Based on the context provided for the City of Hastings and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the formatted version with speaker identifications. [0:00] **Chair John Moes**: This is the—uh, that's okay. [0:12] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, this really is the Planning Commission meeting for September 25th, 2023, and I'll call the meeting to order. All right, first up on the agenda is the last meeting minutes. Anyone have a chance to review those? And if so, any corrections, changes? Okay, and Commissioner McGrath, you were not here, so it would be Commissioner Peters, myself, and Mr. LeBron. Okay, any questions, Dawn? Okay, if not, we'll go ahead and consider those approved. All right, next on the agenda, we have a public hearing continued from the previous meeting. [0:57] **Chair John Moes**: This would be for Greg J. Holmes; it's going to be Preliminary and Final Plat 2023-21, South Oaks Fourth Edition. Staff report by John Hinzman. [1:05] **John Hinzman**: John, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. I will put up a map of the property that we're looking at today. And as the Chairman noted, we did review this in a public hearing last month, and it was tabled in both the public hearing as well as any decision by the Planning Commission for recommendation to the City Council. So I'll go through some background today of the report of the project we have before us here, and then the Chairman can open the public hearing. We can close that and then we can go back to discussion among the Commissioners themselves. [1:42] **John Hinzman**: So what we're looking at tonight is the Preliminary and Final Plat of South Oaks of Hastings Fourth Edition. This is a property that is generally located south of 31st Street, west of Century Drive. South Oaks Drive is to the south of it, and Olson Drive is to the east. It's kind of a hole of development that's been sitting there and waiting to be developed for quite some time here. As I've stated previously, this is part of an overall plan that's been before us for over 20 years right now, in the last phase of what we termed the South Oaks development. The South Oaks development began in about 2000, 2001 as a mixture of different types of housing uses between townhomes and single-family homes, and this is the last phase of it to be developed. [2:30] **John Hinzman**: Over time, the property that is before us tonight has been planned for different types of uses. When it first came in for development approvals in 2001, it was a townhome development, probably about 48 townhomes or so. And then over time, as the market has switched and the developer has modified the plan, it is now 35 housing units that is being proposed today. And as the Planning Commission may recall, this was before us a couple of years ago as a similar type of development; at that time, I believe it was 33 home sites—or 32—there's been two or three homes that have been added to the subdivision since that time in 2021. The 2021 plan is now null and void; we have one year to be able to act on that to record that before that becomes null and void, so we're really looking at a new application here, but certainly a lot of history behind it. [3:16] **John Hinzman**: Looking at the subdivision itself, this is what it looks like. We've got Flagstone Drive going down the middle of it, Alderwood Drive going towards the east, and then we have 35 single-family lots surrounding it. Let's go to this one here; this gives you a better idea of what the development looks like in relation to the neighborhood itself. You can see the townhome developments to the east along Century Drive and then more single-family homes towards the south and towards the west of the development here. The street layout itself has been something that's been planned since the early 2000s. The street width of 50 feet for the right-of-way and for this 28-foot street width was also something that's been planned since that time. These are street widths and right-of-way sizes that are a little bit smaller, a little bit narrower than we would have on a typical subdivision, but have been approved in other similar subdivisions around town and was approved as part of the development plan in the early 2000s for this development here. [4:02] **John Hinzman**: Looking back at our last meeting, we met on August 28th. We did have a public hearing at that time. We had some individuals that provided comment; there were some concerns pertaining to the number of homes in the area, traffic and safety concerns for children, snow management, loss of trees, and an increase of homes from past plat applications. At that time, the Commissioners discussed the rationale for a planned residential development, street width, and storage of snow. That was the discussion we had at that time. We did table any action on that before the Planning Commission to wait until the stormwater plan was developed; that was really the reason why we had asked for a tabling. [4:57] **John Hinzman**: Now, the stormwater development in this plat—most of it is going through this stormwater pond which is towards the northeast corner. This would be in what's termed an outlot, which would mean this would not be on an individual's property but would be on a separate lot of record. In this circumstance, what the city would be doing is taking ownership of this outlot, and the maintenance responsibilities