Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker names. [4:43] **Jon Radermacher:** discussion. Yes. So, yeah, thank you, chair. Um, again, apologize for that. There were I received notice from two commission members that they wouldn't be in attendance um after the meeting agenda had been posted. Uh we do have just on our agenda as was planned the only the items were purely discussion only. Um they are for the development application that we received from uh track through their consultants and the land current land owners. um an item for a um zoning ordinance amendment uh request that is a permit. Um and so it was an application that was [5:29] **Jon Radermacher:** formally made with a fee uh planned and then a development um concept that uh we've been talking about that had some decision impacts from uh the past that we just wanted to go through and verify um you know what had happened in the past, what was still valid, what isn't valid, and then how to you know proceed moving forward. So we do have representatives from from those three here. So um at this point you know we could have a conversation certainly ask some questions um I do I do want to state that for the items related to tract and the development uh application that they have um that is going to be a big part of the conversation at the joint city council planning uh work session on June 17th at 5:00 p.m. here [6:16] **Jon Radermacher:** as well. So, uh they will have full representation there for um to be able to answer answer questions, but if we do have stuff like now or in advance, uh let us know um related to that and we can make sure that those questions get um reported back to them so that they have an opportunity to discuss them uh for the public in that in that setting as well. So, you know, it's uh unfortunate uh that we don't have the quorum to to move through for business purposes, but um ultimately we can um do that at a at a future uh planning commission date. So, we'll just get the minutes and other other business attended to. Thankfully, we didn't have anything that was pending for a public [7:01] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** hearing or uh actual um ordinance or resolution to approve tonight. Do we have to do public input then too or? [7:04] **Jon Radermacher:** Uh there wasn't any I just picked up the sheet and nobody had signed up and is if we're having a discussion I'm assuming it's all right to do it back and forth with people just for uh I think logistics with the meeting because it is still uh broadcast uh if they could re approach the podium at least that picks that up and and um so those watching can hear. [7:31] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Thank you. Then we will go to uh item 7A, gravel driveway ordinance amendment. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on that or [7:41] **Jon Radermacher:** Yes. So I do believe Mark Sansard and um sorry I forgot your first name. Andrew uh are here to uh speak on that. They're part of the Timber Ridge development. Um this primarily came up. We we did hear from Mark back in January uh discussing this regarding the estate lots. Um at the time we were looking at that in terms of a variance and um you know at that moment we um directed them or agreed that we'd move forward in a different path uh to explore an ordinance update. [8:16] **Jon Radermacher:** So uh Mark and I met um back in May um to discuss this. I've you know done an fair amount of research regarding um the subject and you know how you know it could apply and so they they did make a formal application to amend the ordinance. Uh so that's what's in in the packet uh that you received. Um there is a need to at some point take action to this before a 60-day deadline or file for an extension. I I had a conversation with Mark regarding that. I do believe we will need to extend that just to to meet that deadline. But um you know we could uh discuss move this on um based on the discussion or if there's any other input [9:03] **Jon Radermacher:** um and amending that amendment or discussing you know the direction that we do want to go um if there is any changes that we want to make to that ordin that part of the ordinance. So, just as a background and history, the the need for that is those estate lots um that are approved have some unique characteristics certainly within the city that we have right now. [9:26] **Jon Radermacher:** They're uh platted u so for some very large lots. They do both, I think, have shared driveways and that was kind of necessitated from uh the county and the road access off of Highway 20, county highway 24. uh they're very long driveways as needed to to reach the properties. Um, additionally that that area town isn't served by water and sewer uh and nor is it in the immediate near future even long range plans at this point to to bring water and sewer that area. So there was a um variance or agreement put in place with that development that they could develop their own well and septic up until the point in which the city brought in the central water and sewer. Uh at which [10:12] **Jon Radermacher:** time they would have to connect. Um but the driveways weren't weren't discussed or or approved at that time. So, um, in terms of what we're, you know, asking for at this moment was just a conversation to see gather input from the planning commission members, uh, over what direction they wanted to go. [10:30] **Jon Radermacher:** Um, I did share in there a sample ordinance that I thought if if um, we were looking for something more defined than what was submitted in the application. Um it it felt the one that I had example from Spearfish South Dakota was a similar uh kind of little more similar and put a little bit more specifics around um distance and and justification for allowing for gravel driveways. [10:59] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Thank you, John. So, I guess what I want to ask is I'm looking at the different choices we have and were you thinking to have I think you can have like 20 to 25 ft asphalt up to the gravel driveway before you get in. Is that what you're thinking of doing or you think of just having gravel straight to the highway to get into