This transcript is from a **Farmington Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the context provided and the self-introductions within the dialogue, the speakers have been identified as follows: * **Chair Tony Rody:** Chairperson of the Planning Commission. * **Tony (Staff):** Likely Tony Wippler, Planning Manager (often addressed by the Chair for staff reports). * **Jared (Staff):** Likely Jared Wandersee, City Planner. * **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Planning Commission member. * **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Planning Commission member. * **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Planning Commission member. * **Brian Tucker:** Representative for Summergate Development. * **John Anderson:** Representative for Brandl Anderson / Distinctive Land Development. * **Scott Keller:** Local resident (Troy Hill). * **Steve Bona:** Representative for Capstone Homes. * **Nick Gessel:** Resident and beekeeping expert. * **Steve Drosski:** Representative for Lennar. *** [0:04] **Chair Tony Rody:** [Music] All right, we'll call the meeting to [0:50] **Chair Tony Rody:** order. On behalf of the planning commission, like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of April 8th, 2025. On tonight's agenda, we have two public hearings and then we have two discussion items after that. Uh before we get into the public hearings, we have one housekeeping item. That would be the minutes from our March 11th regular meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? **Commissioner Andy Berg:** I'll make a motion. **Chair Tony Rody:** Have a motion for approval. Is there a second? **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Second. **Chair Tony Rody:** Motion and second. All in favor say I. **Commissioners:** I. I. **Chair Tony Rody:** Minutes are approved. With that, then we'll open up both public hearings at this time. We'll take them in order as shown on the agenda. The first public hearing is an amendment to a planned unit development agreement for Meadow View Preserve and it deals with lot coverage. And Jared, you're going to take this? [1:39] **Jared (Staff):** Yes, I am. Thank you, Chair. Planning Commission members. Uh this request for you tonight is for uh amendment to an existing plan unit development agreement um for the Meadow View Preserve uh development. Uh the applicant is Summergate Development and the specific um amendment they are requesting is an increase in lot coverage uh from the maximum of 30% to 40%. Uh the existing PUD agreement outlines uh two deviations from the R1 uh zoning district. Uh this has reduced lot size as well as reduced lot width. Um the 30% lot coverage uh currently is working for traditional two-story homes that they are building out there. Um but is becoming an issue for builders offering villa style homes um where they have a deeper footprint on the lot. Um I've included an example survey [2:26] **Jared (Staff):** of an active permit that we have received um that would be right at this 40% lot coverage um requirement or increase. Um, as you can see on your screen, uh, the footprint of the house runs a little deeper back on the lot, but it still would, uh, meet setbacks, um, in the R1, uh, zoning district. Uh, so you can see the lot area on the right is a little over 8,000 square ft. And then the total, uh, lot coverage, um, would be 3,240 ft. Uh, bringing the total lot coverage to just shy of 40%. [3:00] **Jared (Staff):** Um, and I would like to note too, um, I did receive an email earlier today from a homeowner off Evston Drive. Um, I did put that email into your guys's packet for reference. And so, the requested action uh, for the planning commission is to recommend the city council approve the attached resolution um, amending the PUD agreement uh, for Meadow View Preserve. [3:24] **Chair Tony Rody:** All right. Thank you, Jared. I'm looking for that email. Is that—Let me look at this. I'll look at this while we do it. Mr. Tucker, are you here? You repping representing Summergate. Do you have anything to add to the staff report? [3:39] **Brian Tucker:** Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. Uh, not not really other than um this is a case where we got the subdivision approved and we didn't have builders identified at that time. Uh, as it turns out, we ended up working with a couple of builders and in order to make sure they weren't competing against one another. [3:54] **Brian Tucker:** One of the agreements was that one of the builders is building a certain style home and the other was building another. Well, it turns out that uh uh the villa style home was one of the ones that Brandl Anderson was going to put—be putting out here. And that's where we ran into an issue with the lot coverage. So, uh, I agree with staff in that a lot of times we're reducing the lot width and area through some of these PUDs, but then, um, sometimes the impervious surface coverage or building coverage gets overlooked. So, uh, we're requesting to go to 40%. I would also add that the lots that back up to the existing homes to the east, they have a much deeper, uh, drainage and utility easement. It's like 45 ft back there. So whereas some of the other lots within [4:41] **Brian Tucker:** the development uh with a larger footprint, it might push a little further back toward, you know, the back of the lot, but the ones on the east side along the existing uh where the existing homes are are much less likely to be able to accommodate a deeper home just because of that increased uh utility easement back there. [5:03] **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay, Mr. Tucker, could you stay available in case there's questions from our audience? This is a public hearing. Are there any comments or questions regarding um this PUD amendment? All right. If not, we'll give an opportunity when the commission's done. If you have comments or questions, you can—we'll certainly come back and ask again. Start with Commissioner Tesy. [5:18] **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Yeah. Uh thank you for bringing this in. I mean, I appreciate the approach of not reworking the lot size to accommodate, you know, different size homes, but um we set standards uh for a reason, and I'm I'm struggling with um the 40% a little bit, and if a homeowner were to purchase a home on that lot, it just very much limits what you can do in that backyard. [5:52] **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** So, I just hope individuals who are looking to buy those homes know that there's significant limitation to potentially put in a pool or something of that nature. It's going to be very limiting in the backyard. Um, so I'm having a hard time getting behind this, but um I'm interested to hear what the other commission members have to say. **Chair Tony Rody:** We'll find out. Commissioner Snowbeck. [6:12] **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Yeah, I just always think about, you know, our watershed area and and the reason why we have green spaces to absorb that water. Um, so that was my first concern also is the amount of of property that's being covered in the ability for the watershed to absorb the water um and not put it in the, you know, sewer system and ship it down the river. Um, are other communities in the surrounding area, are they u building houses with with coverage of 40% of property? Is that common? Um, or are we just looking to do this in one spot? [6:55] **Jared (Staff):** Sure. So actually we have multiple active developments um in the city right now that actually—or plan unit developments that have an increase um in lot coverage. Uh Vita is one that's I believe is up to 51%. Um I [7:00] **Jared (Staff):** believe Fairhill also increases the lot coverage too there. So we have approved these in the past. Um so I wouldn't say it's not uncommon uh for this to happen. [7:08] **Tony (Staff):** And Commissioner Snowbeck, I I will add on to that that uh other communities are looking at doing that as well. The trend that we're seeing with new subdivisions is that they want smaller lots, but they don't really want to give up on the size of home. Um they just don't necessarily want to have the the yard um to maintain. Um at least that's the trend that we're currently seeing. Um, as Jared mentioned, uh, we have allowed this in other, um, developments, um, even higher than what this, uh, requirement or this request is [7:47] **Tony (Staff):** this evening. Um, I also want to do mention that it's building coverage. It's not necessarily impervious surface coverage. So, it does not include things like your driveway, uh, concrete patio. It does not include pools, right? So, um, that wouldn't really affect them from being able to put in a pool provided they meet setbacks and things like that. Now, a shed, it could potentially impact that. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Okay. To that point, Tony, sorry, I don't mean to take your time, Mitch. To that point where we have made exceptions in the past have—and maybe it's too new to know—have we seen any watershed impact or had any sort of—? **Tony (Staff):** Not that I'm aware of. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Okay. **Tony (Staff):** None that I'm aware of. And uh take for instance the Fair Hill one that's now going [8:33] **Tony (Staff):** on almost eight years. Um so yeah I—no we have not seen any issue with that. **Jared (Staff):** And chair if I if I could jump in to answer the question about the storm water. I did check with our engineer and they, you know, when they run their storm water calculations to size ponds to be appropriately sized for the capacity that's needed, they they assume the entire pad, finished pad is is going to be uh covered in addition to driveways and those type of things. So they indicated on these lots that they were assuming at least 40% coverage and how they did their calculations uh so that there would be adequate capacity because that's usually one of the basis [9:19] **Jared (Staff):** for these kind of requirements is just making sure you don't end up with you know too much storm water coming off the site. So they did indicate that that it was—the assumptions were that it would be covering that whole pad which is larger than what most of the houses end up being. **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay, Jared, that was a question I was going to have. You said their engineers reviewed this. Has the city engineer reviewed this for storm water? [9:44] **Jared (Staff):** Um, yeah. When the first preliminary plat comes through, the city engineer um approves it. Um, and so basically what Brian was saying, that's what their storm water calculations go off of. Um so yes, our city engineer has um technically approved it based off those building pads that they submit. [10:04] **Tony (Staff):** It'd be based off of the storm water report—that management report that's provided as part of the preliminary and final plat. Um all those regulations or those capacity type numbers are included within that report that's approved or reviewed and approved by our engineering department. **Chair Tony Rody:** And that's and that's what Mr. Tucker saying is showing the larger pads. **Tony (Staff):** Correct. [10:27] **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Mitch, do you have any more questions? I—I—I—I don't. I just—it is a concern that um I know I might have—I might have to keep thinking about listen to other people's questions. Yeah. Thank you. [10:44] **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Um yeah, go—a question I had was related to the the email that you shared Jared from the homeowner in the area. Um, do you know was this homeowner in a house that's already built in this neighborhood or is it neighboring? **Jared (Staff):** They are um directly uh east in Troy Hill. [11:03] **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Okay. Um I believe they abut the second edition for Meadow Preserve. **Jared (Staff):** Okay. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** They had mentioned taller wider homes which doesn't really relate to footprint right—the taller is vertical—the wider you know obviously might be an option here but um talking about overshadowing neighboring properties so that's where I just wanted to understand where they were in relation to and understand the impact to existing homes that are already there if if this did get approved so the Troy Hills houses right—the ones that are neighboring up against them—what sort of impact could we potentially see there? **Jared (Staff):** Correct. And I believe a majority of those homes on that side, correct me if I'm wrong, Brian, are two-story homes. They're not the deeper um villa style uh homes. [11:49] **Tony (Staff):** Those are on um the west side of the development. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Okay. Thank you. Um yeah, I'm I'm kind of in the same—in the same thought as—as my fellow commissioners here. I want to hear a little bit more before final decision. So, I'll leave it at that for now. **Chair Tony Rody:** Sure. All right. Thank you, Andy. [12:06] **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah. You know, when—and you mentioned a few developments that have um a higher uh coverage than what they're doing, but usually we're discussing that at the initial public hearing when the residents are here to be able to contribute to the public hearing. Um, it's unique when we get a request in the middle of a development starting and and then they're saying, "Wait a minute." And I remember those public hearings because they were a bit contentious. Um, we kind of filled up the the chairs out here and and the residents were very good. They had a lot of great comments and and we kind of came to a compromise agreement that [12:52] **Chair Tony Rody:** night. Mr. Tucker, you probably remember some of that. And then after that we had a little more discussion and then you know we came back to this um and a lot of the discussion that those initial public hearings had to do with uh they wanted to make sure that the houses were of adequate value which is a concern when you you know have an existing house that's nice and a development that's nice like Troy Hill to the east and just wanted to make sure it was in this situation now they're looking to build bigger houses so they want they need they need it for the lots and we and we can't go back or we—could—difficult to go back. So really I come down—you mentioned Brandl was the one that wanted to build these villas in certain areas right um when I first saw this I said boy [13:39] **Chair Tony Rody:** we're going to cover the whole area with 40% now rather than just a few houses that want to be villas—do you know which lots are are good to build villas on that the pads are there to build—is it the walkouts on the west side or what? **Brian Tucker:** Yeah. So, at this point, all the upper lots along—I forget the name of the street. I've got it here, but all the upper lots are purchased by PY and they're primarily doing the two stories that you see out there. And then Brandl has the ones that are wrapping closer down to the—the west side along the pond. Uh phase two, um I don't know that Brandl's going to be a participant in that. That hasn't been finalized. But uh we do have John Anderson here that represents Brandl if you'd like to address any questions to the builder as well. **Chair Tony Rody:** John, you want to get involved? **John Anderson:** Yeah. All right. So, my name is John Anderson. I'm here actually for the next item as well, but I do do some work with Brandl Anderson as well. And I am aware of this situation and I had conversations with both Brian and Tony when this first came up here a few weeks back and I've done projects obviously in Farmington in the [14:43] **John Anderson:** area before. So to start with um PY Homes is doing a two-story type structure on their lots which are kind of on the east side of the project. Two-story homes typically have a smaller footprint and the rule that the city of Farmington has is a building coverage. So if you have a smaller footprint your coverage percentage is usually smaller and as uh Brian mentioned when Brandl Anderson came in they didn't want to compete directly with PY having two different builders in this project. They went with the villa style which is typically a one-level home like you see in the uh the picture there and one-level homes typically have a bigger footprint meaning the the the percentage gets higher. Now in relation to the development itself and for instance the Vita project which I was involved with they did get approved I think it was 50% on their plan and they went with smaller [15:31] **John Anderson:** lots through a PUD did a 55 plus neighborhood. Um, I've also been involved with the Sapphire Lake project with Winkl Development. That was actually an R2 zoning, which has a higher percentage um, you know, coverage than what the R1 district is, which is what Meadow—uh, Meadow View Preserve is. In reality though, the lots in Meadow View Preserve are really not much different than the lot sizes in say SA—excuse me, Sapphire Lake, but yet the percentages are different. So, when Brandl Anderson started looking at this with their one-level villas, the footprint was bigger. they started realizing some of these lots will not accommodate their floor plans and that's what this uh percent um you know increase came from. [16:11] **John Anderson:** Now I'm also working on a project over in Empire right now and in that case there's single family lots similar to this project. We have different sizes in there. Um the city actually approved the lot coverage up to 50% than that neighborhood as part of that approval. Um, I've also done quite a few projects in Lakeville over the years, and Lakeville has no requirements for lot coverage and impervious surface requirements. So, you can come in there, build as big as house as you can fit on the pad, add pools, add driveways, different things, you know, storage sheds. And so, there are a lot of cities out there that do not even restrict this because they look at it up front as was mentioned with the preliminary plat. So, by doing what we're doing here, um, all it's going to do if you don't approve this would decrease the size of the house, decrease the value, and basically [16:58] **John Anderson:** make those lots, you know, very hard to build. You know, the types of villa houses that, you know, Brandl Anderson wanted to construct on those lots. So, um, most likely they would not be able to move forward with that project. And it's something that has been done in Farmington before. It's done in other cities like Empire. Lakeville, as I said, doesn't even have this requirement. So, I just want to give a perspective from Brandl Anderson Homes on what they're looking for here because we do have, you know, sales and things in there that we can't move forward with right now unless this uh, you know, amendment to the PUD is actually approved. **Chair Tony Rody:** So, and John, I appreciate that. Again, it's—it's this—when we had the public hearing a couple years ago, you know, and and Mr. Tucker, you again, I'll go back to this. [17:42] **Chair Tony Rody:** We kind of made a commitment, but I understand, you know, I mean, the—this will be a bigger house, which usually has a higher value, not always, but usually. Um, you know, my—my sense is some commissioners have a problem with it. Is there a way to allow half a development to be a a coverage and half not? cuz you know I don't want the ones that we made a a commitment to next to Troy Hill to have a problem. But I mean a villa is a nice house, don't get me wrong. And I know they're building villas on even smaller lots than 8,000 foot cuz I live in one. [18:24] **Chair Tony Rody:** Um so I'm not against this as from a house standpoint. It's just the commitment that we made to the residents to the east a couple years ago. But if it comes down to it, I would support sending this on to our city council as a favorable recommendation. Um, but I feel bad, Mr. Tucker. Um, you were part of that. Um, you can share some of my, uh, concern to these residents. Um, if it does go through, because, you know, we made a commitment to them a couple years ago, and that's what we usually we live by is that initial commitment that we make to them, and now we're changing it mid-stream, and I don't like that. [19:05] **Brian Tucker:** And Brian, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think PY will have all the lots that back up to the Troy. **John Anderson:** That's what he said. **Chair Tony Rody:** That's what I'm saying. I don't know if it'll affect—I know we have one out here, a couple from Troy. Um I—I—I don't think it—I mean, it's the value of the house is going to be more. I mean, it's going to be a nice house that you're building. **Brian Tucker:** Yeah, it's the—I just hope it isn't everyone. I hope it's just the ones that walk out on the—on the west side. Um, but I don't want other houses or other property owners taking advantage of this and causing issues to some of the existing neighbors out there. That's—that's my concern. Okay. [19:38] **Chair Tony Rody:** But I—I—again to the commission um we're in a tough spot. Um and you know, we struggle with—with Summergate a few years ago. I know I've been on record and but I'm you know, I'm here to support Summergate. I think they've done a fine job out there. I've viewed your first house and it's a beautiful house out there and if these are something like that I I think they'll be nice houses. [20:02] **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** So can I ask real quick D—Andy with the—with the change from 30 to 40% what does that turn out to be in realistic square footage—roughly ballpark—do we know that number—Charlie or John do you have an answer to that? **John Anderson:** Um, I calculated on kind of the standard lot out there, it ends up being about 800 square f feet if someone went to that full 40%. [20:28] **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** So, it's not an insignificant amount is kind of what I'm thinking. 800 square feet in the grand scheme of things isn't a huge amount, but if you look at the total project to me, that's—that's my first apartment was less than that. So, yeah. **Brian Tucker:** And I I think for context too, I mean, there's what about a dozen to 15 houses out there under construction right now. And so far, we've had one that's run into this issue. So I I don't want to overstate the idea that, you know, all of a sudden we're going to have 40 out of the 130 that are going to be looking for this. **Chair Tony Rody:** So, yeah, that's why I looked at staff to see if there's a—a reasonable in between where it's not everything, but it's those that that [21:14] **Chair Tony Rody:** need to, but I'm not familiar. I have in my 40 years. We've never quite done that. **Tony (Staff):** Um, it's something I—I—think we could potentially look at um with the developer if there's specific lots that they know would be, you know, for that specific developer. um could maybe try to contain it to those specific lots. Like I said, that hasn't been something we've done in the past. **Chair Tony Rody:** I haven't seen it either. Um but I—I—don't know that it's something that you can't do. It's just something that we haven't done. They were doing more developments that are PUD related, planned unit development type developments, and there that there's exceptions to the different parts of the zoning district. And that's what's happening here. And now we're changing midstream. So— **Brian Tucker:** And chair if I could one other item just making note of the site plan they have up on the screen but if I understand from staff correctly a deck counts towards the structure setback percentage as well. And if you look at that particular layout that's a extra large deck which you know is not unusual and it's and it's a way that [22:25] **Brian Tucker:** people want to increase the value and the enjoyment of their home. But uh keep in mind that that deck, you know, there's—I'm just kind of can't quite read it from here. 14, you know, that's adding 400 450 ft. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah. And I—I—spoke to him out there. He's—I understand the—the rationale. I—I—do, don't get me wrong. Um Charlie, I—I—could live with it, but I just—I don't like the process, guys. I really don't. [22:54] **Chair Tony Rody:** But I mean I feel better knowing that it's been engineered to support 40. So—the 40%. But yeah, if initially they might—if they came in and said we're billing villas and they're going to be bumping 40, I'd have said okay, you know, but you know, I just—I—I can remember residents all over here and they—you know, I made a promise or we made a promise to them. So, but um Andy, I'm looking at you any—You're out in that area. I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but— [23:25] **Scott Keller:** So, Mr. Chair, members, my name is uh Scott Keller 19286 Evenston. I'm a Troy Hill resident for the last 23 years. Understood everything that was said tonight. And Mr. Chairman, I think you hit the nail on the head. Um the layman's term that comes to mind is bait and switch a little bit, right? I mean that—that might be a little over the top, but um I was out there last night uh the the two two-stories that had been built alongside the east facing Troy Hill development um was a little shocked to find out from uh I called Jared this morning the house—the houses on those plots right now are 12 feet apart—12—I stood up on a little dirt mound and took—I—I have the thumb drive in my pocket I can leave it with you—are essentially going to be looking at a wall of houses in that farm field and that—and that's the ones that are staying 30% of the lot size. So to correct me if I'm wrong, I was not—I—I—I told you, Mr. [24:44] **Scott Keller:** Chairman, I wasn't here at the initial uh meetings a couple years ago. The the original developer was kind of basically not demanding, but asking for these smaller lot sizes from an R1 from a standard 10,000 square foot lot. Is that correct? And they were granted that. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah. Yeah. **Scott Keller:** So, so now we hear two years later, they wanted a smaller lot size. Now they're looking for a bigger house. It just—it—it smells a little funny to be honest with you. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah, Mr. Keller, you're absolutely right. What—I've been doing this for a while. Um, things have changed. R1 used to be minimum 10,000 square foot lots. I mean, you'd have 100 foot frontage, 150 deep minimum, right? [25:35] **Chair Tony Rody:** Um, things have changed a lot in the last 25 years. Most plats that come here, and Tony, correct me if I'm wrong or Jared, come as PUDs, which they're looking and and people want to utilize available land. One for financial reasons, two for, you know, some may say other reasons. um environmental things like that. But um we're seeing a lot of PUDs now and smaller lot sizes. You don't see a development anymore that's 10,000 square foot minimum lots. Um a lot of them are R2 just again to maximize lot coverage and you know maximize building. It costs a lot now to to build the infrastructure—roads sewer utilities. Um houses are expensive. You know that. Um I'm not telling you anything else. And you know, again, if they'd have come in here two years ago and said, you know, we're thinking about building Villas, um, and they're going to hit it, you know, I probably at that time, I would have said, okay. You know, I've seen a lot of those in the last 20 years. Um, and I—I'm okay with that. I live—I live on a—a fairly large villa, my wife and I do, and our lot is 6,500. Um, I'm sure we're pushing the—the 40—So, and we have a deck and I—I—love the deck. It faces the west. Um, we catch the wind and the summer heat, too. So, [27:02] **Chair Tony Rody:** I'm telling because I know he's got—that's where he's at out there. Um, so I understand where you're coming from and I appreciate you standing up um letting us know what you think. **Scott Keller:** Thanks for the time. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah, thank you, sir. All right. Anybody else want to talk on this? Any other commissioners got comments or questions? I'm going to go around again and just kind of get the feel for the commissioners. Commissioner Tesy. [27:24] **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Um yeah, I—I—just have a hard time supporting this just based on what we've gone through in the last maybe two years, I think, hasn't it been? Um where we started to where we are today. **Chair Tony Rody:** Commissioner Snowbeck. **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Yeah, a little bit of the history lesson gives me a little bit further concerns about the change—change of the direction of the—of the plan. So, yep, I'm concerned, too. **Chair Tony Rody:** Commissioner Berg. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** yeah, I would agree. I, you know, wasn't here a couple years ago when this originally came through either, but just knowing that the residents have concerns, they were concerned from the beginning and now we're changing after a decision that was—was made in agreement. Um, I don't feel good about this either. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah. Okay. And I'll still reiterate, I—I—don't feel good about it. Um, I still will—or would have—supported this adjustment because I think we would have done that two years ago knowing if Summergate would have had the builders and they knew what kind of lot houses they were going to build. So, I—I—would have supported it. I'll leave it at that. With that, I'd look for a motion. This will be a recommendation to—Well, first of all, I need a motion to close the public hearing. **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Can—Can I ask one more question, Derek? Go ahead. Tony, what do you believe on this? Like, and both you guys, what are your thoughts on—on this? cuz I mean you're the kind of experts in the area. What do you guys—I mean you must believe we should go forward with it, right? [28:53] **Tony (Staff):** That would be our recommendation. Yeah. **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Okay. That's—that's okay. Yeah. Motion to close the public hearing. **Chair Tony Rody:** Motion to close the public hearing. We have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** A second. **Chair Tony Rody:** Motion second to close a public hearing. Call the roll, please. **Clerk:** Rody. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yes. **Clerk:** Snowbeck. **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** No. **Clerk:** Berg. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** No. **Chair Tony Rody:** This is a recommendation to close the public hearing. To close the public hearing, call the roll again, please. **Clerk:** Rody, yes. Snowbeck, yes. Berg, yes. Tesy, yes. [29:15] **Chair Tony Rody:** In front of the commission, there's a recommendation to our city council um amending a PUD agreement for Meadow View Preserve from 30% to 40%. Is there a motion? **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** A motion. **Chair Tony Rody:** We have a motion for a favorable or—or—unfavorable recommendation. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Unfavorable recommendation. **Chair Tony Rody:** We have a motion for unfavorable recommendation to our city council on this. Is there a second? **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** I'll second. **Chair Tony Rody:** Motion and second. Any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. **Clerk:** Snowbeck. **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** No. [29:43] **Chair Tony Rody:** Wait a minute. Um, uh, a yes vote would be in favor of unfavorable recommendation. A no vote means you do not—you're—Yeah, that's—So, a yes vote means you're going to support your motion. That's why I say that—you made the motion. Yes. Yep. So, a yes vote would be you support the motion. Unfavorable. Yeah. A no means you don't. Yeah. Call the roll again, please. **Clerk:** Snowbeck, yes. Berg, yes. Tesy, yes. Rody, no. [30:06] **Chair Tony Rody:** All right. Thank you. All right. With that, then we'll move to our second public hearing. This is a preliminary plat and PUD for Dakota Meadows. The applicant is Distinctive Land Development. Tony, you'll take this. [30:44] **Tony (Staff):** I—will—bear with me here. All right. Yes. Uh this evening we have a application for uh preliminary plat uh for Dakota Meadows uh as well as a planned unit development. Uh as Chair Rody had mentioned the applicant is Distinctive Land Development LLC. Uh the development is generally located toward the southeast intersection of Denmark Avenue and 220th Street West or Ash Street and is just south of Dakota Electric and west of the fairgrounds. Uh the proposed development is to consist of 134 single family lots. Uh the plat is again 134 single [31:29] **Tony (Staff):** family lots spread over 43 1/2 acres. Uh that equates to a net density of 3.6 dwelling units an acre. The property is zoned R2 which is our low medium density residential and allows for a density range between 3 and a half to six dwelling units per acre. Storm water ponding is located mainly in the center of the development with smaller ponds to be located in the northeast and southwestern portion of the site. A wetland is located along the southern boundary of the development. Uh minimum lot area proposed with this preliminary plat is 4,261 square ft with an average lot size of 5,307. [32:09] **Tony (Staff):** Minimum lot width. In this instance, they're looking down—to go down to 40 ft in width. As far as the proposed setbacks for the development, a front yard would be a 20ft setback standard uh with 25 ft on the sidewalk side. So, any lot that is adjacent to sidewalk would be uh 5 ft deeper as far as the setback is concerned. Rear yard setback of 6 feet, sideyard interior of five and 15 ft for sideyard corner setback. The plat does contain five outlots labeled A through E. Outlot A is a combination of storm water facility and wetland. Outlot B is a remnant parcel. Outlot C, storm water facility. Outlot D, remnant parcel. And the last one, outlot E, is a combination of trail corridor and storm water facility. This is the overall uh site plan or layout. Um as you can see the road comes in from Denmark with single family around it. Uh with the storm water ponding in the center and the wetland in the uh southern end. Uh this just shows the preliminary plat with the—the lot areas and widths and depths. [33:29] **Tony (Staff):** As far as building elevations, uh these are uh to be um basically slab on grade uh units. Um they're looking at having four different type of um elevations um on this uh or within this development. The Barrett, the Becker, and then the Bisque and Brookstone. As far as access and transportation is concerned with this particular development, uh as I had mentioned, the access—the main access for this development will come from Denmark Avenue. Uh there will be a secondary emergency access uh provided. Uh this will be at the southern end of the development near the wetland area. This access will consist of a 20 foot wide uh enhanced trail section extending from Denmark Avenue to Street C on the east side of the development. Uh, this will have to be gated and closed to motorized vehicles um to the general public. I'm sorry that uh is a typo there. Threw me off. Uh there will be three stubs provided. Two adjacent properties. One to the CDA property to the north and one to the Murphy property to the south and then one in the very northeast corner. Uh that would provide access eventually up through the Turk property into Ash Street. Uh all roads within the development will be public. Consists of a 60-foot right-of-way uh with a 29 foot uh wide roadway. Uh sidewalks are provided on the south side of street A and west side of street C. Uh 8 foot wide Bituminous trails uh are provided along the northern boundary of the site. Uh they extend from Denmark Avenue up to Ash Street or 220th Street West. Uh the trail does [35:19] **Tony (Staff):** extend uh up to the cul-de-sac and street B as well uh or from this cul-de-sac street B to the emergency access uh trail that runs east and west through the site and then there's also a trail along the right of way of Denmark Avenue as well. Uh city will be taking cash in lieu uh parkland dedication with this plat. Uh the park that would service this development is the Westview Acres Park which is a couple blocks north of this uh area. Um that making that trail connection to the north is pretty critical with that. Um just from a accessibility standpoint to getting to that park. The way our park ordinance is written um that would be—the—the park that would service this site. So uh as I had mentioned they are looking to do this as a planned unit development. Um and with that uh they are asking for some flexibility or deviations from the code. The first one is reducing the minimum lot area to [36:28] **Tony (Staff):** 4,261 ft. A typical uh would be a 6,000 ft lot. Uh reducing the minimum lot width to 40 ft versus the typical 60 ft. Reducing the corner yard setback to 15 feet. That's typically a 20 foot setback. And then reducing the interior uh interior sideyard setback to 5 ft versus a typical 6-ft setback. And then increasing the building coverage percentage for lots to 50% versus the uh 35% typical. The action that's requested this evening is to recommend approval of—approval of—the Dakota Meadows preliminary plat and planning unit development uh contingent upon the following and that being the [37:13] **Tony (Staff):** satisfaction of all engineering comments requirements including construction plans for grading storm water and utilities. **Chair Tony Rody:** Thank you Tony Mr. Anderson. You're here for all the whole agenda tonight, aren't you? **John Anderson:** Uh pretty much. Yeah. [37:39] **John Anderson:** Good evening. Uh once again I'm John Anderson. I'm representing Distinctive Land Development. Um Steve Bona from Capstone Homes is also here. They're going to be the sole builder of this project. Um I'll just try to do a little you know background on the site and kind of what we're proposing here. Uh to start with uh this project or this property I should say was previously uh approved for a preliminary plat like two three years ago something like that. Three years ago and that is since expired. We've taken that plan or—that plan I should say had uh dirt balance issues which is a big cost factor in this layout. We have high water table out there as other areas of Farmington do. So what we did is kind of revise it. We actually were working with a different builder for a while and looking at doing quite a few town homes on this site. Um and going down that road that didn't go—it didn't work out. We ended up working with Capstone and we went to this uh product here which is you know basically a individual lot uh and basically we're building a big pond in the middle of the site which will be you know one of those deep ponds like you see in some of the other neighborhoods in town. So it acts as kind of an amenity to those backyards and we're using that fill and sand to—to raise the rest of the site up to make the site work