would be borne upon the new residents of the subdivision here. We have two options in which to do that. Normally what we do is we establish a Homeowners Association to do that. In discussions with the developer, what we're doing here is going to have the city take ownership of that property for the outlot for the stormwater basin, but that the maintenance responsibilities of this would be assessed back to the property owners. When you're dealing with a stormwater pond in a development, every so often, every few years, you've got situations there in which it needs to be excavated out or "mucked out" or other technical terms like that to basically make sure that it functions correctly. So we do have that within here, and that would be part of the development agreement that we would be bringing forward to City Council—it would have those attributes within it. [6:18] **John Hinzman**: So that's one of the things that we were waiting on. We did have a lot of back and forth between our city engineers and the developer's engineer on this one, and we're to the point right now where the city engineer can recommend bringing this forward to the Council with the stormwater plan that's there. One of the things that we wanted to ensure was that the stormwater plan functioned within the realm of the outlots and the easements that were established within this plat. We feel that it does and it should not pose a problem, so that we can now recommend approval and move this thing forward. [7:04] **John Hinzman**: As far as some of the technical things that we're looking at here for Planning Commission, we're looking at both the Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat. Again, the Preliminary Plat really sets the parameters for development itself: the easements, stormwater, so forth. And then the Final Plat puts it into place. Sometimes these can happen in different phases within a development; other times it can happen at the same time. So in this circumstance, we're doing both the preliminary and the final plat at the same time here. When you look at the lot layout here, there are two more lots than the 2021 approval. It is zoned R3 and the lot sizes range from about 4,500 to 7,100, and we've got an average size of about 5,280 for the development itself. [7:48] **John Hinzman**: So we do have a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet; we also have the Planned Residential Development scenario which allows for some flexibility within some of the lot sizes within the development. And again, the Planned Residential Development approval that we did on this project goes back to the early 2000s in which we had situations in which we had less density north of 31st Street and more density south of 31st Street to balance this off for the subdivision, so this is consistent with that past approval on here. There's a couple of outlots here; Outlot D, which is a stormwater pond to be owned by the city. There's also a couple of outlots created along here which would be transferred to the adjoining property owners. This is a deal that the developer had worked out with the adjoining property owners to give them roughly another 10 feet of property in the backyard. If you look at an aerial map of the area—which I think I do have—it doesn't show really well here, but there's already some encroachments back here, so it would essentially satisfy those encroachments by putting that on the property. [8:34] **John Hinzman**: We do have some fees that would be paid with this: park dedication. And for park dedication, the Park and Rec Commission can either recommend cash or recommend land be dedicated for a park—so a new physical park within the subdivision—or they may recommend what's termed "cash in lieu of land," which is cash paid for park development but not necessarily a park developed within the subdivision. When we reviewed this a few years ago, the Park and Rec Commission made a recommendation that they would prefer to have cash in lieu of land. What they base that upon is their Park and Recreation plan, which is part of our comprehensive plan, in which they take a look at existing park locations and future park locations, and then we base our decisions on park dedication on, "Hey, was there a park that was looked at upon this area or not?" And with that latest comprehensive plan, there was not, so we do have the cash-in-lieu payment recommended here. So I think that's most of what I've got for the subdivision itself. Again, this is a public hearing continued, so Mr. Chairman, you can open that up or continue that at this time. Upon conclusion of the public hearing itself, I ask you for a recommendation by the Planning Commission on the subdivision itself. Staff is recommending approval of this tonight subject to the recommendations within the staff report itself. So you may open the public hearing at this time and then I can stand for any questions. [10:06] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, thanks John. Yep, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing, and the public hearing is now open. If you wish to speak, if you would come up to the podium, state your name and address. Anyone here wishes to speak? [10:40] **Gabriel Wagner**: All right, um, I'm Gabriel Wagner and we live on South Oaks Drive 734. This is my husband, Renee Wagner, and we've been there for about five, almost six years, and um, we have kind of a wrap list