your estates? [11:31] **Mark Sansard:** Um, yeah. Oh, I got it. We can adjust it back. All right. There's a button on the microphone, too. Yeah. There we go. All right. Good. Good evening, chair, coun or planning commission members. Again, my name is Mark Sansard. I'm with JH Land. I'm representing um Timber Ridge tonight. Um I was here over winter a few months ago. [11:58] **Mark Sansard:** We were looking for a variance for gravel driveways. And as we got deeper into it, um we were looking at the city ordinance and the city ordinance basically has one option for a driveway in in down here in Canon Falls and that's to have a paved hard surface driveway. So, um, after discussing it with staff a little bit further, we thought, well, maybe it'd be be better to take a good look at the city ordinance and maybe there's a chance to, um, make some revisions for that for some unique lots in the city of Canon Falls. We also in our research kind of looked around the city and there are there are a reasonable number of driveways in the city that um are not a paved surface right now. Um so in particular for um the the estate lots at [12:46] **Mark Sansard:** Timber Ridge, um our idea for something that we thought would be reasonable would be to have the driveway portion of each lot, the first 25 or 30 feet from the actual garage out be paved. So that when you pull up to your garage, you're parking on a hard surface. or when you pull into your garage, you're parking on a hard surface. Then the other I uh end of it was as you come off the county road or a city road while you're in the the right away of whether it be a city street or a county road, that portion is also paved so that you don't have gravel or runoff stuff going onto a public [13:31] **Mark Sansard:** street. So then we the thought was then between the rightway and then up towards when you get close to the the actual home itself that portion of your driveway could be gravel. [13:48] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** How many feet are we talking? [13:51] **Mark Sansard:** Um boy I I mean the southern one you know we're talking the shoot I didn't bring a scale with me but um you know 500 600 feet. [14:12] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Let me ask a a a question. Um would this be something that mean we already have the exemption for water and sewer because of the long distance? Um I'm I'm thinking way into the future when we've got houses all along 24 out there. Uh and then you know the dust from that driveway might actually interfere with other people living in that area. Would this be something we could do this until city water and sewer are out there and then have it paved at that time or is it going to be impossible forever? [14:59] **Mark Sansard:** Um, it's it's an option. Um, the other thing we talked with staff about is that maybe some more land along these county roads might come into the city and then you'll have more situations like this. um where you know there are existing homes or something or new developments or new lots that are um larger lots that um could also use this part of the code to not do a full driveway or driveway or homes that are already out there in water and sewer are now showing up and then the city would require them to be hooked up and then would the ALS would the city also then require them to be a paved driveway too on top of the hookup. [15:36] **Mark Sansard:** So, I think this was more of a idea for an option for not to put too much burden on new homeowners or existing homeowners um that already are out there and have a long gravel driveway but now are in a situation where they can hook up to water, city water and sewer because those are going to be rather large bills. and then to say, "Oh, by the way, you know, good news. We brought you city water, city sewer, and here's the cost for that." But also, city ordinance requires you now to pave your your your driveway. Is that about what we talked about, John? Close. Yeah, I think so. [16:21] **Jon Radermacher:** you know, in terms of um certainly have some potentials for future future properties that are coming in where it's going to be burdensome if if indeed they you know were forced to pave their driveway as they're annexed into the city or connecting up to to water and sewer. So, um even in the existing more in town some there were some that you know had some pretty significant links to their to their driveways already. um more than just, you know, people with a coming off the alley and it had their back approach to their back garage or even coming off a street where it's just a, you know, more standard 25 ft uh frontage driveway to your to your garage door. Um there are some that are in that, you know, 50 plus [17:08] **Jon Radermacher:** 100 I mean one even around 250 ft in town where where it's been there for probably, you know, a century. Um but it's so you know I think to me you know justification for why we're doing it certainly is around the storm water and protecting that from uh runoff and and gravel getting into those surfaces. Um the parking on paved surfaces I think can be definitely an issue. um if you don't have that, you know, if they're parking on just grass surfaces, then you get the the, you know, struggles of of grass and other things growing up around there where where you have cars parked if they're parked for a very long time. [17:50] **Jon Radermacher:** So, I do see like your recommendation of, you know, the start and the end uh certainly addressed two of those issues. um the dust and things, you know, certainly would have a a problem or challenge to um over time um as if you do have longer runs and they are, you know, close to close proximity to neighboring houses, you are going to see um that impact uh other residents too. [18:16] **Jon Radermacher:** So, we do need to be mindful of how the these decisions can impact others. But um there are definitely I I feel that as a recommendation I think there's there is a need to change the ordinance um just in regards to what the future holds as well as some of the existing areas that we have in town. Um but finding that balance I think is is useful. [18:46] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** What