This transcript appears to be from a **Farmington Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the dialogue, the names of the commissioners (Leato, Snowback, Winshuttle, and Chair Rody) and staff members (Jared and Tony) have been applied. [0:16] **Chair Rody:** [Music] [Music] All right, we'll call the meeting to order on behalf of the Planning Commission. I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of October 8th, 2024. On tonight's agenda, we have two public hearings. We will handle those in order as shown on the agenda. Before we open the public hearings, we [1:02] have one housekeeping item: that would be the minutes from our September 10th regular meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? [1:07] **Commissioner:** No. [1:08] **Chair Rody:** If not, is there a motion? [1:09] **Commissioner Winshuttle:** Motion to approve. [1:10] **Chair Rody:** We have motion for approval. Is there a second? [1:11] **Commissioner Leato:** Second. [1:12] **Chair Rody:** Motion and second. All in favor say "I." [1:14] **Commissioners:** I. I. I. [1:15] **Chair Rody:** Minutes are approved, thank you. With that, then, we'll open up both public hearings. The first public hearing is a variance request from city code section 10-514B to construct a commercial daycare at 4640 Knudsen Drive. The applicant is Insight Development Services. Jared, you'll take this? [1:36] **Jared (City Staff):** Yes, thank you, Chair, members of the Planning Commission. This request before you tonight is for a variance for a future commercial daycare to be located at 4640 Knudsen Drive. The subject property here is just south of Knudsen Drive, just south of the Northfield Farmington clinic and just south of McDonald's as well. As you stated, the applicant is Insight Development Services; the property owner is CL Properties. This property is zoned Spruce Street Mixed Use with the Spruce Street Overlay District. This request is a front yard setback variance from city code section 10-514B for the eventual construction of a commercial daycare building. [2:17] As the commission may recall, the same request was scheduled back for the July meeting, but that was withdrawn as the applicant was working through an unresolved issue. That issue has been resolved since. This parcel is 1.37 acres of vacant land and it was platted as Lot 2, Block 3 of the Vermillion River Crossings development. The applicant is looking to develop the site with a commercial daycare, which is a permitted use in the Spruce Street Mixed Use District. [2:47] Per city code, the front yard setback requirement in the zoning district is that at least 50% of the building front has to be within 20 feet of the public right-of-way, which would be Knudsen Drive. The applicant is requesting a variance to have 0% of the building front within 20 feet of Knudsen Drive. I would like to emphasize that this request does not include approval of a site plan; this is just the variance itself. The applicant would like to ensure the commission is comfortable with the variance before pursuing final site plan approval. [3:21] The applicant did provide a concept plan of how the building would be laid out on the site. As you can see, this red line here at the top of the parcel would be the 20-foot setback requirement. Basically, city code would require 50% of the building to be within that red line. As you can see from the concept plan, the building is set back further than 20 feet, with the parking lot taking up most of that front yard setback and then with a playground behind the building. Again, this request tonight is not approving the site plan. The site plan itself, landscaping, architectural renderings—things like that—would come further down the road. This is just to see if the commission would approve the building not being within that 20 feet of Knudsen Drive. [4:07] The applicant did provide a brief narrative explaining their reasonings for the request. The first one is the parcel only abuts one street and is moderately narrow. Placing 50% of the building front within 20 feet of Knudsen Drive limits the amount of access drives needed to provide proper site circulation. Additional access drives will enhance public safety and emergency access. Then, the site layout on the parcel lends itself to place the playground behind the building, further away from the street and parking lot for child safety. So, all in all, to ensure proper circulation and child safety on this parcel, the building must be set back further from the street. [4:47] As the commission is aware, there's variance approval criteria per city code section 10-3-6 that variances must meet. Staff believe that all nine of these criteria included in your packet have been met. The action requested before the commission tonight is to approve the requested variance from city code section 10-514B to allow for 0% of the building front to be within 20 feet of the public right-of-way for the eventual construction of a commercial daycare at 4640 Knudsen Drive with the following condition: that a site plan application must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission for the proposed daycare. Thank you. [5:32] **Chair Rody:** Thank you, Jared. With us tonight representing the applicant is Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham, do you have anything to add to the staff report? [5:41] **Mr. Graham (Applicant):** Yeah, absolutely. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for your time tonight. I think Jared did a pretty good job summarizing our request and the reasons we're making this request. I just want to emphasize mostly this is coming from a site circulation viewpoint. We want to make sure that we can get two access points into the property so parents can drive in, drop their children off, and then easily pull out without creating any future or further traffic conflicts with other parents coming in. Then, typically we always like to have our playground set back as far as possible from the public right-of-way, both from a child safety and then privacy standpoint. We will have a six-foot fence around the playground, but again, it's just best if possible to have it as far back from the right-of-way. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. [6:27] **Chair Rody:** Thank you, Mr. Graham. This is a public hearing. If you've got comments or questions regarding this variance, please raise your hand. The commission is not going to talk about the site plan tonight; this is strictly a variance regarding frontage on the road. There will be future meetings and public hearings that'll address the site plan and everything else, but just tonight it's on the variance. Are there any comments or questions regarding this? Seeing none, Commissioner Leato? [7:02] **Commissioner Leato:** I have no questions. That looks good. [7:03] **Chair Rody:** Commissioner Snowback? [7:04] **Commissioner Snowback:** Can I just ask—that 20-foot reasoning, what's the reason why that's in place? [7:10] **Jared (City Staff):** So, Tony, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the Spruce Street Mixed Use District... the purpose of it was to kind of create a walkable, downtown type of district where the building fronts are kind of right along the street. And so the purpose of the front yard setback would be to, you know, make sure buildings comply with being right along the street. [7:41] **Commissioner Snowback:** Follow up to that: the next business that comes in, are they going to be followed by that same 20-foot standard? Like, does that change things for the incoming businesses that could be next to it? [7:53] **Jared (City Staff):** No, they would have to go through the same process to get a variance for it. I would like to note, too, that this is one of the few parcels within this zoning district that doesn't have more than one public right-of-way that it abuts; it just has Knudsen Drive. So it makes it more difficult for the building to adhere to that. [8:13] **Commissioner Snowback:** So does the staff feel that that would be a problem for future purchases of that property next to it? Like, would it be okay if the building's so close to the road versus that one, or what would you encourage them to be—further away from the street to be similar in layout, or it doesn't matter? [8:29] **Jared (City Staff):** Not necessarily. From a staff perspective, I wouldn't see an issue with that. [8:32] **Commissioner Snowback:** Okay, thank you. [8:33] **Chair Rody:** Commissioner Winshuttle? [8:34] **Commissioner Winshuttle:** No, I think it looks good. I agree with the variance; that makes sense with the building layout if that's what you are going to put up there with the playground in the back. So looks good. [8:43] **Chair Rody:** It does. When this commission and previous commissions look at daycares, we have one concern—or really one thing in mind—and that's the safety of the children. This variance and the applicant are addressing just that: the safety of the children by having adequate drop-off and pick-up type of drives and also placing the playground in probably the safest area they could on the lot. So I would be in favor of this variance. Variances for this community are approved by the Planning Commission; this is not a recommendation to our City Council, it would be a strict decision by the Planning Commission. With that, I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing. [9:15] **Commissioner:** Motion to close. [9:16] **Chair Rody:** Is there a second? [9:17] **Commissioner:** Second. [9:18] **Chair Rody:** Motion and second. Call the roll, please. [9:20] **City Staff:** Winshuttle? [9:21] **Commissioner Winshuttle:** Yes. [9:22] **City Staff:** Rody? [9:23] **Chair Rody:** Yes. [9:24] **City Staff:** Leato? [9:25] **Commissioner Leato:** Yes. [9:26] **City Staff:** Snowback? [9:27] **Commissioner Snowback:** Yes. [9:28] **Chair Rody:** In front of the commission, then, is a variance from city code section 10-514 to construct a commercial daycare at 4640 Knudsen Drive with one condition: that a site plan application must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. Is there anything else, Tony, on that? If not, I'd look for a motion. [9:45] **Commissioner:** Motion to approve. [9:46] **Chair Rody:** Have a motion for approval. Is there a second? [9:47] **Commissioner:** Second. [9:48] **Chair Rody:** Motion and second. Any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. [9:51] **City Staff:** Rody? [9:52] **Chair Rody:** Yes. [9:53] **City Staff:** Leato? [9:54] **Commissioner Leato:** Yes. [9:55] **City Staff:** Snowback? [9:56] **Commissioner Snowback:** Yes. [9:57] **City Staff:** Winshuttle? [9:58] **Commissioner Winshuttle:** Yes. [9:59] **Chair Rody:** All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Graham. With that, then, we'll move into our second public hearing. This is to amend