guiding is existing residential, but it technically falls within phase one for municipal sewer. So again, that contemplates I think it was kind of meant as a holding zone to keep it existing residential to wait for a future subdivision application, but I do believe that our we do have a couple different documents suggesting that we expected this property to develop at some point. I think, don't throw me out of here for saying this, but I think the right thing for our city, for our future, for our these cases that will pop up because this does have maybe a layer of precedence to it. Um, is to perhaps explore another land use designation because we can't, to your point, I agree with you. I don't see a world where we know something maybe isn't the right fit and we don't feel good about it, but we have to approve it, but we know we want to meet the, you know, our citizens like desires. I I just I don't feel good with accepting it and I don't feel good with denying it. And there's got to be a a better option and we've been in this situation a couple times. We've tried to address it a few different ways. We've talked about setbacks for legacy neighborhoods because we understand that there should be a better way to transition and yet we feel like our hands are tied. So, um I know it's getting late and that some folks have quite a drive and so I don't want to cut anybody off or keep anybody, but I al like from expressing themselves, but I also just really want to be respectful of the the hour, the late hour. Um, so if there is something new that anybody would really want to address, I feel like uh I've had the chance to just to say where some of my frustrations lie um with this and and my preference to be able to do comprehensive plan amendments as a whole instead of um oneoffs. But very clearly there was some expectation that the city had um when they purchased the the water treatment plant that maybe was an aside. So I don't know if anyone has a strong feeling on making a recommendation otherwise at this point in time. Just say one more thing here. I mean, just looking at this and I mean Hunter Ridge there and your properties that are south of that, you're going to have major change no matter what we decide to do here. I mean, you're you're right in the I feel like Hunter Ridge would probably tell you that they already had a lot of change. They have been sandwiched in from something. I mean, this whole area of Corkran has I mean, it's changed. I've been in Corkran 37 years now and it's it's you know it's hardly recognizable when you go through that part of it. It's looks like Maple Grove now, you know, right? And we're not saying that change is bad, but I think No. No. Oh, and I mean I guess I guess from what I