would be like a they in their thing they have the uh rural or large lot single family. What would be the definition of a large flot? Because I was thinking if it was large enough the driveway hopefully would be in the center and therefore the problem of dust mitigation to other property owners might be more. I know these two these four homes are kind of in a wooded area. [19:11] **Jon Radermacher:** Right. But that doesn't necessarily mean the next one down the road, you know, is going to have the in the middle of the woods that kind of soaks up some of the dust. Yeah. And I understand, you know, the the the storm water and all this reasoning. [19:29] **Jon Radermacher:** I just grew up breathing gravel dust and it was not fun. So I I know for certainly for the urban reserve that would absolutely be the case, but uh I think the standard for minimum lot size on urban reserve is like 10 acres. So it's not going to apply to very much area very many um uh places. [19:55] **Jon Radermacher:** Yeah, we I mean it could define it. Uh there's the re um I mean we have re R1 R2 3 up to four but the higher number you get into the more density so you're probably getting into the closer ones where you don't have any sort of uh long driveway runs at all. Um certainly re is would probably very much mimic that um that large the example one from spearfish which I what you're referencing for a rural large lot a residential I think is what it's called. [20:33] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Uh that seems to be one that's align with it pretty well. How big are these lots approximate? [20:48] **Mark Sansard:** Um, so this one's 2 and a half acres. This one's 3.2, this one's 2.25, and this one's 2.15. So they're all two plus. They're all two plus. Okay. [21:10] **Jon Radermacher:** So that if we were going to try to craft this ordinance, we could start by saying a minimum at least two acres on a lot size. Yeah. Our re minimums are it's about a half an acre. [21:14] **Jon Radermacher:** Um, so there might be that doesn't necessarily align, but we certainly could set a acreage threshold in terms of um that if you didn't want to set a zoning um, you know, make it an accessible option in in different zones. [21:32] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** I have a question that's been I came I visit went to your states. I'm just trying to figure this out. This is the driveway. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. [21:47] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** This is a person's driveway across the driveway. Okay. [22:07] **Mark Sansard:** Right. No, that's a good qu good question because we had we proposed the exact same thing to the county. County require those driveways to be across from each other. Seriously? Yeah. I'm going to add one item. Typically, the county is going to only let you have one driveway. They're going to encourage a shared driveway. Oh, okay. So, they they want to limit the number of driveways onto the road. [22:31] **Mark Sansard:** Well, if you if you move that one drive, does it have to be across from each? No, they they wanted them across from each other. Okay. So, if you move the other one now, you're you're trained. You can't Yeah, you're basically doing the same. Yeah, we we played around with several lots configurations and Yeah, I think you explained that to me um you know, back in the winter that you spent a lot of time with the county and assessing the the final locations for these shared the the shared driveways. [22:58] **Mark Sansard:** Yeah. I mean, our our ideal buyer for the South is, you know, mom and dad are building a house and they're neighbors going to be their kid or, you know, a family compound where two homes with one driveway, something like that. And that's kind of been the interest in that lot so far, too. But we do have shared driveway documents ready to go if we were to write a purchase agreement about maintenance and management, stuff like that. [23:27] **Mark Sansard:** Um, not to bring up another scenario, but I will. Um, and I I apologize I didn't bring the Timber Ridge Estates overall site plan, but as we move into the next phase, we had those larger lots where we had um placed um larger accessory buildings for the rear of the um lot to be served by a gravel alleyway. And that's the way we presented it. So um and I guess that final plat will be coming in front of you over the next sometime in the next year. So we will be requesting that alleyway as presented at the preliminary plat gravel. [24:16] **Jon Radermacher:** Okay. Is that another one of those ordinance things that in our conversations that was um I think the direction there was that was going to be a private alleyway not a public alleyway. So they were going to have some level when the preliminary plats for that that was part of the discussion at that time to keep that alleyway private and then they that would allow for it to be um gravel. But just as we talk about these things, you know, they're new and it's a little different and sometimes the ordinance and the rules don't exactly fit, but we'll be clear with our application. [25:01] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** So I if we were going to put this together in legal ease is whatever official language uh to apply not only here but going forward you know we could make a minimum lot size of whatever we think is appropriate and and there again I I'm not just storm water I really do think dust blowing from gravel driveways is not pleasant to live next to. So, you know, I think two acres sounds good, but can't And then we're looking at like 25 ft out from the garage and 25 ft out from the access road. [25:43] **Mark Sansard:** It it'll vary depending upon the width of the rightway. Okay. So, it would be to the rightway line. So, in this case where the county road is wider, so it would be wider than that. In this case, I think it's closer to Help me out, Mark. I thought it was closer to 70 feet. Yeah, it's it's quite a bit. It's so they would pave like seven or maybe it's a maybe it is a distance of at least 25 ft off a rideway and then at least 25 ft in front of a home. [26:10] **Mark Sansard:** Yeah. Or 25 ft