the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the properties known as Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Angus property. The applicant is the City of Farmington. Tony, you'll take this? [10:18] **Tony (City Staff):** I will, thank you, Mr. Chair, commission members. Get out of this quick... All right, thank you, commission members. I would like to kind of go through why we're here this evening specifically with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. As the commission is aware, the city started a mid-cycle 2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendment well over a year ago to look at not only the downtown area but the overall community as a whole. As part of that mid-cycle amendment, we were looking at these parcels that are before you this evening. [11:07] Why we decided to do these three parcels separately—to pull them out of that larger amendment—is in large part that the larger mid-cycle amendment is taking a little bit longer. We had anticipated it being approved around the same time as all these other approvals that we are doing for the "Tract" project, but with dealing with some other areas of the community and working with the Metropolitan Council, that overall larger amendment is just taking longer. It doesn't mean it's not aligning with the timeframe that we're looking for for the Tract development. [11:53] That's the main reason we are separating it out this evening. But with that being said, I do want to give a quick update on the Comprehensive Plan larger mid-cycle update as well, just to give an idea of where we've been and where we're going. It originally started in 2022. We drafted an RFP, set up interviews with consultants... then we ended up losing a number of staff due to them moving on to different positions elsewhere, and because of that, we put a pause on that process. We reinitiated that process back in January of 2023. The City Council then met in March of that year, moving forward with the approval of the professional services agreement with HKGI. [13:24] Then April through July of 2023, what we call phase one: that was our information gathering, community input, and draft land use planning. During that time, we did a project website which is still active. We did a number of pop-up events both at the police open house and at an event at the Rambling River Park and at the library, and we also had various landowner meetings during that period of time. September of 23, the Planning Commission had a meeting along with a special Council work session focusing specifically on the vision and land use. Then March of 2024 of this year, again, there was a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council to discuss the comp plan update and the future land use plan. Then June of this year, again, there was another joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to provide an update based on some revised plans. [14:50] The next steps: we still are trying to get that mid-cycle amendment approved either by the end of the year or very early in 2025. From now through that time, we'll be holding open houses at community meetings. There will need to be a public hearing at this commission for that larger amendment. Once that gets approved by City Council, we have to wait for what's called the 60-day adjacent jurisdiction agency review. That is a requirement of the Metropolitan Council. Hopefully, we're looking to get that authorized to submit to the Met Council by the end of the year. [15:55] So that's generally where we're at with that larger amendment. It has been a work in progress for quite a while now, but hopefully, we see the light at the end of the tunnel. But just being that we're pulling this specific action out from that, I just wanted to give the commission an update as to where we are. [16:22] So with that, we are seeking an amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan this evening for three parcels. The first one is the Fountain Valley Golf Course, which is addressed at 2830 220th Street West. The request is to amend the 2040 Comprehensive Plan land use and development staging for the property. This includes a land use plan amendment from a mixture of commercial, low-density residential, medium-density residential, and park/open space to what is called "Mixed Use Commercial Industrial." The proposed amendment also includes changing the anticipated development staging for the parcel from post-2040 to the 2020-2030 timeframe. This parcel is about 160 acres. [17:15] The next amendment deals with the school district property, or what we generally know as the Angus property, which is just south of the golf course. These parcels are currently owned by School District 192. The amendment for these parcels includes adding them to the 2020 MUSA (Metropolitan Urban Service Area), amending the 2040 Comprehensive land use plan from "non-designated" to "Mixed Use Commercial Industrial," and including the parcels in the 2020-2030 development staging timeframe. [18:03] Now, as you'll notice, the Angus property has a non-designated designation right now because of the annexation that happened. As the commission is aware, the commission did review a rezone for these parcels last month and recommended approval to the City Council. That recommendation has yet been taken to the City Council, but we anticipate that happening in early November, and it would likely go along with this Comprehensive Plan