from a dirt balance standpoint. So that's the direction we're going with this. Um the—the big thing from uh a phasing standpoint with 134 lots, we're looking to do three phases. Phase one would be 42 lots generally on the western end of the plat where the entrance is in that initial cul-de-sac. Next phase would be 46 lots kind of going to the east and getting to that north south street. And the last phase would be another 46 lots on that street going to the south. uh the timing [39:07] **John Anderson:** of that, we're looking to, you know, get out there—get approvals going here and if everything goes as planned, hopefully having dirt being moved out there, you know, sometime in May and having streets paved later this summer with building, uh on houses starting up in the late summer, early fall time period. So, uh our grading phasing would probably do grading overall in the whole site in two different phases, roughly half this year and half in phase two. And then phase three would have the grading done by the time we get into that. and um basically go from there. Uh as far as uh you know the the site itself or you know the homes itself um Steve can talk to that from what they're looking to do if you have specific questions on that. Uh we do provide access to the north of the CDA site. Right now they have a temporary access off Denmark which will go away uh once our roadway stubbed into their property which was kind of planned when they went through their planning process a year or so ago. And now that we're here, um, this would take place. One thing I'd like to say is in the original plat, there was three parcels involved in that original preliminary plat. As the the current property owner purchased this land, they realized there was a fourth parcel. And that was kind of a 2 and a half acre parcel up on the very northeast side. [40:19] **John Anderson:** That's the parcel that gave access all the way up to uh 220th Street or Ash Avenue, I guess, Ash Street, I should say. Um, so that does run all the way along the railroad tracks there. And currently that is where the trail is being proposed to run basically from Denmark Avenue through our site all the way up there. Now long-term that poses some challenge with that location. Um we are going to obviously phase this trail in. Uh there—something, you know, we've talked with staff about, but that area is wooded right now all the way along the railroad tracks and there's also kind of a drainage ditch that kind of—in—in that location. If that trail was to be put there, all those trees get cleared away, which is really the natural buffer with the railroad track there and that drainage that needs to be figured out how that drainage will work. Now, obviously, that'll be a future phase up along the railroad tracks. So, we don't necessarily need to worry about the long-term construction of that in phase one. The bigger issue that we want to talk about tonight is a trail in the north property line. You know, we had proposed at one time with staff doing a larger sidewalk within the project on the I think it's street A, the east west one, and then had—not—having that trail along the north property line and that would still continue to give access and as I guess it's the Turk property would develop at some point in the future, we'd probably have a better way to relocate that and get that through there. Um, I know Steve could probably talk about, you know, from a housing standpoint, um, you know, his thoughts on where they see that trail, but, um, and I don't know if there's a way to throw the map up there just so [41:48] **John Anderson:** everyone's aware of where I'm talking, but the trail is through here. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah, through there. **John Anderson:** It's not so bad as you get further to the east, but up along the kind of western side, you know, adjacent to the, you know, we got Dakota Electric's uh facility there and then the the town home site that's adjacent to us as well. Um, you know, we'd like to put some additional screening in there like pine trees and things of that nature. With that trail, we limit the ability to do that. And we—we'd like to propose doing a larger sidewalk through the the street itself as it goes to the north. And then at that point, a trail could be, you know, rerouted, you know, along that Eastern's property and up to 220 Street in that park in that area. Um, I don't know, Steve, do you want to talk now on some things or do you want to wait for questions or I'm sure. Okay. [42:46] **Steve Bona:** Good evening, members of the planning commission. I'm Steve Bona with Capstone Homes. Um, we're working with uh John on this property. Um, and I just wanted to say a couple things about the housing type in case you're not familiar with it. Um, Capstone Homes is a pretty large builder. Uh, we're building communities all over the Twin Cities. We develop them as well. Um, we have this type of housing that we're showing tonight. If you, uh, are interested in touring, you'll be able to see, um, it in a number of communities. We're building it in, uh, Andover, St. Michael, Ramsey, um, Elk River, uh, Wisconsin. We're actually putting it in South Cottage Grove, Sioux Falls, uh, South Dakota as well. Cottage Grove is probably the closest place. Um, it's been very well [43:32] **Steve Bona:** received by the city. I'd encourage you if you have any questions to contact, uh, city staff at Cottage Grove, too. We built a neighborhood there called Settler's Bluff and uh, it was 150 of these—town homes. So, it was very similar to this style of community and size. **Chair Tony Rody:** You—you—What kind of homes are these? You said town homes? **Steve Bona:** Um, no. Single family homes. **Chair Tony Rody:** Single family. Okay. Sorry. Sorry. I—I—may be misunderstood. **Steve Bona:** No, I might have said the wrong thing. Did I say that? **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah. **Steve Bona:** I'm sorry. Single family homes. **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay. Thank you. **Steve Bona:** And so it's at Settler's Bluff. If you want to tour it, you'll see they're single family homes. And then um the city did respond really well to it. They uh this was one of the first large neighborhoods that we created. And afterwards, it was so successful at the city and with sales that we—they—approved another one, which is where the Mississippi Dunes golf course um is now being redeveloped and we're doing 180 more of them. And so, um it does hit—it hits—a price point that's really needed in the Twin Cities right now. when we build uh basements on single family homes, those homes are now starting and [44:37] **Steve Bona:** we build all single family homes as well, but those price points are starting at nearly $500,000 for like a multi-level split entry style home. That's what we're building. And this is a price point that, you know, you can get in in the high 3s into like the 435 range. And um and it's been I think the cities have looked at it as a nice alternative. I had town homes in my mind because it's a nice alternative to attached town homes. Like John was saying on pieces of property um where it's zoned—or it—the zoning could allow for attached town homes. They're saying, "Hey, this uh single family product is amazing. It acts really nice street appeal, curb appeal, and the market is [45:22] **Steve Bona:** really uh they're loving it and uh just proven by sales. But in all the cities that we're building in, um, we've never had any negative feedback. And so I just wanted to mention a couple things about that. Um, and then I just on John's comments on on the trail on the north side, we love trails. Trails give uh it's one of the first things that we'll put in in a community as well. And I think the geometry of this neighborhood is uh is tight and it's restricted. But so what's going to happen with—so we have the trail loop on the south side that you can see on the south side of the pond and then there's going—going—to be plenty of pedestrian traffic and the connection to the park on the northeast with the sidewalks and then the trail there could be a short segment of trail [46:08] **Steve Bona:** to the northeast. But that trail on the north is right in the backyards of these houses. there is—it's—very limited back there and I think um it's a—it—creates a very difficult situation for single family homes I guess is what it comes down to and the—the—walkability without that trail is going to be in our opinion is going to be very good especially at the trail we have a loop system plus we can get to the park to the northeast so I just wanted to mention that as well and I have if you have any questions about what we do or these other sites them here as well. So, thank you. **Chair Tony Rody:** Thank you. [46:48] **John Anderson:** And I just have a a couple more quick comments. Um, these lots are just so you know, are very similar to the Vita site that I worked on from a size standpoint and also the Vermillion uh Commons LAR project. They have that last phase which is a similar you know villa type of product. So, it's something that has been done in Farmington before. Um, you know, it is—it is—a popular type of, you know, residential structure right now. And one other thing that Steve didn't mention that we will be doing or that Capstone will be doing as you go down the road from a visibility standpoint, they actually stagger their houses and they have it set up in a design standpoint where every house is up to 5 ft difference. So one will be here, the next one will be 2 and 1/2 ft, the next one will be five, the next one will be two and a half. So it gives the appearance of a, you know, more of a meandering look, especially when you got some of these streets that are a little more straight. So that is done for a a particular purpose to help the streetscape of this neighborhood. So it's something that Capstone does and and we you know will be incorporating as part of the overall you know approval of this project. So good. So if you have any other questions I guess I can answer them as well. **Chair Tony Rody:** I'm sure there'll be more. All right. Stay available. This is a public hearing. Has anybody got comments or questions regarding this preliminary plat? If not, Commissioner Snowbeck. [47:55] **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Just a clarifying question on that—the—path that you're talking about on that north side. You're saying it's—it's—not a good fit there, but will—will—you have that path there or will you—are you talking about not having a path on that north side? I'm just a little confused on your explanation. **John Anderson:** So, what we had proposed to the staff was we would do a larger than a normal sidewalk along that east west road until we get over to that eastern part of the property and then we'd somehow tie that into a trail which would eventually extend further north up to 220th Street there. Um, so then it's [48:41] **John Anderson:** not behind the houses. It then it wouldn't be behind the houses there because you know with this property you—you—have—there's some challenges. You know, you've got the rail—the—railroad line on the east side. You got Dakota Electric and they're basically outdoor storage area on the north and and then you got the the existing town homes that are being constructed right now on the kind of northwest side there which you know obviously that's new residential so that's not as bad but the Dakota electric site I'll be honest it's not pretty to look at necessarily so we're trying to do some extra screening in that area and there is a little um kind of little—little—larger area up in the one area there but we're—our—proposal was to do that so we just wanted to bring that out we will—be—putting trail along the Denmark Avenue which ties into the trail that'll go along the north side of the wetland, south side of the [49:27] **John Anderson:** pond and that'll connect in and long term um that's being kind of beefed up for emergency access uh purposes to the back end of that development if something would happen up further in the project. So, and the city staff is supportive of the idea of coming through the sidewalks and then connecting up on the—once—you get to the outside of it. **Tony (Staff):** uh staff was supportive of the trail in the location that's shown on the the preliminary plat. Um that's where our park master plan shows trails in this particular location. Um and that was the recommendation from our park and rec department was to keep the trail on that northern end. [50:05] **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Okay, Commissioner Berg. Um yeah, just a couple questions. I was going to ask about the trail, too. So, I'm glad you asked about the mix. Now, Mitch, what do you—have—an approximate square footage for the house plans that you plan on putting on here roughly? It shows—It's not—It's not on there. **Steve Bona:** Uh, Commissioner, these house plans range. We have uh the smallest version is about uh 1,500-1,600 ft² and the largest version is about 2,500 square feet. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Okay. And given the current planning right now, how much between homes space distance would you anticipate between houses? **Tony (Staff):** Yep. The side setback five. They're proposing five foot setbacks. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** So you would have 10 if they go up to that five foot setback, you'd have 10 ft in between. **Steve Bona:** Okay. Okay. [50:58] **Steve Bona:** And so with this—with this—product where I mentioned these other cities, that is what we're doing. Uh, and so if you choose to go look, you'll see what—what—that feels like. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Okay. Okay. Um, yeah. I guess the only other question I had, and Tony, this is maybe more for you, is around the the cash-in-lieu for the park. Was there a reasoning behind doing the cash-in-lieu versus an actual park in this area? because knowing that area pretty well, there isn't much down there. **Tony (Staff):** for—the—way our park ordinance is written is that we uh—and it's a relatively new um updated ordinance is that um we've identified parks within a certain distance. Okay. Um this falls within that acceptable distance of the Westview [51:44] **Tony (Staff):** Acres Park. Therefore, we're not looking to acquire additional park land. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Okay. Yep. Nope. That makes sense. that that works for me. **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay. Yeah, I think that's all I have for now. Commissioner Tesy. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** um I'm not super comfortable with the the setbacks um not meeting the typicals, so that's surprising to me actually, but um I'm interested to learn more about the Settlers Bluff and Cottage Grove. And you're saying that these lot sizes are very similar. [52:14] **Steve Bona:** Yes, Commissioner. They're the same. So, it's a 40ft lot. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Okay. **Steve Bona:** And it's a 30-foot product. So, the product is 30 feet wide, the lot is 40 feet wide, and there is—it's—five foot side setbacks. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Yeah, it just seems really tight. And I'm just was wondering if there's any way we could improve that a little bit. But, um, the other question I have is with regard to the railroad track and the homes that butt up against that. Is there any sort of berm or screening planned? **John Anderson:** Uh, there's no berm planned because of the grades and getting drainage and everything, but there is screening planned. Um there is a landscape plan that was submitted. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** I did look at that. I mean it's a couple of trees. **John Anderson:** Yeah. So there'll be some trees that'll be put back there. So that is what's being proposed. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** That's all I have. **Chair Tony Rody:** All right. Thank you. [53:01] **Steve Bona:** Commissioner, could I say one thing about that? So you're talking about uh the tightness or the you know how close these houses are together. when we came up with this product instead of—we—had as a company were looking at either attached town homes or a smaller single family home and so when we have the reason that we think it's a good fit and and I think that we've been given positive feedback on it is that these other cities they have the choice you can either do attached town homes at probably twice the density but if you're going to go to detached and it's going to be a single family um product, then you're going to have to have it tighter than a standard sing—you—know, a large traditional single family home [53:48] **Steve Bona:** and lot. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Yeah. And that's where I think the difference is. So, yes, it is tighter. Um, but given that it's not an R1 zoning and it's not guided for that, um, that's where we see it's been successful. **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Okay. And just, uh, one more comment on that trail because that trail on that north side is problematic for us. We're just hopeful we can have that conversation with you tonight. I was asking John about how the park and rec—I—don't know all the background of it so you'll have to correct me if I get anything wrong here but if when we were—when—he was originally proposing it if it was attached town homes when it's attached town homes instead of single family like here if that was attached town homes because this is where the trail is you can see how tight it is. [54:35] **Steve Bona:** Um we—we—when—we—build attached town homes can get away with putting a trail right behind the unit. It works. It's common area. It's expected. It's expected. And now when it's single family, you have no privacy. You have your—your—you—have the roadway in the front and the back. And if we had more space on this overall property to work with, I'm sure we'd be able to spread it out more. But that's just kind of the circumstances. Thank you. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Um, sorry, one other question with regard to the railroad track. Any plan for additional sound insulation in those homes that butt up to the railroad track? **Steve Bona:** Not—we—have not considered that at this time. And in Mississippi Dunes—it's called Mississippi Landing in Cottage Grove. We also back up to a railroad track exactly [55:20] **Steve Bona:** like this. And um, it was never brought up. We had—not—um, it's not a high-speed rail system. It is probably similar to this where it's about the same amount of uh trains that go by, but we have not done that. The—So, we have one side that backs up to the railroad tracks and then the other side backing up to the tight trail is sort of the other. Yeah. Is what it is. But okay. **Chair Tony Rody:** All right. That's it. I'm—I'm—going to come back to the railroad tracks. Okay. Yep. You know me. Yep. I'm going to start just with an explanation first and Tony read it at the end and again I I mentioned in our last public hearing that a lot of the plats we get now are PUDs and and this is what I was referring to and this was for an R2. That last one happened to be an R1, but and Tony used the—the—term flexibility request which means modifications in my book. Um, and so you see the different modifications that a PUD asks for. That's what Farmington and—and—a lot—or—most cities have been dealing with lately. So this it's not uncommon. I just want you to let you know that. Actually, I'm familiar with this property. I didn't realize that it [56:36] **Chair Tony Rody:** went all the way to—to—Ash or 220th. I really didn't. Um, and for a little history, years ago, um, it was actually a request in here for a commercial site cuz there used to be a railroad stub that used to go right through there—right—right—on that curve uh, uh, railroad line and they were going to do I I think at the time and Tony maybe you remember if you were around then it—I—don't know that I was around. I think it was the um playground out—out—out—big playground equipment and it never did come through and but they were going to utilize the railroad spur and all that but so I'm glad it's being used. I am familiar because I worked in that vicinity for a lot of years. Um as far [57:22] **Chair Tony Rody:** as the plat um and I used to hunt back there. wet. So, I—I—understand all the dirt work you got to do and slab on grades and that's reasonable, but you know, we've been dealing with smaller lots like this for years. I'm not uncomfortable with that. Um, and I'll go back to what Christa was saying. You know, um, you don't—you're—concerned about privacy with the—with—the uh trail in the backyards, and I agree with you. I wouldn't want a trail in my backyard when I'm sitting out on the—the—back deck or patio or even the backyard and people walking by and I mean I get them all the time in the front yard. Um so you know if that's an option we could possibly look at that cuz I agree with it. But I'm in a development now that the train goes through and and boy, the residents that are right next to the tracks, they sure have a heartache and that noise and and yeah, they stop there and it's kind of a siding place for railroads. But there's a lot of trains that go down those tracks each and every day. um if there's something you could do to as [58:25] **Chair Tony Rody:** Christa was alluding to to mitigate um some of the inconvenience. I mean you guys will be here at the beginning but you know when that phase—because that's phase three if I understand it right—you know, you're going to be almost out of here and then you—you—know, then the city's going to hear about because the city heard about the residents where I live too and they just don't like that train noise and and I—we—just had another plat in here and we're going to have it again later tonight that butts up to the railroad tracks on the north side and and we talked the same thing with him last month and we'll talked the same thing again to him tonight. But I don't have a problem with this plat. I think it's fine. I think it'll work. I think the uh PUD is listed the things that, you know, the—the—flexible [59:10] **Chair Tony Rody:** requests or the modifications are fine. Um the smaller lots, the you know, the width between the houses, that's just the way things are going. Um Tony, if I kind of agree with some of the commissioners and the developer if the staff and the park and rec could maybe look at modifying that trail in the back. Um and then the other question I got is are you comfortable with the preliminary plat going through without—is—maybe I'll ask a question. Is a park and rec comfortable with the preliminary plat going through without what's known to go to the north with the trail system? [59:48] **Tony (Staff):** um I can tell you that the the park and rec director would like to see that trail continue on the north end. Um we can certainly work with the developer and the park and rec commission um to try to come to some sort of consensus one way or the other prior to the initial final plat. **Chair Tony Rody:** I would appreciate that. And I'll tell you, Westview Park is a bit of a hike for these people, too. So, I mean, that's okay. It's right at the—It's right at the edge of the acceptable distance. [1:00:18] **Tony (Staff):** Yeah. So, so that's and I again, I'm comfortable with it. I understand they got to be slab on grade. Um I don't—The other questions, let me see. Um yeah, I I didn't realize that that went through and I know where the Turk property is, too. And I don't know what their plans are, but that's—that A-frame, right? **John Anderson:** Yeah, it is. Yeah. Yeah. [1:00:42] **Chair Tony Rody:** And the other one I had was again the railroads cuz Christa and I seem to get that every—every—meeting. So again, I would—I—would support sending this on as long as again as Tony mentioned, he works with the developer and the park and rec again to see if there can't be some kind of conclusion to it. Um, I almost like it that if you have some kind of buffer with some of those industrial, at least the one to the north and whatever that may be in the future, maybe they got room then to do the buffer and do the trees and— **Tony (Staff):** yeah, what I would suggest then, uh, Mr. Chair, is if this does get a favorable recommendation to move forward, it's maybe adding a second condition that we work with the developer and park and rec commission regarding that trail location. [1:01:30] **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay. Prior to submittal of the initial final plat. Yeah, that'd be all right. John. Steve, you got anything else? **Steve Bona:** Um, just uh one thing I was going to ask—your neighborhood where the trains are, what—what—did they do in that neighborhood for screening? Was it just some trees, too, or what was there? Do you know? **Chair Tony Rody:** It's a berm. They do have a berm uh with some plantings on the top. Um, I think in hindsight it probably wasn't enough. Um, that is a—an active track. Um, and it's not a quiet zone. So, they idle. There's a dual track too that where they sit and idle um and rest. So, then you have the up—Yeah. [1:02:18] **Steve Bona:** Yeah. **Chair Tony Rody:** Um, so that's also um a problem too. But yeah, and I mean with Ash Street being where it's located just north of here, they are going to blow the horn right as the trains go by the development. Yeah. So, I mean, we're glad we have the railroad going through our community, but these are things that at least from the commission and from our city council side and staff side, we want to work in the front of if we can. [1:02:41] **Steve Bona:** Yeah. Try to remedy them before it becomes a resident issue. **John Anderson:** Yep. And we have looked at all this stuff and we understand, you know, the concerns with that and that's part of the reason why we came up with this, you know, layout, you know, with these lots. It's—it's—obviously we take into account the dirt balance and things like that. We have to have a pond big enough to make this site work from an economic standpoint. And secondly, we've also that's why we've talked with Steve um about the the price point of where this house will be versus, you know, if we tried to come in and put in an $800,000 single family home, it's not going to sell. you know, it's just through the location. So, um that's why we're doing what we're doing in this—in—this location to—to—make something that can work and it's—we're—fine with the housing. We're fine with everything. At least I am. Um you know, just get some of those um they're more [1:03:28] **John Anderson:** park and rec than they are, but I mean the park and gives, you know, their recommendation to the council and then we look at it on the plat, give our recommendation to the council and we just want to make sure everybody's on the same page before we go into final. And I think we're okay. You know, I don't know what you guys do from a disclosure standpoint to potential buyers, but that all that stuff would be notified of it and sure um be aware, you know, prior to buying the property, obviously. So, anything else from our audience? Anything else from the commission? Is commission ready to close a public hearing? If they are, I'll look for a motion to close a public hearing. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** I'll make a motion. **Chair Tony Rody:** We have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Second. **Chair Tony Rody:** Motion in a second to close a public hearing. Call the rolls, please. **Clerk:** Snowbeck. **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** Yes. **Clerk:** Berg. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Yes. **Clerk:** Tesy. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Yes. **Clerk:** Rody. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yes. [1:04:20] **Chair Tony Rody:** In front of the commission. Then is a recommendation to our city council on the Dakota Meadows Preliminary Plat and PUD contingent upon two contingencies. The satisfaction of all engineering comments requirements and two what we just talked about the developer and the park and rec um come to some kind of agreement on the trail location on the—on—what I'll call the north side of the property. Is there anything else the commission wanted to add? Staff comfortable with that? **Tony (Staff):** Yes, sir. **Chair Tony Rody:** All right. Then I'd look for a motion on the recommendation to our city council. **Commissioner Mitch Snowbeck:** I'll make a favorable motion. [1:04:55] **Chair Tony Rody:** Have a motion for a favorable recommendation with the two contingencies. Is there a second? **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Second. **Chair Tony Rody:** Motion in second. Any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. **Clerk:** Berg, yes. Tesy, yes. Rody, yes. Snowbeck, yes. **Chair Tony Rody:** All right. Thank you, gentlemen. **John Anderson:** Thank you. **Chair Tony Rody:** All right. With that, then we're going to go into our discussion items. The first discussion items, uh, we've been working on a, uh, draft beekeeping ordinance, and this is again a discussion only. You going to take it from there? [1:05:25] **Jared (Staff):** Thank you chair, planning commission members. Uh yes, as you mentioned, um we've been working on uh drafting a potential beekeeping ordinance um since last fall. Um earlier this year, uh staff, um brought back a bit of a comparison chart of surrounding communities and um kind of the ordinance requirements, um that those communities have. Um so tonight, uh we do have a draft ordinance, uh for the commission's review. Um the attached draft ordinance is modeled after feedback uh from the planning commission and the ordinance from the city of Eagan. Um highlights of this ordinance include a definition section, um an administrative permit to be approved by staff, uh education requirements including proof of completion of a beekeeping basics course or three or more years of beekeeping experience. Um only allowed to be in the rear yard. um setbacks of 20 ft from lot lines and then 30 ft from adjacent decks, patios, swimming pools or other outdoor living space um on adjacent properties. Um a flyway barrier is required if kept within 25 ft of a lot line or 35 ft from any of those adjacent um decks, patios, swimming pools or other outdoor living spaces. Um this barrier must run parallel to the lot line for at least 10 ft in both directions in front of the hive entrance. Um, inspections will be [1:06:46] **Jared (Staff):** required upon issuance of the permit and each time a renewal permit is received. Um, hives shall be kept in good condition. Colonies shall be continuously managed to prevent swarming. And then on termination, permits will be terminated if expired and no renewal permit was received. A violation of the ordinance or per—or—permit is occurring. Um, a failure to allow an inspection or transfer of ownership of the property. And then lastly, if a public nuisance is occurring, um hives that aren't removed after a permit is terminated uh will be deemed a public nuisance and may be abated by the city if um the property owner refuses to remove uh the hive. Uh so staff is requesting um feedback uh from the planning commission on attached draft ordinance, including any additions or edits. Um, we do have Nick, uh, I guess we'll hear, our resident beekeeping expert here to provide, uh, feedback as well, too. Um, so with that, I welcome any comments or edits. **Chair Tony Rody:** Can I open it up to our expert first, Mr. Gessel? Would you like to address the commission? Have you had an opportunity to review this? **Nick Gessel:** I—I—have. Thank you. Nick Gessel, 1981 Deerbrook Path. Uh, I had the opportunity to review both the draft ordinance. I made some suggestions along the way. um as well as I watched your guys' last meeting and so uh kind of well-versed in where you guys are at. Um there is uh probably one particular thing from uh my suggestion as to where you landed today. [1:08:15] **Nick Gessel:** Um and that is related to—and I'll use the examples before me—lots that abut that are either vacant water or agricultural. We live in a unique community where all of our communities are being built around ponds, agricultural space, and things of the like. Um, I think we're missing potentially an opportunity to allow uh closer abutment to those vacant spaces that allow for more space in the yard and further space away from your neighbors. I'll use my home as an example. I have a large pond in the backyard. I can move my hive further from my neighbors if I'm allowed to move closer to that pond as an example. Um, and so just something to consider with overall placement. Um, the only other [1:09:00] **Nick Gessel:** piece that I would also ask is related to the flyway barrier. I want to make sure there's not—or ask, are there competing ordinances? Is there any ordinance related to fence construction that's going to prevent the construction of a flyway barrier? because it's going to look weird. Um, just use me—if I have it 20 feet from either side and then I have a 20 foot fence in the middle of my yard. Just something to potentially think about. And I don't know what the ordinance—are—on fencing today. So that may compete. Okay, those are my two questions. **Chair Tony Rody:** Can I ask you a favor? **Nick Gessel:** Yeah. **Chair Tony Rody:** Can you stand there in case we got questions and absolutely staff has questions? You don't mind it? Bear with our commission expert, Commissioner Berg. [1:09:49] **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Um, I—I—would like to hear a little bit more about what you mean when you say that the 20 ft from each side and then the weirdness of a 20 foot fence in the middle. **Nick Gessel:** So, if I'm 20 foot from the lot line, my lot size is 75 ft wide, right? If I'm in 20 feet from my neighbors and potentially 30 feet from their deck, I'm nearly square in the middle of my backyard. Uh, and then I'm going to construct a fence 10 feet either direction in the middle of my backyard. I—I—just—I understand the reason for that particular statement. Uh, the functionality of it though doesn't compute—like it just—it wouldn't be functional to even make sense. So, if—if—you can't meet those requirements, um I—I—would—I would assume there's—there's—got to be some other way to look at that. Um because you're going to have competing complaints then that your neighbor's building a fence in the middle of their backyard. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Understood. Would we have any sort of opportunity for a variance request with this ordinance um pertaining to fencing requirements? So, in the situation that he's describing, would we have the option to request a variance? So, if a homeowner was in that scenario, how would they go about requesting a variance to the ordinance for that strange property situation that—that—might occur on? [1:11:18] **Tony (Staff):** Sure. Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, you're referring to the fence or the setback from the pond. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Not the pond, the fence. **Tony (Staff):** Right. So if—if—he is 20 ft from each property line and then now because of the flyway portion has to build a fence in the middle of the yard. Right. **Tony (Staff):** Sure. Then how would we get around that type of situation? Sure. Would we just deny the request altogether or is there a variance opportunity? **Tony (Staff):** We—I would rather try to address it in the ordinance versus trying to do it as individual variances. Okay. Um, so I mean, if there's an opportunity for us to try to massage this to make that more palatable, I'd rather do that versus us approving an ordinance and then two months later we're approving a variance or asking for a variance. Um, I'd rather not do that. Um, so maybe we can work with um, Mr. Gessel to maybe try to find something that's [1:12:21] **Tony (Staff):** maybe a little more palatable. I do want to point out too that um we'd be supportive of let's say the property already has a six-foot privacy fence around their lot lines that they're satisfied with the barrier requirements already because no matter what to get to that adjacent property the bees are going to have to go up no matter what. So, um, I guess there might be a little confusion that I don't think we would require the barrier to be right next to the bees. Maybe in certain cases, if the home, like I said, already has that privacy fence on their lot line, then they would be good. **Nick Gessel:** To be functional, just to be clear, it has to be within six feet of the front entrance of the hive to be functional to serve as a flyaway barrier. Otherwise, it's just a fence and it—it—ll keep people away. um but it doesn't serve the function of a flyaway barrier at that point. Um one suggestion may be rather than requiring the wall to extend 10 feet on either side, you instead amend the ordinance to uh surround the hive. And by surround the hive and other ordinance that means cover three sides. Um, so essentially you would have a—an—alcove—or—a C—that the bees would have to—they can't go left or right. They have to go up and then that serves the same function uh as a flyaway barrier. You're forcing that upward motion versus outward. So you—you—as an expert—or—you know just a keeper—you okay—you—you'd be more comfortable with that than when was proposed and because that seems like it's a lot much more doable. Uh you know there's—there's—pre-built shed structures—things like that—that are commercially available for that reason um and they're a lot less of an eyesore. [1:14:10] **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay. I'll be like—I want to keep bees, but if my neighbor did that and put up the fence, I—I—wouldn't be supportive. Okay. Uh so I just—I look at it from both sides of the fence trying to be fair. We're trying to too. Um again, this is a draft. We're—This isn't anything that we're ready to send to our council. Yep. And so we're trying to get everybody's input as we can. Jared, did you understand? [1:14:34] **Jared (Staff):** I finally understood it now when he explained it with the three side and it's got to be within six feet. So, I mean, a little more detail. Other communities may not be that detailed, but are you fine with that or at least consider it and then research a little more? **Jared (Staff):** I—Yeah, I'd be supportive of that. I think um yeah, since this is a new thing, I think that would be, you know, a little more stringent on it and we could definitely— **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah, so too um might as well do that right off the bat then, you know, not be less. Again, what I mentioned to the commission is start here and we can always move it there. But if we don't start there, we're going to wish we would have, I think, at some point. All right, Andy, I'm sorry I cut you off. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** No, no, you're good. I I think those are my big questions. So, I'm good. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah, Christa. [1:15:09] **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Uh, yeah. I I think this looks good. I appreciate all the work and education I've received on bees and beekeeping. Um, I agree with your comment though based on the way your yard is set up and the setbacks and you have like a natural buffer behind your home with a pond. I I don't know if there's a way to word it that if—if—you have that condition, you could actually set it to the property line where there's nothing behind you. Um, but wetland of a distance. I don't—I don't—know if there's a way we can reward that or add that, but— **Nick Gessel:** similar language in surrounding areas classifies it as an [1:15:54] **Nick Gessel:** empty agricultural or watershed. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** That exactly. So, I don't know if there's a way we could add that. **Tony (Staff):** Definitely think there's language we could come up with to provide an exemption from that specific lot line setback. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** That type of lot line. Yeah. Because I mean, I get when you've got a home— **Tony (Staff):** Yeah. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** —behind you, you're gonna have to basically set it—set it—in the center of your yard. But if there's nothing behind you, that makes sense. **Chair Tony Rody:** So, well, then it—it—allows for me to get further away from my neighbors. Exactly. And that's good. And I understand land can be developed—not a pond behind you, but land agriculture land to the side or behind can be developed. So, you know, at some point you—that—may end up being moved, correct? If—if—and when it's developed just so that—if—we address that. Sure. [1:16:39] **Jared (Staff):** And I know there is language in other communities that address undeveloped land and that when it does get developed then the permit has to come into compliance. Okay. Um with it um that's also language too that we can look at adding for undeveloped land rather than like a storm water pond. **Chair Tony Rody:** That's just logical. I probably didn't need to say it but okay. Anything else? **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** No. And thank you. Those are two questions I had. So I appreciate your work and I'm excited to see it. [1:17:10] **Nick Gessel:** One just interesting question removal um similar to—you and I worked out—is there—what is considered a satisfactory removal period um and is there a way to insert that language as well because removal—uh, I think originally I had seen 5 days which is—uh, not possible to make plans and so—can—could we please add something in related to a satisfactory removal period has to be within two weeks—30 days, something along those lines. So that—like in my particular situation when you first reached out to me last fall, um to have it gone in 24 or 48 hours for this type of thing just isn't possible. Uh so what's—could be added that was reasonable because you [1:17:56] **Nick Gessel:** had to find a place to put it. Is that correct? Yeah. I just can't get rid of it and move it somewhere else. You have to make—you—have to like—I had to reach out to the community. I ended up connecting with Brand Farms and moving out there. Um, but I got lucky. Uh, and so there's going to be a lot of people that are potentially in a pinch of removal. Uh, and I just—I think we'd miss the boat if we just said removal in general and then you have an upset day that requires it gone within 48 hours and it's just—it's—not feasible. Sure. [1:18:27] **Jared (Staff):** Um, so I did want to mention too, we before we brought this ordinance, we had the city attorney's office look over it first before we wanted to bring something official to you guys. um this was something—or—this language was added—the 5 days permit termination. That's definitely something I can reach back out to them on that and see if we can add more flexibility on that um timeframe for removal. Um but that was something that the city's attorney's office um added in there to that ordinance was the 5 days to remove. **Nick Gessel:** Yeah, I think we can work on that. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Yeah. Is there any other similar related to animal removal be it farm animals stuff like that that you could duplicate? **Jared (Staff):** Uh not specifically no—think of off the top of my head but we can certainly look into that though. **Nick Gessel:** Sure. Just trying to keep things uniform. **Chair Tony Rody:** This actually might be more difficult than a farm animal to remove. [1:19:25] **Chair Tony Rody:** I think you—know, if you got a whole bunch of hives to move—try—to find a home for them. Mhm. It—it—won't be easy, I wouldn't think. But yeah. **Nick Gessel:** Yeah. It's—it's—not—uh, you know, it's a unique hobby. Uh fortunately, there's a lot more beekeepers in Farmington than you would uh anticipate or even know about. I don't know. Uh and so there's actually some large commercial farms within our city limits that exist today uh that do keep bees. Um, and so, uh, you know, to—to—that point, you know, we have a unique situation where if you, you know, know and have mentors in the area, you can figure something out. But, uh, you know, there's ultimately going to be a pinch for somebody that's not connected in the community um, to be able to do something like that. So, just trying to be considerate to potential future issues. [1:20:16] **Chair Tony Rody:** Got to rely on the buzz in your community. Exactly. Right. Don't let your head— **Nick Gessel:** Couple other questions you guys asked. Why two hives? Uh in your last meeting, two hives is—uh—for symmetrical nature of beekeeping. Uh so you understand if one hive is ill versus the other. It's just good beekeeping practice. You have something to measure against. Uh so you look at collection, things of that nature. Um there was also a question about bees in the winter. Bees largely hibernate during the winter. Uh they will still maintain and clean their hive, but they don't leave the hive very much. Um you can certainly bring them inside like you had stated um or uh there are several examples of ways to maintain them outdoors but for the large majority of the Minnesota year uh the bees are you know hibernating or or living within their hive themselves and so this really becomes a four or five month issue uh of the year probably even less. Um so things to consider as far as overall impact. Uh there was also a statement in there related to nucleus. nucleus is how you bring your bees home um and or foster additional hive expansion. So, if you have a hive die, you can split a hive and start at what's called a nucleus colony. That's why that's also written within the ordinance. Those things are related to just overall good beekeeping standards. [1:21:31] **Nick Gessel:** Um and I think that was the majority of your guys's question. But, um I did also offer to Jared uh to bring in some things uh if you guys had continued curiosity. Um I can obviously do a show-and-tell session for you guys as well. So depending on what you guys want to learn uh and or what you want to do, I'm certainly here for it. Um **Chair Tony Rody:** if you offered—can—I—a thought—doesn't have to do it, but when we have the public hearing for the ordinance, you know, that's usually when it's—if—we get residents here, you know, if you could be around for that, if we can try to work around your schedule. **Nick Gessel:** Yeah. **Chair Tony Rody:** Um and it's just something that uh um you're well spoken on it. uh you know a lot about it. Um and if it's a show and [1:22:17] **Chair Tony Rody:** tell, we're not going to move it out of the room here and I don't—don't—know if I want to call any of bees in here, but— **Nick Gessel:** I—bring—an empty one. **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay. Um but that our residents may have some comments or questions for you too. Sure. So we appreciate it and I again the commission's asked the great questions. Jared's done a great job putting it together, working with you and we again as a resident certainly appreciate your commitment and help with this and uh we wish you well and um I guess I at this point I just suggest staff keep working on it, come up with the final one and we'll go from there incorporate what Mr. Guess—and—the commissioners mentioned tonight and we'll look at it then. **Nick Gessel:** Perfect. We'll do. All right. Thank you. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah. Thank you very much. All right, we'll move into our last discussion item. This is Harris property concept plan. Um Lennar and Mr. Drosski's with us again. You must like this community. Good. Glad to have you here. All right. All right. [1:23:18] **Tony (Staff):** Uh yes, Lennar is requesting the review of a revised uh concept plan uh for the property generally known as the Harris property. Uh as the commission will recall at the last month's uh meeting, you did uh review a previously uh submitted site plan. The property is located directly south of the Meadow subdivision. Uh consists of two parcels um totaling uh 153 acres. Uh these two parcels were annexed in 2022 as part of the incorporation of Empire Township as a city. Uh the parcels contain approximately 20 acres of wetland and 3 acres of flood plane from the north pre tributary. Uh the site is bisected by two natural gas pipelines and the Union Pacific rail line is adjacent to the east side of this site as well. [1:24:21] **Tony (Staff):** Uh this is just a overall uh picture of the concept plan as submitted by Lennar. Uh the concept plan shows a total of 297 single family lots. Lot widths range from 55 ft wide up to 75 ft. And the breakdown is uh there's 168 of the 55 foot wide lots, 124 of the 65, and then five of the 75 foot wide lots, which are technically shoreland lots. Uh the minimum lot depth proposed is 120 ft. Proposed setbacks, front yard setback of 20, side interior six, side corner 20, and rear yard setback of six. [1:25:06] **Tony (Staff):** Uh as I had mentioned at uh the last meeting in March, the five lots shown in the shoreland of the North Creek tributary, these five lots are required to have minimum lot width of 75 ft. And impervious surface coverage on these lots cannot exceed 25% of the lot area. And as I mentioned last week, that's impervious surface, not building coverage. So that takes into account everything from driveways to concrete patios, all of that. So it is a little different than our typical requirement of building coverage. So it is much more restrictive. Uh as far as the comprehensive plan and zoning, again this is all review from last month, but I feel it's important to—to—go through it again. Uh the properties are zoned and comprehensively guided agricultural. [1:25:55] **Tony (Staff):** Uh rezone of the properties to an R2 uh zoning which is our low medium density residential would be required. Uh the development would also be processed as a PUD to address the 55—55—foot wide lots. Uh typically those would be a 60 foot wide uh standard. Comprehensive plan amendment would also be required. Uh there would be three basic—three basic—amendments that would be required. Land use guidance change from agricultural to low medium density residential. uh incorporate the properties within the the Musa or Metropolitan urban service area. And the last one is to place the properties within a development staging timeframe of 2020 to 2030. As far as parks and trails, uh this revised concept does have a 11.8 acre park in the northwest corner of the concept plan. Uh that's the acceptable location um that the park and rec commission has found for uh this uh site. Um a trail corridor will have to be provided as part of this development for the county greenway. Uh the city is currently working with Dakota County on a preferred alignment uh for the greenway trails uh through [1:27:13] **Tony (Staff):** this area. Uh the location of the trail may impact the—the—overall layout of this site. Um but that's something we will work with um the developer and the county if this moves forward. Transportation uh the plan shows the extension of both Delwood Avenue and Dearbrook Path south uh from the Mystic Meadows neighborhood. Uh Diamond Path will also need to be extended south uh and connect into this development. Uh the concept plan does show three road stubs to the west that would eventually extend out to Diamond Path. Uh staff is suggesting that uh at least two of the—two of these three stubs would need to be extended to connect into Diamond Path. Um, as I [1:27:59] **Tony (Staff):** mentioned last month, uh, this would help ensure circulation in and out of this development, uh, and provides adequate means of access from emergency services and and also divert some of the traffic from going directly through the Mystic Meadows uh, development. Uh, the road configuration has been changed uh, from the concept plan that the commission reviewed last month. Uh those changes include the northeast portion of the development was uh fairly isolated in that previous uh concept plan. Uh this revised plan now shows an east west connection across the wetlands um along with a southern access into this area as well. And then the other significant change is uh in regards to Dearbrook Path. Uh if you [1:28:46] **Tony (Staff):** recall uh in the previous concept, the Dearbrook Path was basically a through street all the way through this development to the southern boundary. Uh with this proposed um revised site plan, uh Dearbrook does get extended south, but then makes a 90° turn uh towards the west uh and would eventually connect into Diamond Path. So, uh, they did, uh, revise that, uh, as part of the the comments that they did hear last month. Uh the action that's requested this evening is just to review the the revised site plan, provide any feedback to staff and the developer regarding that site plan. **Chair Tony Rody:** So, Mr. Drosski is back with us. You have anything to add to the staff report? [1:29:33] **Steve Drosski:** Thanks, Tony. Steve Drosski Lennar, good to be back. Feels like we're here once a month, which I like. So, we really took your comments to heart last month. It's a very challenging site. As you can see, it's very chopped up into little segments there. So, it—it—was kind of challenging for us to work with our engineer to figure out something that would provide a yield that makes the project move forward, but also take into account the great feedback that we got last month. So, before you is what we've come up with. Happy to take comments or questions. Tony did a great job kind of going over the changes. I'd like to keep it on screen so we can kind of digest it. I think what we heard—or—what I heard most last month was that we didn't [1:30:19] **Steve Drosski:** want that long straight north south street that people could use as a racetrack heading north. That was my main takeaway. So what we tried to do was say—how can we have north south connectivity but eliminate that racetrack as—as—it was called. So that's how we came up with the 90-degree bend there to the west. And then may I approach this? It's hard to talk math—about a map—to it. So we had this one come down. So there's a T there and then up in Mystic Meadows there's a T right there. So people are going to have to wiggle and waggle and jog to go up that way. Our hope is they just go straight out that street right there, which I think is the hope of the commission and the neighbors to the [1:31:04] **Steve Drosski:** north. Another item that we took really to heart was the lack of connectivity here in the northeast and the southeast. So what we try to do is create a road that can kind of go around the whole thing. Now it's challenging because we have wetlands, we have two pipelines, we have a whole bunch of things that we have to work for. That's why you see it kind of go back and forth like that. But we think this provides much greater connectivity through the site. So like we always tell commissions and councils, we're learning too as we go through this. It really takes, you know, our engineers, our folks at Lennar and then the city folks who—who—live and breathe this area every day to make a project successful. So happy to take any initial feedback you have on [1:31:51] **Steve Drosski:** the plan. **Chair Tony Rody:** Well, thank you and thank you for modifying it. did it uh quicker than I had anticipated, but I appreciate that. Um, absent tonight is Commissioner Windshuttle. He had a lot of comments on it. I—you—know, we'll miss his comments, but we'll start with Commissioner Tesy. [1:32:22] **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Yeah, I think uh thank you for going back and listening to our comments and applying those comments to this new revised plan. I appreciate it. Uh I think it's a huge improvement over what we saw last month. um taking Dearbrook—that—main if we're going to call it a racetrack or a raceway so to speak um and and really kind of forcing it to make a turn. What I love about this is there's kind of this ring road that kind of goes throughout the community and it creates little hubs of neighborhoods like in the northeast and then in the southeast and then in the south. So, I—I—really enjoy this and based on um the packet as far as the roads or the connector roads to Diamond Path, we're saying that there's two. Correct. [1:32:56] **Tony (Staff):** That is staff's recommendation. Correct. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** And then it would—I—mean, I'm assuming most likely it would be that north um and then middle connector to diamond path—is what—that would be the most logical—most logical. **Chair Tony Rody:** you show us on the map what she's saying. What—you—guys—point— **Steve Drosski:** I—I—mean, that's what—I—envisioning, right? Yeah. And the third one will be there stubbed for eventually somewhere down the future. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Yeah. So it's further south. But Diamond Path is that collector. It should have been—it's—engineered to be that collector of significant vehicle traffic. So I like this new plan a lot. [1:33:39] **Chair Tony Rody:** So Tony, can I ask you a question about Diamond Path? **Tony (Staff):** Yes, sir. **Chair Tony Rody:** Are you familiar with—the—that road and where it may come out at some point in the future? **Tony (Staff):** I am. **Chair Tony Rody:** Can you explain that? **Tony (Staff):** Yes. Uh the plan is is that—that—road would extend south and connect into uh Aiken Road just north of the uh bridge. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah. Um and then Aiken Road, at least back in the day, if you will, uh Aiken Road would be cul-de-saced off at that. And um but that's at least what was planned years ago. So I think you just called me old—old—cuz I remember that. That's I was here when that discussion was had too. So that is [1:34:24] **Tony (Staff):** exactly—aging myself. That is what I recall also. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah, you're getting there. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Would that be would that be east of the Lutheran church there? **Tony (Staff):** It would be south. Yeah, just south coming in. Yeah, right there. Yeah. Yeah, it' be that curve right in there though, Andy. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Yeah, right there. **Tony (Staff):** Yep. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Yeah, it would curve in and connect into Aiken. Okay. All right. [1:34:46] **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** Sorry about that. Christa, did you have anything else? **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** That was it. And that new—the—new connector road up by um the north eastern part. That's a feasible road to go through the wetlands there and that's going to be—I—mean—that's—really nice. It's going to connect where it wasn't before. **Tony (Staff):** I mean there would end up having to be some wetland mitigation done as part of that. But boy that's a great addition I think. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** So appreciate you adding that in there because it—it—connects everything. It connects the flow of the whole community. But other—other—than that I have no questions. **Chair Tony Rody:** Thank you Andy. [1:35:32] **Commissioner Andy Berg:** Yeah, I—I—would just be echoing my fellow commissioners here. I I really like—the—the—changes you've made. I think it addresses a lot of the concerns that we had last time. Um so, yeah, I—I—like what you've done here. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah, Steve, you—you—listened. I appreciate that. Um again, Bill had a lot of concerns. You addressed that with that road on the northeast corner there and getting all those residents out in a timely manner. Um, I'll ask you the same question I asked you last month. With the staff recommendations, is this project feasible? [1:35:53] **Steve Drosski:** I'd respectfully request that we have one road out to Diamond Path. **Chair Tony Rody:** And I ask you—with the staff recommendations, is this plat feasible? **Steve Drosski:** I can't answer that because I—I—really think they're—they're—digging in pretty deep on that. **Chair Tony Rody:** So, I'm just letting you know ahead of time. So, there's a couple issues as to why I can't answer that. Okay. as I stand here. **Chair Tony Rody:** You don't need to then. Okay. All right. I don't—I—don't—want to put you on the spot. I'm just again um I'd like the commission to know if you if you'd let me. **Steve Drosski:** Oh, that's fine if you want to. I didn't—I—thought maybe you would just pull it out of you. **Steve Drosski:** No, no. This is you know this is an open dialogue. We don't want to keep things secret. We need your approval uh you know to move forward. So why not be open and honest about the conversation. So the first is—we have authority—or—rights from the neighboring property owner to acquire one right-of-way. We have—that—I—I—don't know if it's under contract or—or—whatnot, but we don't have two. So I can't commit to—we—have an agreement land—that—you know we may not have the ability to acquire. The second thing is there's a significant financial cost to building road—that—you can't sell houses on. And so when you have a road of say 1.2 1.3 million dollars per segment going out there [1:37:08] **Steve Drosski:** that's a significant cost and then you have to spread that out through all the other homes in the community. So doing one of them I think we can pencil it out. I know we can pencil it out—doing two of them. I'm not the—the—person that makes that decision. So I'd welcome a conversation with Tony and staff. I—I—think I'm getting the general feeling of how that's going to go. So, you know, I'd have to take this back to—to—the office and and talk to the folks about how we can make it work. **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay. And I didn't mean to put you on the spot. I apologize for that if I did. **Steve Drosski:** Not at all. [1:37:46] **Chair Tony Rody:** Um I—you—know, I think it's a reasonable plat. Um again, this is a concept plan, so we'd be looking for a preliminary and some of those things will have to get worked out then at that point. Okay. So I—timing on this, we need a comprehensive plan amendment. We need an EAW review—longer than we'd like. Yeah. And the comp plans will take a little bit of time, too. So Yep. **Tony (Staff):** Yeah. Well, and typically the Metropolitan Council won't review a comprehensive plan amendment if there's an environmental review underway on a property. **Chair Tony Rody:** So—we're talking months down the road. **Steve Drosski:** Yes, sir. **Chair Tony Rody:** Yeah. Okay. And that's fine. I—It gives you time. I appreciate you being uh quick. If uh Commissioner Windshuttle has anything, he'll comment sign of significance. He'll write them through staff and they'll get them to you. Okay. Were you going to ask about the trains? [1:38:31] **Chair Tony Rody:** Oh, yeah. Yeah. I left it for you. **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** That's a theme tonight. **Chair Tony Rody:** You start—I—I—thought we addressed it last meeting again. Excuse me. We have a—a—railroad on the east side of your property and you were in the discussion that we had an hour ago on that and you know we have again we're glad the railroad goes to our community but when we have a plat that butts up against it we need to protect the future residents and I know our city council would want to do the same thing. So have you—do—you have a plan for the—the—lots on the east side of your project? **Steve Drosski:** We do. Uh what we've done with this, I think I mentioned last month, is we pushed everything to the west 100 ft to give a little bit more breathing room. And then—I'm—not a building a construction expert, but there's certain types of glass that are sound dampening and we've used that in several communities around the area. So that's certainly on the table. [1:39:35] **Chair Tony Rody:** Okay, we'll raise it. I'm sure uh with Commissioner Tesy and—and—if—you—know—she—reminds me—I—but if I remember then we'll bring it up again at preliminary and final. So all right so and it'll be a few months so I'll—I'll—forget by then but— **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** I'll remember. **Chair Tony Rody:** All right. Anything else from the commission? Anything else from staff on this? **Tony (Staff):** I have nothing sir. **Chair Tony Rody:** Steve, we appreciate it. Good luck and uh we'll wait to hear back through when you get done with the environmental and when we start seeing the comp plans. **Steve Drosski:** Okay. Can't get rid of me. I'll be back. **Chair Tony Rody:** All right, that concludes our agenda. Was there anything else from staff? **Tony (Staff):** Nothing. **Chair Tony Rody:** Nothing from you. Anything else from the commission? **Commissioners:** No. **Chair Tony Rody:** If not, I'll remind our residents and viewers our next regular meeting is May 13th. And with that, I'd look for a motion to adjourn. **Commissioner Andy Berg:** I'll make a motion. **Chair Tony Rody:** Have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Christa Tesy:** A second. **Chair Tony Rody:** Motion and second. All in favor say I. **Commissioners:** I. **Chair Tony Rody:** We're officially adjourned. Thank you everybody. [Music] Yeah. [1:41:06] [Music]