off of a road and then 25 ft in front of a home. And then do we want to say that this is only going to apply? I mean if they've got a 75 ft driveway, it seems kind of silly not to pave the last 25. So, are we going to say it has to be at least 100 foot or 200 foot long driveway or what would be reasonable, do you think? Or Yeah, we we could come up with something that's reasonable. Mhm. [26:42] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** That's kind of what we'd have to have, right? Yeah. Yeah, sounds like it. 25 in in the front, 25 in the back, and at least 50 in the middle where they could request for that to not be paved. like that. All right. No, we appreciate the conversation. Well, thank you. Any other comments? Nope. That's moving on to Well, just say I'm on the wrong agenda. No. [27:18] **Jon Radermacher:** B, initial application track development. So we do have tonight uh Jake Steen. He's with Larkin Hoffman and a representative of Tracked. Um so I just wanted to again share this information as soon as it was available to us for for you all. [27:39] **Jon Radermacher:** Um it was received on May 27th um as a development application with the fees attached and then the escro agreement that we have. Um the amendment that we made is to also then apply uh that for this development agreement as we would other development agreements. So we are covered on that front. Um logistically just um going back we we had our joint meeting on the 20th uh knowing that this application would be coming. We discussed the schedule of um that we had for that. Uh there has been some updates to that schedule that is included. I believe that's included in the packet. I tried to highlight in blue uh some of the dates in which that um or some of the items in which there the dates [28:24] **Jon Radermacher:** changed or the timeline changed on it. Uh there is um a big kind of element of this that we need to happen. So we need to kind of make sure that we have the proper order of things as as the decisions are going to be moving forward. But at this point, you know, the applications received, we were able to review. um we can certainly have the conversations about what's going on. The the critical element that we do need to get completed next is the annexation of the property uh from the township. So, um that is something that we're trying to get uh that established and meeting and conversations happening with the township and their representatives um so that we can come to what's called an orderly annexation agreement and that is completed through a joint resolution [29:10] **Jon Radermacher:** between the city council and the township board. So that um if all goes well and that development can be um met and a resolution can be completed um the earliest that would be you know we reasonably believe that could be approved is at the July 15th um city council meeting and I believe that's also a township board meeting night too. [29:33] **Jon Radermacher:** We've seem to have our our meetings um aligning at the same time. So that is a critical element because prior to that being done and that approve that that uh resolution being approved um we can't technically make a decision on the land use of this application um because it's not technically in the city limits. So um we need to have that confirmed and know that that's the direction that we're um going and that the the land will be coming into the city and which becomes part of our jurisdiction. Um, I don't see any problems with that. I don't uh just getting things scheduled and getting those conversations started has been um, you know, it just hasn't happened yet. I know the township wanted [30:18] **Jon Radermacher:** to make sure that they completed the subdivision process and I believe there's a conditional use permit that of part of the parcel that was not uh coming into the city limits. Um so and I believe blue Jake you can chime in if that's uh that has all been satisfied uh and completed and executed. So uh on that on that end we're we're set to to progress. Um so uh just offering you the opportunity. We do have uh just for your information and the public's information. We do keep a plan set here. [30:51] **Jon Radermacher:** Um we have a couple copies of them. So the large scale plan sets because otherwise what you got and print it off is certainly can be difficult to read at times. So they are available and we will you know if needed u and anybody would want to look and and and inspect them we can make them available for inspection. [31:09] **Jon Radermacher:** We do want to you know intend to provide that to the township as part of uh our discussion. Um you know if you call back we did the responsible government uh unit the RGU agreement with the township uh for the AU process. Um so that um again indicates you know the township is well informed and aware that this is the direction that we intend with as everything moves forward. So you know it's just wanting to make sure that that step is completed along the way. So with that, you know, we'd also, I said earlier, we do uh plan to have the uh work session, joint work session with the city council and planning commission uh next council meeting on the 17th or work session, excuse me, at on the 17th of June at 5:00 p.m. Um there will be [31:54] **Jon Radermacher:** further uh opportunities for another work session, but um as we progress, there will be opport um required public hearings. Um, as this is a uh with the annexation, there will be a reszone with a planned unit development uh overlay to that both which require public hearing. [32:15] **Jon Radermacher:** Um, and then the preliminary plat for and final plats for the um for the site. Um, relatively straightforward. That's why Bill's here tonight to kind of answer any questions regarding the the platting process. Um they do uh we are also in uh discussions about a development agreement. So that's uh putting in place uh terms in which we are going to um of which infrastructure and the plan for infrastructure and who's going to pay for it and when it's going to be delivered um will come into play. Uh that was a critical you know that that's the next phase after we completed our studies. Uh I do want