amendment. With this amendment, it would align the zoning with the Comprehensive Plan if approved. [18:49] Therefore, the action recommended this evening is to recommend approval of the following amendments to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for recommendation on to the City Council: Number one, the Fountain Valley Golf Course, amending the land use plan and changing development staging. The second one is for the school district property or the Angus property, adding these parcels to the 2020 MUSA and amending the plan from non-designated to Mixed Use Commercial Industrial. [20:03] **Chair Rody:** All right, thank you, Tony. And as Tony mentioned, this commission already addressed the rezoning and the PUD at our last month's meeting, so tonight it's really the Comprehensive Plan amendment that we're addressing. So if there's any comments or questions regarding the comp plan amendment, please raise your hand, come up to the podium, and state your name and address, please. [20:25] **Kathy Johnson (Resident):** Yes, I have a comment. I'm Kathy Johnson, I live at 22280 Baring Avenue. I have a comment from Nate Ryan, who was unable to attend tonight. He said in his comments: "This hearing should have happened before the rezoning vote which has already happened at Planning Commission. The process is wrong. Members of our group have looked at how the Met Council has laid out the timeline and their order of operations, and it's not being followed correctly." [21:08] The second one of Nate's comments is: "If the golf course was already Mixed Use Commercial Industrial and a developer came and wanted to change the zoning to build executive estates, would you approve it? I doubt a developer would even ask that because why would you build a nice residential area right next to an MUCI? But no, I'm sure you wouldn't approve it because it's incompatible. But yet, that is what you're asking us to shoulder. Why are you approving this comp plan change when it's in the middle of residential? Tax revenue is not a reason to update the comp plan, and the golf course property has already been included in that comp plan for nearly 20 years. This isn't a mid-cycle update; it's a rewrite of the comp plan because of the perceived tax revenues that negatively affect the properties around it for a specific industrial project." [21:55] And now I have some comments of my own, mostly regarding the article from the Sun Thisweek. The Sun Thisweek posted an article regarding data centers from Farmington elected officials. Several officials had visited the West Des Moines and Altoona sites. One official said in reference to the Microsoft site in West Des Moines that they "only heard crickets." They mentioned that the site was 48,000 square feet, but what was not mentioned is that the proposed site in Farmington is 2.5 million square feet. The Farmington site is six times larger than what was observed in West Des Moines. The buildings appeared to be 60 feet tall from other observers in our group who have gone down to look at them, but the site they sat on was lower than the street level. [22:45] The City of Farmington is applying for a variance to local ordinance which now restricts building height to 40 feet and proposing building heights of 50 to 80 feet. A berm with landscaping will not mask the view of these buildings from long-established residences nearby as the natural buffering does in West Des Moines. A 250-foot setback is very far from adequate in accomplishing the quiet which the leaders of Farmington said they observed in Iowa. As a matter of fact, research reveals over and over again that the insidious hum basically cannot be masked. [23:27] Kristen Dean from Tract emphasized that there would be noise but pledges that it would be within state allowances. So noise is a given. One member of the environmental coalition in Farmington who also visited the West Des Moines site said that the noise could not be heard from the two residences that are on one side; however, ironically, there's a golf course also abutting the Microsoft site and yes, the low hum and air conditioner noise could be heard there. [24:13] Mayor Lien said in the article that the plans for a data center were happening one year ago, but that does not alter the fact that this is spot zoning. He stated that west and north of Executive Estates is zoned industrial. Upon studying the comp plan, it's obvious that his statement is erroneous. The only areas zoned industrial in Farmington are over on Highway 50 between Flagstaff and Denmark, and then there's two tiny spots—one I think is the Kemp plant—but they're not near the Tract site. The mentioned areas that are west of Executive Estates are zoned commercial. [24:58] In an open hearing regarding the data center, Mr. Rody stated that Northern Virginia home values continue to rise despite the presence of many data centers. What was omitted is that Northern Virginia is one of the most, if not the most, competitive housing markets in the United States. Being near the government, military, and related businesses around Washington, D.C., is what drives the housing market—not data centers one way or the other. What the leaders of Farmington claim to be due diligence is, in fact, in need of some fact-checking. [25:35] In an article from The Washington Post, Montana developer Buck, who builds higher-end houses, states that residences near local new industrial developments are harder