of concerns. Number one is the sheer number of houses back there um, and where—just to kind of give you a reference point of where we live—so we are... where'd it go? There it is. Okay. So, this is us right here. Um, so I would consider our lot size to be fairly small. Um, I think when you—if you have an opportunity to drive by and to take a look at that lot size and then if you were to compare it to the suggested size of lots for the houses to be placed there, it's almost like a two-for-one. So that's kind of—and it's not exactly, because obviously we're just looking at the map as it's suggested—but it's pretty evident that these lot sizes are very small and very close together. [12:12] **Gabriel Wagner**: And with that comes concerns with safety. I know all these things were kind of mentioned at the last round, but the safety of the houses being so close together... um, you know, if there were to be a house fire due to poor electrical pieces within the home or for what you know—a stove left on or whatnot—the entire our neighborhood is going to go up in flames because of how close they are together. So that would be concern number one for that piece just with the number of houses. Also, with the limited space of the houses, maybe how close they are to the road, it would be how much time is given from when a car backs out of its driveway or out of its garage to the point where it gets to the street. And as we know, there's no sidewalks here, and so there's going to be kids out on the streets because there are no sidewalk access as well as if they want to get to the park that's nearby, they have to use the road in order to get there. And so that is also a concern—just the overall safety with the number of houses and the limited sidewalks, as well as warning time between the time when you back your car out into the street. So that would be something that I think should be considered. [12:58] **Gabriel Wagner**: As well as—it was talked about—there were a lower number of houses that were suggested to be in here, and then that number has increased. So really just to look at what is the purpose of that increase in the number of houses. Uh, when we think about the trees that are along there, preservation of mature trees I think is something to consider especially when you are taking all of that green space away. Um, once that green space is developed with housing, it is very, very unlikely that it will ever be restored back to natural land that provides a variety of things—whether it be air for us or habitat for migrating animals. Um, anything else that you want to add? [14:15] **Renee Wagner**: Yeah, I would like to add too. I know we have been talking about the houses and, you know, we talked about it used to be townhomes slated. Well, with the changing market and everything, we can really compare the thing to back to townhomes, and when we look in 2017, 30 single homes are much different than today and 35. And also what caught my attention is the zoning district established a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet, and approximately half of the lot sizes are below 5,000 square feet. And this—I know there's flexibility—but really what is the—my question is also what is the city getting in terms of value here? Because are we trying to cram as many houses in here and then get revenue and make money? And or are we really thinking about quality of life and home ownership and this kind of thing? I mean yes, the market is what it is, but also we—if you think about what the homes sell for right now, and when we can build homes for a certain price and know that builder set is at a certain perimeter of sales, however, if you look at the market, what's the quality going to be of these new houses too? We should think about that as well. [15:16] **Renee Wagner**: If you sell cheap, is the quality going to be equal to that? Um, just one concern with the sizes of the houses. Also, in terms of the park dedication fee, my question to the city would be um, the money—and as we have seen, inflation takes a toll over time—so the money you get today will not be the money in the future to repair things in the park. I know it's coming from the Recreation Commission, the recommendation, however, I would like to reconsider it and maybe either increase the amount or even consider putting a park back there because we have to cross streets without sidewalks to go around our park. And if I think about our own toddler loving the park, loving the outdoors, crying to come back inside every day, and with that many cramped houses, no park access, more cars, more people, smaller streets... it's a really concerning safety hazard for our family. [16:01] **Renee Wagner**: So overall, with the—when we think about developing this land, I think we should consider quality, amount of houses, and really think about the value the city gets. Because Hastings is known for Hastings; we're not talking about Lakeville or Rosemount or any other bigger developments with different populations. And I think we should really stay true to who we are and not really try to cram as many things and get revenue and—and you know—really also think about the residents who live in the neighborhood, not just the builder and those kind of things. So I would really like for the commission to reconsider this approval and really go back and think what we want with this land to do and how we want this to look and