to share with you also the information that the studies have been pretty much completed. We're in the kind of the final draft stages of them right now. Uh we have been [33:01] **Jon Radermacher:** reviewing them back and forth with staff as well as with tracked. Um very positive feedback so far. Uh I think Bill and his team did an excellent job in terms of understanding and and confirming for us what we have. So uh the good news on that front is that there is capacities that we do have within our systems already for for water and and wastewater treatment. um the challenges that we face are are um you know knowing what they are uh I think is aligns really well for a project like this because their needs actually um kind of spark us to to to taking the next steps that we need to do on on the development of our infrastructure uh particularly on the on the water side. [33:44] **Jon Radermacher:** On the wastewater treatment side um you know everything is pretty pretty well positioned for that. Um but now we know and we know how to at least craft in the development agreement uh limitations on on what can be coming from in terms of volumes uh from from the developer. [34:10] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** um in terms of just discussion and and questions and um on page well page one of theirs page 23 of something else am I going with the numbers on the top of the page or the bottom? Yeah. So you're referencing the uh their application, right? The Yeah. [34:33] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Well, on the bottom it says page 23 and the top top it says page one. Got it. Yep. Okay. Um, and looking at the map and and reviewing with John earlier, the difference between our I industrial one, industrial 2 doesn't seem to be a lot of differences in our zoning codes. [34:54] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** However, I1 is supposed to be the one that is used when it's near residential, and I was just wondering if that should be done because we do have the residential component there. I do know the rest of it sits right up against an I2 zone. So, um, yeah. [35:40] **Jon Radermacher:** So, so we'll note that and I'll I'll share that with the the representatives from them and ask, you know, if they've in their reviews, what is sparking their desire to request this for I2 versus I1? I mean it just you looked at the map and it kind of just looked like it should be I2, but then I looked at the little hunk of residential and thought that and and then just as a you know information too when we were reviewing that we did notice there are I1 uh districts that would have bought this property as well as I2 both. And then I because I also asked about why a PUD as opposed to a cup and I thought John's answer was very helpful. Sure. Uh so um my understanding and I'm not the city attorney but as I've I thought I'm trying to rever you don't want that repeat this as a as a city attorney's explained it to me. uh conditional use permits are are based on uh the usage on a property that doesn't conform with uh your zoning. So you you allow for that with conditions and then that stays with the conditional uses tend to stay with [36:25] **Jon Radermacher:** the use. So as long as the use is happening on the property, the CUP still applies. If the use stops on the property for a period, a given period, an extended period, then the CUP can go away. um in terms of a the PUD process. So the planned unit development that's really overlaying the land itself and saying hey these things can happen within this land and it's and it's you know not tied to specifically that use at that time and if that use goes away then the P the like the CUP um in this instance it would would serve well because what they're trying to accomplish is establishing a site that can be used for the next user. So they're doing, you know, like we do with our housing development, hardwood estates, I think it a fair comparison in [37:13] **Jon Radermacher:** terms of how a PUD can apply. You have an area that you want to develop. It meets and and Timber Ridge, as Mark was here, that's another one that we have a PUD. You have things that it it fits a lot of the zone, but not all of it. And there's, you know, elements that you want to be able to apply across multiple parcels. Um, in this instance, they're trying to develop two different lots um, with their plat uh, and they want to have those similar elements still in place. So, you know, there's there's some things that they want to do that are exceed the requirements that we have in terms of uh, they actually want to be more restrictive and then there's some elements that they have that they want, you know, to exceed what our limits are. [37:58] **Jake Steen:** Commissioners, I think summarizing differences and I would also add that this is a big site and I think one of the important things is that you can You don't just have a one size fits all set. [38:33] **Jake Steen:** So proposing major roadways would be 100. Hey Jake, sorry. Can you push your button? There you go. All right. Does that work? [38:50] **Jake Steen:** Yeah. No problem. Yep. Press it once. There you go. All right. Sorry about that. So, so again we would have a variable setback. Uh it really is designed to mitigate the unique circumstances of a site of this size and with the unique nature of this development. Uh so there's again just a lot more levers and it's can be very responsive to the surrounding elements whereas a cup is a use that is permitted as of right in a zoning district. Uh so there's actually a lot fewer guard rails around that and the hope is that at at the work session we can get uh any feedback that you have uh any comments, questions and if you do have comments or questions ahead of time please forward those to John and we'll try to respond to those [39:36] **Jake Steen:** as best we can at at that work session. [39:50] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** I might give them to you right now. [39:52] **Jake Steen:** Well, you can give them to me. I'll write them down. I'm I'm not as smart as the rest of the team, but I'll I'm happy to write everything down and and we'll try to have the the full team here