to sell. The same article also stated that due to AI, companies like Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are in a power grab for land, for water, and electricity. They target smaller towns because—and I'm quoting from the article here—"they think people are stupid or just need the money." Well, I think the people of Farmington are not stupid, and I think the revenue can be brought into this town by appropriately placed data centers like the Bengal project. It's already zoned industrial, or by reaching out with generous offers on some of the 45% of Farmington land that's not developed nor near residential developments. [26:32] I would ask that the Council vote no to rezoning. What has been promised by the city is not what is happening in other cities and towns where data centers are built or proposed. There's no reason to believe that the reality here is different in Farmington than other places. Again, to quote the Post article: "data center developers use predatory tactics to promote the construction of centers," like the one proposed in southeast Farmington. Open your eyes and see it. Given the proximity of the election, I would ask that the vote to rezone be postponed until after the November election. And when the vote does occur, vote no to illegal spot zoning. The residents of Farmington are not beholden to the whims of a mayor who tells the constituents to just move if they don't like the way the city's being run. Vote no to rezoning, thank you. [27:19] **Chair Rody:** Thank you. Other comments or questions? [27:32] **Esther Varga (Resident):** [Music] Good evening, Planning Commission. Esther Varga, 3094 225th Street. As people decide where to purchase a home, they look into a city's Comprehensive Plan and surrounding zonings. What not many people know is that they cannot always rely on these comp plans because city officials can change them on a whim. If you choose to vote to change the comp plan to accommodate a new industrial rezoning, how can any residents and voters ever trust in our local government? [28:15] If the City Council chooses to rezone, you are retrofitting the comp plan—and you know it—to fit into your schema of spot zoning, which is illegal in Minnesota. Now that you already voted yes on rezoning, now you need to vote yes to change the comp plan, as this rezoning is a deviation from what this land was always purposed for. The master plan did not deem these pieces of land industrial. That is why we all felt safe to buy and build homes here. It would be a different story if we all bought and built homes next to an industrial zone; we would have little basis to complain. But by rezoning, you bring the industry next to us, by our homes. This is wrong in all ways. [29:00] This is a huge deviation from one zone to another. The tax revenue is just a promise; you can't take it to the bank. You cannot know how the state or the county will allocate property taxes, and these companies get plenty of tax incentives. Tax revenue is not a reason to update a comp plan, and this is not a mid-cycle update either. You are sure aware of how quickly technology changes. When that happens, what will you vote for to bring in to replace these 2.5 million square feet buildings? A foundry? Paper mill? Tannery? [29:47] Many people addressed the Planning Commission and City Council in the past several months, and no one validated any of our concerns. We were told our noise concern is "perceived." Speaking of noise, you stated that you visited data centers that you found not noisy. However, the fact that Tract, standing right here, was saying that the noise will be within legal limits is in fact an admission of noise. Please read critically and listen critically. Your comparison of those centers is not apples to apples. You saw a data center that was not online yet. You saw a data center that was 400,000 square feet, not 2.5 million. Great job at gathering data. [30:35] I'm mentioning that Dakota Electric has been talking data centers since at least 2017, published in the Republican Eagle, yet this commission denied it and we were called "spreading rumors" about a technology park when we first brought it up. Considering that the chair of the commission is a former Vice President of Operations of Dakota Electric—the electricity provider of the technology park—even though retired in 2018 according to the Pioneer Press, this is still a great conflict of interest. If the city votes on rezoning, we will litigate and look into this conflict of interest. I extend exactly as much compassion for you as you expressed towards us. Thank you. [31:21] **Chair Rody:** Thank you. And just to confirm, Ms. Varga is correct—I did work for Dakota Electric and I did retire in 2018. Anybody else have a comment or question? [31:31] **Terry Pearson (Resident):** My name is Terry Pearson, 2475 225th Street West. The Farmington Mayoral Candidate Forum showcased two candidates. The question put to the candidates that I thought was most interesting asked: "In your vision, what will Farmington look like in 25 years?" 