make it the best solution for our city and for our residents and for the community who listens in this—in this area. [16:48] **Gabriel Wagner**: I think another thing too to look at is really what is the practicality with the number of houses. Um, I know last time I really encouraged you to drive by and physically look at the space and just imagine 35 houses, because I know when we look out our back window, I go, "I'm trying to multiply," and it seems like 25—maybe maybe I shouldn't be suggesting numbers—but it seems like that would be a more reasonable amount. And when I think about some of the other things like garbage and recycling days, if you ever have to drive on a smaller street with everybody's stuff out and then there's two-way traffic and there's buses and there's—there's just it gets congested. And I know last time it was brought up that, you know, per house they're allotted roughly like two cars. So you take that number of houses and you multiply that by two cars and that's the amount of traffic that's potentially going to be within this space. [18:03] **Gabriel Wagner**: And we know that that fluctuates as well because, you know, somebody's got a teenage driver so that's a third car. And so really just to consider the practicalities around the sheer number of houses as well as the safety concerns. I know snow removal has been brought up multiple times but again too, I think it really comes back to that safety piece. And if I'm looking at, you know, some of the space between the garage or the drive and then the road itself, there's really not a lot of warning time for somebody to stop or for a kid to stop on their bike or to even be seen on their bike when they're driving by. So I know these are things that we restated last time, but just really consider take-home messages are the safety with the kids that could be living in this community, the preservation of the green space, the practicalities around garbage day and what that looks like, as well as buses picking up kids, and just the overall understanding of what that space looks like. So I—yeah, like I said—I encourage you to drive by and see it for yourself to determine whether or not you feel like this number of houses would be applicable in this situation. [19:08] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, thank you. [19:10] **Gabriel Wagner**: All right, thank you. [19:11] **Chair John Moes**: All right, thank you. Yeah, yep, come on up. [19:25] **Greg J. Holmes**: Greg J. Holmes. Just to comment on some of the items that came up. We built the home she referred to—I remember the year. Quality will be the same. I'm assuming that everybody understands that we've built this town for many years and we'll build the same construction, same method—two-by-six walls, everything will be accordingly done. Uh, talking about sidewalks, the neighborhood they're in doesn't have sidewalks, is that correct? Okay, so there's no sidewalks. Yes, yes, and that is again more of quote "a collector street," and I think that's kind of the path that the city has chosen because it seems appropriate to put your resources in where the most use is going to be. [20:41] **Greg J. Holmes**: Um, and the other item was—and we keep talking about park dedication fee and that today's amount won't suffice for the future—but this is a currently current price, correct John, for parkland? [20:47] **John Hinzman**: This is current. We just got this application came in prior to—sorry, this application came in prior to the change we had. So we do—uh, we did raise the amount for park dedication fee a couple of months ago. [21:05] **Greg J. Holmes**: Thank you. Setbacks... as far as setbacks to talk about fire and safety in homes, these setbacks will be the same as their home: seven and seven? Is that correct, John? [21:18] **John Hinzman**: Yeah, the side yard setbacks will be similar to that one. The lots themselves are different dimensionally—some of them are deeper than the lots you're proposing and some of them may be a little bit wider—but yeah, as far as the minimum setbacks go, they would meet our requirements. [21:30] **Greg J. Holmes**: And I think what's happened to the market—the market is continually changing, if not on a yearly basis, maybe even a monthly basis. There are projects in other communities very nearby that are almost similar to this, and that's maybe where we've made some adjustments looking at their floor plans. Weekly there's other builders that are doing the same homes; they're not too far distant from the ones that are on the south side of South Oaks Drive. We've also built what we call our Heritage plan on Century Drive, so these really aren't new, and I believe that back when we did this in 2012, 2013, you know, those were relatively smaller lots. And so today is just currently what's happening in the market, and we don't always drive the market—market sometimes drives us to what we need to perform to. [22:20] **Greg J. Holmes**: So I think that's—that's changes that are always happening. So the style of homes I think is very nice; we've built them before, they're the same quality, and I think that'll be very nice. And I did happen to go through another community on the way back from our cabin and it had townhomes. I've just decided that's not the program I want to go with. And I wish I could find my picture and show it to you, but maybe I'll forward it to John just so everybody knows. And the townhomes that we saw are going to be much higher in density, and I just didn't feel that that was right for me personally. We've built these homes and it just fills a need. I think that the nice thing about this is we'll have 35 brand new homes in that price range of 300 to 350. 