on the 17th. [39:58] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Okay. Then then go to page three on the top, 25 on the bottom. Do you have the same thing we have? [40:11] **Jake Steen:** Uh you know, it was not published. This the full uh application was not published. [40:18] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** So I you can Okay. This is a most of the principal and accessory uses shall be permitted. principal uses data center and then electrical power transforming stations actually in that whole thing because it's got generators down on the next thing. Um does this allow diesel backup generators there? [40:40] **Jake Steen:** So this diesel backup generators would be uh an element of any any uh technology park, any data center. And this would um this specific language is electric power transforming station that is referring to uh to a large transmission uh station, right? A large um transformer that we will be working with uh Great River Energy to put on site. Uh so making sure that we have that infrastructure on site and that it's paid for by uh by our end user. Uh but there there will be inevitably some type of uh generators. I don't know that [41:10] **Jake Steen:** diesel is is the right fit. It's largely natural gas these days and it's uh also uh technology is rapidly changing and we want to be able to be flexible uh to be responsive. If in 10 years it's backup batteries, we want to be able to use backup batteries. [41:28] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** jump right in for Yeah. I'm just When you drive, I've driven around it looking at it. Is this going to be set level? Sorry. Set level to the high like Highway 52 or some of the other roads around it. Is it going to be set level or is it going to be dug in so that there's more buffer for noise? Maybe I'm just checking to see if it's, you know, going to go down maybe 50 feet, 60 feet under and start from there instead of right at the surface. [41:51] **Jake Steen:** You know, I I don't have the details. Ultimately, what we're looking at now is the framework of uh the planned unit development and then the development will come through again uh to you to the planning commission and the city council at a later date and that's when all the details will be identified. Right now we have some conceptual right we we understand what [42:14] **Jake Steen:** uh the framework will be what the set work setbacks will be what the height will be. Uh what we are establishing now too is some of the mitigation the sound mitigation. So there will be uh yes there will be uh excavation on site but then there will also be quite a bit of burming around the perimeter. Uh so the effect will be that it will be sunk uh lower down. Uh and there's a number of different sound uh mitigation uh requirements that we are proposing to be part of this plan unit development that will be reviewed uh against any future development. [42:55] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Okay. So just so I know because I don't know data centers that much is the goal to have these is the sound mitigation is it to force the [43:00] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** sound up so that it's going away from instead of straight out. Is that how that works? [43:18] **Jake Steen:** I don't want to get too much into the the technical aspects because I'm not a sound engineer. Uh but I would say the goal is to use uh several different types of mitigative uh uh approaches. So we would use buffers. uh we would have natural landscaping in between. Uh there would be landscaping on top of the buffers and then there would be the placement of the technology. It's a large site. So if we do have backup generators for example, those could be placed to the interior of the site so that any sound is mitigated by the buildings. We would of course be complying with any sound requirements under state statute as well as uh producing a sound study for any specific [43:48] **Jake Steen:** development using the technology that is being proposed at that time. So if we switch from uh diesel to natural gas to batteries uh we would still have to provide some sort of uh demonstration of what that looks like. [44:03] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Okay. So the goal is more or less it's more absorption of sound. [44:08] **Jake Steen:** Correct. Correct. a combination of of all of the different techniques. [44:13] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Then is there we have one thing is that substation overhead transmission lines are exempt from the design regulations of the I2 district. [44:28] **Jake Steen:** Correct. That is the the large transmission lines that you see uh up and through the site already. Uh we just want to be clear that those transmission lines will most likely continue to exist and we might actually have to do some reconfiguration and consultation with Great River Energy. [44:46] **Jon Radermacher:** We we have trans there are lines there already that don't conform to whatever our ordinance is. Yeah, I believe those the cap is it the capex lines that are along that I mean would be pretty closer within the Yeah. And I I don't know. I think they they cut through the site and and certainly up to the site and and I don't know what the height is on those. Maybe 120 ft. It's pretty substantial. [45:15] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Okay. And then um I think our zoning has maximum building height of like 45 ft or something. 