25 years ago, I could not have imagined that we'd be here talking about a data center, Trenton Technology Park, covering the Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Alan Angus farm. [32:15] If the properties are rezoned industrial, this would be the largest data complex in the Midwest United States. Only a fortune teller could have predicted this. Dedicating hundreds of acres of green space and farmland to multi-story buildings would create a "data desert" for an uncertain financial benefit for the city. The true cost of a data desert would be borne by the neighborhoods closest to it. If the homes were each a business with a $400,000 to $800,000 investment, would the city be deaf to our concerns and blind to our demands? [33:01] If computer technology continues to evolve at present speeds, will the data center become obsolete in 25 years and be discarded and vacant? Will they have sucked up valuable water resources, making the Farmington area a true desert unfit for farming? Will they have gobbled up huge amounts of electricity causing disruptions for residents? I'm no fortune teller, but in 25 years, I'll bet the residents of Farmington will still be shopping, dining, working, and maybe even attending schools in the larger cities to the north. Thank you. [33:41] **Chair Rody:** Thank you, Terry. [33:52] **Kathy Perago (Resident):** Hi, my name is Kathy Perago, I live at 508 113th Street in Farmington. So the data center would be just south of me. I live in the Park Place residential area, which is I believe around 3 miles from where this is going to be built—maybe less. Anyway, I'm sorry I don't have my notes as well written out as others, but I will mention several concerns that I have. One, as everybody else has been talking, is the home value for those that live in the area that would be affected—affected in ways both known and unknown yet. Because my understanding is there have been health impacts for people in other areas, such as in Texas where they have a Bitcoin processing center, where their hearing has been affected and they've had health impacts as a result. [35:05] Probably one of my biggest concerns is the enormous use of water and the impact of that water use on our local aquifers. My understanding is that the aquifer that we draw from may be the same one that is being proposed to be drawn from for the Niagara water bottling plant in Elko New Market. That alone, if that goes through—and ground has already been broken—is 871,000 gallons per day, which would already impact our trout streams and other water areas that we enjoy. My understanding with a data center such as this is that it could draw up to 450,000—I'm not sure, apparently that amount hasn't been disclosed, but I would think it would be about 450,000 gallons per day. [36:11] And another person mentioned noise. Inside the data center, one could typically expect 80 to 120 decibels—about the sound of a heavy metal band—and around 96 decibels around it. If it's 55 decibels nearby, that is going to be enough to bother residents in the area. Lastly, why have a Comprehensive Plan if you don't honor it? What good is it? Plans should focus on environmental and physical impact and on property valuation. Thank you. [36:58] **Chair Rody:** Thank you. [37:04] **Nancy Arad (Resident):** Hi, I'm Nancy Arad, 22165 Belmont Avenue. I'm going to go over some points regarding negative impacts and the unfairness of you changing this comp plan. It undermines long-term planning of this city. It's an unfair advantage to select parties; this benefits a particular developer at the expense of the broader community, prioritizing private profit over the public good. It's incompatible land use. By changing the comp plan, you are creating an incompatible land use between industry and our residential homes. This can lead to conflict and will set a precedent for future spot zoning. Allowing this comp change, you open the door for future cases, making it harder to maintain zoning integrity. Each time you change the zoning, this could lead to the gradual erosion of residential protection and neighborhood stability. Who is next? [38:36] It disrupts community expectations. Residents move into an area based on the existing zoning and neighborhood character. By you changing this zoning and the comp plan, it breaches the trust between the city and its residents. We have all built and bought homes next to residential and low-density commercial; we did not buy land next to industrial zones. You are bringing that to us and forcing that on us. Environmental and infrastructural strain: you are going to place unforeseen strain on local infrastructure, especially on those homes around the new zoning. It reduces predictability for developers and all homeowners. You are creating uncertainty for future development as it signals that zoning laws can be altered arbitrarily in Farmington. [39:55] It violates public trust. Rezoning and allowing this comp change can be perceived as an act of governmental overreach or misuse of power. Communities are built on mutual trust between government authorities and citizens. Breaking that trust undermines faith in local government. You are using your power to undermine your residents. Who is next? There have been hundreds of residents that have begged you not to go forward with this, and you continue to go forward. None of you live in the homes by this land, so this is easy for you to vote on. Residents trust their cities not to do this. By doing this, you are causing division and distrust amongst the community. I beg you to vote no. Thank you. [41:09] **Chair Rody:** Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the commission table. Again, we're just addressing the comp plan amendment at this point; the rezone has already been done. With that, we'll start with Commissioner