300 will be hard to achieve, but 325 to 350 are current prices that we will offer, and that's factual. [23:38] **Greg J. Holmes**: Um, and I think when you offer homes like that, there's very little on the market. It will fulfill the needs for 35 new families. As these folks were new to our community, we're going to have new people coming to our community. We're going to be able to serve people that live in this community that right now can't find homes—it's very difficult if you're looking for a home in that 300 to 350. And so I think those are really, really the good things. It will help to support our schools; they'll give us 35 new families to the school district, and I think there's a need to have population in our schools to make those function as well as they can. Thank you. [24:14] **Chair John Moes**: All right, thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? [24:16] **Gabriel Wagner**: Yeah, you can come back up? Sure. Just make sure that whatever comments you make are newer than what we have already on file. Just—yep. Um, we probably don't need to restate our names and things. Um, okay, I guess a question I have is there is a house for sale in our neighborhood, and I'm not exactly sure on the year, we haven't looked it up yet. Um, it is yes, yes, yes—this one's one of these two—it's one of these two houses here. Um, it's on the market for, we believe, 364. Um, so how do you get a new build within the 300 to 350 if the current—I mean, I don't know—I don't know that how that housing piece works, but that would just be my question of the practicalities around that price range suggested. [25:12] **Gabriel Wagner**: And I'm not going to nitpick things, but also if—if we're being completely honest—I think if we knew the adjustments that we've had to make within our home and we knew the quality of the home that was built, I don't know if we would necessarily—we would have chosen that home. And unfortunately, when we have looked at other homes, there's been a reputation upheld within the city... between when we had a furnace guy come out and we talk about how we have the same layout and, "Oh, you have a Greg J. home? Yep. Oh, yep, okay." So we just—I think we're all on the same page of like the quality of what to expect. And even with a realtor that we had met recently, I guess without even asking, reassured us that it was not a Greg J. home built. So I don't know what that means in terms of what future homes are going to be built like, but those were some things that were shared with us that were kind of more eye-opening. [26:23] **Gabriel Wagner**: So I think when we're thinking too of quality of homes, something that needs to be considered as everything that's inspected within the home should uphold what the standard is and what the expectations are. And I think that that would also go back with—if the city has certain expectations... just because this plot of land has been debated about for the last over 20 years doesn't mean that there should be any sort of negotiation beyond what would be determined in any other builder's circumstance. So that's something that I would also want to have upheld is the expectations that the city does have for the listed and recommended items. [27:11] **Renee Wagner**: Additionally, I think the safety concerns still stands and they weren't addressed. So in terms of sidewalks and safety and parking and those kind of things, it's still very crammed. And I think a quote last time was used that was, "And why do we try to fit 25 pounds of potatoes in a 20-pound sack here?" I think development is great, however, really we should think about the quality and the amount of houses. And markets will change—today is today, we don't know what the future will be. Nobody knew we're going to have 11% inflation a few years ago—did anybody predict that? So we don't—we can't really predict the future. So thank you. [27:53] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, thank you. All right, anyone on Zoom? Nope. All right, anyone else? Okay, if not, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we will open it up to Commissioners for questions, comments. [28:03] **Commissioner Melanie Peters**: Commissioner Peters, thank you. Um, I have a question about Outlot D with—and just understanding how that would work. So the city would own the outlot and then the maintenance would be assessed back to the homeowners is that—so I have two questions about that. First, is that common practice in other areas of the city? And then second, is it assessed back to all the homeowners in that development or just the ones that are adjacent to it? I'm assuming all the homeowners. [28:40] **John Hinzman**: Sure, Outlot D would be owned by the city and then the maintenance responsibilities for it would be assessed across the entire subdivision—the entire 35 lots—so not just the ones that are adjacent to it but all the 35 lots. We've made the determination that all stormwater within this development flows into that pond, therefore all the properties within this development benefit from doing so. What we've done within the city—we've done stormwater