80 feet seems incredibly high. I know we said it can be 80 feet for communication towers. You're planning to have 80 foot tall buildings. [45:34] **Jake Steen:** Yeah, the idea is that the 60 would be the minimum. Uh and the or the I'm sorry, the maximum but that maximum could be increased if you increase the setback. Uh so as you would move towards the interior of the site, for every foot you go up, you would go 5t in to the interior. Uh so for example, I think it would be a 300t setback if you're at 80 ft. Uh so the idea is that you would have up to the eightstory building uh or up to the 80 80 foot building uh on site and data centers need that height. It's about, you know, there's a lot that goes into it, but it's about efficiency uh and ensuring that you have the uh the [46:11] **Jake Steen:** placement on site. And again, really, there's a lot of different factors that go into it, but uh you know, mitigation of noise, mitigation of footprint, uh but they do they do range from, you know, 60 to 80 ft is uh is fairly standard. But to go along with that, there are a number of architectural details that we've proposed uh that we're looking for feedback on uh so that it's not just a blank 80oot wall. Uh so that it would be there would be some architectural uh details. [46:58] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** I was going to say you can't because our ordinance says any wall has to have at least two things. [47:04] **Jake Steen:** Right. Right. Yeah. And and that's exactly what you're doing is Yeah. Trying to include two of the tw of the 12 that are listed here. Exactly. Exactly. What is a green wall? So, a green wall uh would be off, you know, sometimes a living wall is another term for it. Um it could be covered in vines. It could be covered in uh a facade treatment that allows you to actually grow plants along it. [47:33] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Have you ever looked at concept of putting grass on your roofs? [47:41] **Jake Steen:** I you know in in my previous life before I became a land use attorney I was a city planner for the city of Minneapolis. So I'm very familiar uh with green roofs and I think it's certainly a concept that I think would be explored. [47:58] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Does that wouldn't that also cut down on the uh cooling costs presumably? [48:02] **Jake Steen:** Absolutely. Uh it it could help. Um, so I think it's it's uh a technique that we want to make sure that we've got the flexibility to use uh in any end project. Again, you know, at this point, what we're looking at is just the framework. So, it's important to talk about some of these to make sure that we can use those uh as tools when [48:06] **Jake Steen:** the development eventually comes through, which it will then come through to you again. [48:19] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** I or something else and I can't think of it. Your turn. I was when you're talking about lighting, is this going to be is it does it have to be within like what are the city parameters for height of a light out there where we're sort of not in the city but we it's going to be annexed in. Is there a height? Because it's going to be if it's too high, it's going to start. It won't matter like the residents on the north side. If there's lights there, it's going to hit them. I mean, there's no other way around it, right? [48:47] **Jake Steen:** And and what so it's 18 ft pole and then I think it's 35 ft attached to a building. But then the expectation is that in addition to a sound study, we would have a lighting study. And the standard is typically that you cannot they would all have to have downcast uh light shields so that you cannot have more than 1 ft candle at the property line. Now if we've got a 200t setback it's going to be uh most likely much much less than that. Okay. Um so but yes we would absolutely provide a lighting study with uh with any end. [49:28] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** So basically what you're looking at for lights is this style nothing just going like right. [49:33] **Jake Steen:** Yeah. No, it's not in anybody's interest to uh to be lighting up the neighborhood. Okay. [49:38] **Jon Radermacher:** Yeah. And there there is a city the city ordinances do um do have performance standards when it comes to lighting. I do believe the requests within the PUB are are satisfactory to that or below what the limits are. [49:55] **Jon Radermacher:** I do I'm reading one height maximum pole is 25 ft and then uh light sources can be attached to the building but they cannot exceed the maximum height and all of that would be part of this PUD. Yeah, the the yeah, all other ordinances still apply. They, you know, they're the the zoning and the zone in which it's located have, you know, your allowances for the things related to that zone, but additional things like lighting and and others still apply. [50:28] **Jon Radermacher:** Noise. Um, as you know, we're talking about the with the noise. Um, you know, we're we're touching on some elements that certainly are discussed and evaluated in the AU study as well. I know the noise being um one of those elements that that is being reviewed. Um the backup generation I think is addressed in there too depending on the various scenarios. So um some of that is is there. So if there are you know comments related to that that would be valid to be putting that in since that comment period is still open. [51:02] **Jon Radermacher:** And and again, if you have any other questions, please feel free to forward them to John and and he'll get those to our team and we'll make sure we can answer them on the 17th. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, John. Thanks, Jake. Anything else? Nope. I'm good on that one. [51:20] **Jon Radermacher:** Moving on to C or Gorman edition development concept discussion. Mr. Gorman. Good evening. Good evening. [51:38] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** So, what would you like to do with your alleys or nonies as are now replplat them? Go back to square one. [51:41] **Mr. Gorman:** John and I had a discussion today. I do not need any variances. I do not need a PUB or a CUP. I'm going to conform. might be the first time ever. Yeah. [51:59] **Jon Radermacher:** So, so just the over overview of what we're we're talking about. So, in the in the area, it's kind of just near city hall here. Uh Mr. Orman owns um a few different parcels of land. Um he's had some requests in the past. Uh this is what I just wanted to to kind of clarify for everybody. Um there was a resolution that approved the vacation of uh platted alleyways in at the time it was St. Clair's ter hot I think it as a preliminary plat we're looking at changing it to a Gorman edition. So there's both kind of addressed in the language. Um the resolution was approved which ultimately then took effect to [52:45] **Jon