Winshuttle. [41:45] **Commissioner Winshuttle:** No, I have no questions. [41:47] **Commissioner Leato:** No questions, thank you. [41:49] **Commissioner Snowback:** No questions. [41:51] **Chair Rody:** Tony, I got a question. You explained at the beginning "why now." You and I have had this conversation recently, but these residents have been here at least three times this year. The timing of the comp plan could have been done at our last meeting—could have, should have been. You said in your staff report the comp plan could be done with the larger cycle amendment, but I understand you said that might raise some conflicts. I don't know how, but it could have. I mean, I hope that the planning of these types of things when it affects residents like this is looked at closer in the future. Our residents deserve that; our City Council—I know you're going to try to package this—they deserve that also. [43:00] We've had several meetings over the last year and a half with our City Council. When we do comp plan amendments like this, we do big plans at certain times and we do upgrades. It's a changing plan; I've seen changes in the past. We've talked with our City Council at length about utilizing our main corridors of this community with more commercial and industrial. The residents have said this—Highway 50 to the west has a lot of that, but Pilot Knob, you don't see a lot there. Other communities do design their main thoroughfares differently, and I think that's what the community is looking at. This is not the first time the City Council and this commission have looked at doing these updates. This was one of them that was included. Highway 50 was one we talked about at length too. Highway 3—we're going to let that all just be houses all the way up on both sides? We don't think so. [44:13] But we've already made the recommendation to our City Council to rezone this. Ours is a recommendation, as this will be also. Our City Council will have to address both the rezone and the PUD and then the comp plan amendment. Tony, I hope you package those together for them. [44:33] **Tony (City Staff):** Absolutely. [44:34] **Chair Rody:** I appreciate that. But the rezone's already been done. I appreciate you coming, you group of residents. You've been concerned, you've done a good job, you've come, you've been respectful, you've been knowledgeable. You've done your homework. I hate to bring you back for the third time like this, but it's something that was on our agenda and we have to address it. I would support this comp plan amendment, as I've talked with the City Council over the last year and a half. This is not something that's brand new to us. So I would also support that, and with that, I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing. [45:10] **Esther Varga (Resident):** I'm sorry, can I ask a question before you vote? I really don't understand—what's the purpose of this public hearing if you already knew what you're going to decide? [45:15] **Chair Rody:** This is part of the process. If you're going to rezone something, you're going to need a change of the comp plan also. Again, I mentioned to staff this could have been done at our last meeting and maybe should have been done at our last meeting so that it would have been packaged together. That's why we're taking care of this; this is a requirement. This is part of the process. Thank you. With that, I look for motion to close the public hearing. [45:47] **Commissioner:** Motion to close. [45:48] **Chair Rody:** We have a motion. Is there a second? [46:00] **Commissioner:** Second. [46:02] **Chair Rody:** Motion and second. Call the roll, please. [46:04] **City Staff:** Snowback? [46:05] **Commissioner Snowback:** Yes. [46:06] **City Staff:** Winshuttle? [46:07] **Commissioner Winshuttle:** Yes. [46:08] **City Staff:** Rody? [46:09] **Chair Rody:** Yes. [46:10] **City Staff:** Leato? [46:11] **Commissioner Leato:** Yes. [46:12] **Chair Rody:** In front of the commission, then, is a recommendation to our City Council for the amendments to the 2040 comp plan for the two parcels: Fountain Valley Golf Course with the PUD and Angus property with the PUD. Is there a motion for a recommendation? [46:21] **Commissioner:** Motion for recommendation. [46:22] **Chair Rody:** We have a motion for a favorable recommendation to our City Council. Is there a second? [46:25] **Commissioner:** Second. [46:26] **Chair Rody:** Any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. [46:27] **City Staff:** Leato? [46:28] **Commissioner Leato:** Yes. [46:29] **City Staff:** Snowback? [46:30] **Commissioner Snowback:** Yes. [46:31] **City Staff:** Winshuttle? [46:32] **Commissioner Winshuttle:** Yes. [46:33] **City Staff:** Rody? [46:34] **Chair Rody:** Yes. [46:35] **Chair Rody:** All right, that concludes it. Thank you. That concludes our meeting. With that, Tony, was there anything else from staff? [46:58] **Tony (City Staff):** I have nothing, sir. [47:01] **Chair Rody:** Anything else from the commission? If not, I'll remind our viewers that our next regular meeting is November 12th. And with that, I'd look for a motion to adjourn. [47:11] **Commissioner:** So moved. [47:12] **Chair Rody:** We have a motion. Is there a second? [47:13] **Commissioner:** Second. [47:14] **Chair Rody:** Motion and second. All in favor say "I." [47:15] **Commissioners:** I. [47:16] **Chair Rody:** We're officially adjourned, thank you everybody. [Music] [47:36]