assessment in two ways: one, a developer can have a Homeowners Association and that Homeowners Association can have responsibility for it. What that typically does is the Homeowners Association will realize there's something that needs to be done, they'll hire a contractor, and then assess that funds back through the Homeowners Association. With the city taking ownership of it, we would be in there evaluating the stormwater pond itself and then hiring our contractors for it. So reality would be that you're going to have a—a bill that's going to be sent either from the city or from a Homeowners Association to collect for the maintenance responsibilities on this. [30:01] **Chair John Moes**: All right, anyone else for the discussion, questions? [30:21] **Commissioner Missy McGrath**: I guess I don't really have a question but more of a comment. I think like, you know, when our job is to look at this very objectively and, you know, I appreciate the comments about like what's happening in the market, but that doesn't feel like that's our responsibility to look at at all even though I understand what everyone is saying. Um, I guess when—when looking at this, we have the answers now about the drainage, it seems like all the minimal requirements are being met or are flexibly being met. Um, and so objectively looking at it, it seems like it is something that we could send onto the—to the City Council. Um, I don't—I don't think there's any more questions that I would have on this. I—and I don't think we're going to get any more change on it. So to me, now, yep, they've done what they're supposed to; it minimally meets requirements and you know, we've done—I think we've done our job with this and our personal feelings or subjective feelings about whether or not we think it's a good thing isn't really relevant. [31:44] **Chair John Moes**: Commissioner Peters, thanks, well, I think you summed it up. I mean, that's kind of where I was going. So, Planning Commission, just a little bit of—a little education. Planning Commission looks at planning and zoning. Okay? So, um, she is right; we—we can't look—we don't take into account the market, the type of build, the history, and all of that, even though that personally I completely—I completely get it. I would love to see sidewalks, but they're not required. I would love to see bigger lots, but they meet the specifications that the—that the city has set forward, and the application meets those specifications. I'd love to see a park in there, but we can't require it because the ordinance allows them to pay park fees in lieu of building a park. That's just the city—that's the way the city ordinance works. [32:33] **Chair John Moes**: Um, I personally—personally—don't like the way this is going with the, you know, inserting an entire development within another development. I think the planning aspect of it is a little backwards, if you ask me. I'm not a developer, I'm not a realtor, I'm not... but personally, I don't like the way this was done. So, but it's—there's nothing against doing it this way. It's just not ideal for—for the residents that are surrounding it. You're right, you don't really build out or—you're kind of do it concentrically so that you're not, you know, going in between homes and like you said, there's only two points that you can really go in with construction equipment and you're going to severely affect somebody's enjoyment, you know, of their property just by looking at this schematic up here on how they're going to get construction equipment in and materials in for 35 homes. So I get that completely, 100 percent. [33:38] **Chair John Moes**: But from a Planning Commission perspective, we look at planning and zoning. They're not asking for variance; the lots meet the necessary sizes; they're not asking for anything outside of but we're required. We've gone back and forth with the drainage; they've met those requirements. The city engineers have looked at it, the traffic studies were done, and all of that. So while we completely understand what you're saying here, for the Planning Commission, this is just a recommendation. Okay? So we are a—you know—we're just—we're kind of an advisory commission to the City Council. So you will have another opportunity to go to the City Council or talk to your councilmember about this before it goes on their agenda. I'll generally discuss it at the end of our vote here, but um, and you'll be able to address the City Council when it's on their agenda. Am I correct? [34:39] **John Hinzman**: Yes, yes, so this will be on the council. [34:41] **Chair John Moes**: Yeah, so it won't be like—it won't be a public hearing per se, necessarily, but if it's on their agenda, you have a right to appear in front of City Council at the beginning of the meeting and speak to anything on the agenda. And that's where a lot of the personal concerns might be a best place to voice those. But when we're looking at it from a Planning and Zoning perspective, we're kind of boxed in, like Commissioner Peters said. We're kind of boxed in with what we look at as far as, you know, does it meet the zoning, does it meet the planning? You know, originally it was supposed to be, you know, how many hundreds of houses and townhomes? Originally a hundred and what was the original amount back in 2000? [35:28] **John Hinzman**: This area here, I think it was 48 townhomes. All over the other, I think it was around 