Radermacher:** vacate uh the alleys in there. Um so it it does um so when that happened then the parcels kind of all got uh split share the alleyway became part of the other parcels in the adjacent area. So as we we discussed um in order to put them back in we would need to replplat this um putting the aloas back in and then with one of the the lots that you're looking at developing it would need a a lot split. So we could do that at the same time with that with that preliminary plat. And then because it would be a twin home. Yeah. To to to serve as a twin home. The other has a natural split where the other twin home would be. So So then when that's complete, then then the lots could be developed without any other, you know, potentially without any other um [53:32] **Jon Radermacher:** exceptions or adjustments. So it's my plan to come back here with a preliminary plat. And I'm really not in a rush to do anything at this time. Preliminary plat being to put the LA back. Yeah. platting split that lot. Yep. With and then and then also, you know, addressing within that where the the water and sewer service or lines the mains would have been moved to, which actually at this point align better with the um where you intend the platted or the alleys. They are in the alley. Yeah, they are in the alley both ways. [54:08] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Okay. So, when we're talking if we're talking the alleys, I'm looking at this off Dakota, right? Is that is that the alley that you're looking at? I'm just looking at this plot here. So, this is where you're planning on putting it in. Sits like that. Yep. And this is this Dakota, right? Okay. So, this So, the muddy duck or whatever is going to stay there. Yep. Okay. And everything is going to be duck's actually here. Here's where here that's the muddy duck right here. [54:40] **Mr. Gorman:** Oh, okay. Cuz I saw there's another house right there. Yep. Okay. So, what's or right here? Wherever it is. And I saw that. So, what is this? Is this another single home you're planning on putting in? Okay. I was I saw what's going on there. Okay. So, then your alley. So, what you're looking at for the alley is this, this, and this. Okay. Just splitting it just like that. It says public alley. It's just weird to read. It says public. Okay. This comes actually comes right. Yep. Okay. [55:16] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Maps are rather hard to read sometimes, but No. Okay. They can be. Um, so you're clear. Yep. I'm much clearer now than I was. I Well, I I was going to say I I can't I mean, the alleys were there. We took the alleys out. The infrastructure or the water sewers there. You know, I would assume we would look favorably upon a thing to put public alleys back in. [55:45] **Mr. Gorman:** That's something what I'm going to bring to you. I don't I don't have any request of any kind tonight. [55:48] **Jon Radermacher:** Was justformational. Yeah. And since there was the past decisions, that's why I we wanted to start the conversation just to understand what was discussed in the past cuz I there was even the point where it a preliminary plat was approved back in 2018. Um but then that never was moved to a final plat. So actually the preliminary plat portion of it isn't effective, but the vacation of the alleys did take effect. So, but now, you know, with the the change in the in the plan, wanting to bring the alleys back and and utilize those for for access from the from the roads, um, is what is [56:29] **Jon Radermacher:** the intent to the the request. Exactly. Yep. So, you'll be coming back. Oh, yes. Okay. We just It'll be like to bounce on top of the hill. We don't know when. That's right. Thank you. Thank you. [56:44] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Thank you. Can we tenatively set a date for the July meeting or do we need a we Yeah. No, we do not need a quorum for that. That can be that can be set for whatever purpose because we would just post the cancellation of the regular meeting on the 14th to and then move the regular meeting to whatever date. So, um so we're looking at schedule-wise for us. [57:10] **Jon Radermacher:** Yeah. Because we have a fourth and fifth week of uh with a Monday and Tuesday. Um, you know, we can either keep it on a Monday night, um, the 21st or 28th. Um, I know there was discussion, I think, the library board, but I did talk to Chris. Are you on the library board as well, Diane? [57:47] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** The alternate. [57:51] **Diane Johnson:** Okay. [57:54] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** So, I did talk to Chris and he wasn't concerned because with the the start times that they would Well, they start at 5. They start earlier. So yeah, he didn't believe that they would it would conflict even if we moved it to that date for that one month. So do you know your calendar? Probably the 28th won't work. The 28th will not. No, but the 21st should 21st. Let's target the 21st and I will make sure in advance that uh I address that with the other who is our alternate because I if because our alternate can also come and make up the court I don't know I'm not familiar with that. [58:31] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** So it was something I don't know if it's Ryan this year. I thought what Ryan was last year. I'd have to go back and find that. Um, yeah, I'll look. Okay. To do this in here. Yeah. Yeah. I'll look it up and I'll let let us know. I can't see it on our You can't find my Oh, here it is. [59:22] **Jon Radermacher:** Yeah, we had it as approval of the 2025 appointments, but I but yeah, that would if we can go back to doing that, that would help us too. And so the quorum is we need to have three at least, right? We have to have majority. Is that what we're saying? Yeah. Talk about and if people are missing, we can have part of that. Correct. Yeah. And of course, the appointments were not a downloadable packet item. [1:00:14] **Brian Douglas (Planning Commission Chair):** Okay. So, we've got the 21st. Um, and as we are just in a general discussion meeting, I'm assuming we now can adjourn our general discussion meeting discussion adjourned. Thank you.