200 home sites. [35:36] **Chair John Moes**: Yeah, you know, and now we're at version 4.0, you know, 20 years later, and here's—here's where we are within the parameters of what the city has set forth. So um, Commissioner Peters was spot on with—with her analysis of it. You know, we have to set aside our personal—our personal, if you will, opinions and objectively look at the plat as is presented in front of us, and they're meeting all the expectations the city has set forward. Does that make sense? I just want to clear that up on your comments though. Thank you. Commissioner Peters, go ahead. [36:20] **Commissioner Melanie Peters**: Um, well given all that, I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary and final plat, um, you know, provided it meets the—the conditions laid out in the proposal. [36:31] **Chair John Moes**: And are you going to be approving both the preliminary and the final as one motion, or can they be done...? [36:37] **John Hinzman**: They can be done as one. [36:38] **Chair John Moes**: Yeah, if you prefer. You want to do this one? Okay, so we have a motion to approve the preliminary and final plat as presented. We have a second? [36:58] **Commissioner Missy McGrath**: Commissioner McGrath, second. [37:00] **Chair John Moes**: Any further new discussion? [37:02] **Commissioner Melanie Peters**: Um, so it was pointed out that um, the—the minimum lot size for some of these is smaller than what's laid out in the zoning code, and I believe that's because it's a PRD, a Planned Residential Development. Um, I will say I don't think there's any sort of sunset or anything on that, is there? That's—that's kind of a previously determined and that's a long-standing um, development. [37:11] **John Hinzman**: I can give some explanation on that. When the Planned Residential Development is part of the zoning—so when we rezoned the property, and this was some time ago—we rezoned it as a Planned Residential Development with that flexibility built in. So that was early on in the subdivisions, and that doesn't expire. [37:25] **Commissioner Melanie Peters**: Yeah, so that's—that's part of the zoning ordinance. And then the—the stipulations for the area that's zoned as such, is that available? Can someone from the public find that? It just seems like um, I guess just—just my comment—this isn't anything, you know, plus or minus on the proposal before us, but that... yeah, it just seems a little opaque. Um, especially one that's so old that hasn't been used, if that makes sense. So is that—is that available? Can we find that somewhere for—for this specific development, or say there's another one that hasn't been developed—a Planned Residential Development approved zoning district? Um, so—so what the city requires for that, can that be found somewhere? [38:15] **John Hinzman**: Is that just kind of... right, yeah, we have that. [38:19] **Commissioner Melanie Peters**: Okay, okay, thanks. [38:23] **Chair John Moes**: Any further discussion? If not, we got a motion and a second. All in favor say "aye." [38:40] **All Commissioners**: Aye. [38:41] **Chair John Moes**: Opposed? Okay, that motion carries. [38:45] **John Hinzman**: Okay, and the Commissioners, this should be—might be on the next City Council agenda for October 2nd. And I—I say that, we're working on putting together some agreements to carry forward along with the plat approval. I'm uncertain whether those will be—be available this week or not, so we may end up having this move forward on the 16th rather than the 2nd. What I would—what I will do with the Wagners, I've got their email; I'll let them know what—what's—what's going on here. I—I could go one way or the other on that one with the agreements and with the developer as well. We're putting together the stormwater agreement as we speak right now, so we're hoping we get everything together there that we can bring this forward on the 2nd, but if not, it'll be on the 16th. [39:28] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, thanks John. Okay, I appreciate that, thank you. Thanks for coming tonight; feel free to stick around for the adjournment if you like. Other actions? [39:55] **John Hinzman**: Other actions? I don't have anything else to report to the Planning Commission. We do have a meeting scheduled in two weeks, which we will be holding. Uh, there will be a variance request ahead of us for some solar facilities at the Dakota County Administration Center on Highway 55. So we'll be looking at some potential variance to that. That's the only thing I have on the agenda so far for that meeting. [40:08] **Chair John Moes**: Okay, thanks. Commissioners, any other items? Okay, if not, I'll accept a motion to adjourn. [40:23] **Gabriel Wagner**: Uh, well we just closed up... is it on something we... the public hearing...? [40:25] **Chair John Moes**: Oh no, I typically—no, not unless we have it on the agenda. Yep, yep, we—we could—we could talk after the meeting too. Yeah, that would be a conversation after meeting but, yep. Okay, motion to adjourn? [40:30] **Commissioner Melanie Peters**: I'll make a motion to adjourn. [40:31] **Chair John Moes**: Right, Commissioner Peters, motion to adjourn. Second? [40:34] **Commissioner LeBron**: Commissioner LeBron, second. [40:35] **Chair John Moes**: All in favor say "aye." [40:37] **All Commissioners**: Aye. [40:38] **Chair John Moes**: Opposed? Motion carries, we are adjourned.