as the um the accesses to this area and the county gave us some approval to give us the green light that that would be something they'd be open to. Their um memo does confirm that they are willing to proceed with these entrances. They will not be allowing any further entrances on into in and out of the site. Um there it's matter of the high volume roads, high-speed roads. So, it's um outside of our hands. It's outside of any applicant's hands. Uh it's ultimately the county. Um I wanted to reiterate in the staff report, we do talk about that outlaw B and we realized that it didn't have street frontage during our staff review. Um so, and we and we saw that driveway easement that was on the plans and so we we now are requiring a right of way. We're not going to require the road be built, but just have that right ofway there for access if that's needed in the future. So, your ability to access that site is not going away. Um, snowmobile trail, I don't it's not an official city snowmobile trail, so I can't promise that that's going to stay there any longer. I'm sorry. Can can I talk about that for just a second? Okay. So, so I just came out as the parks and recreation director for the city of Shakipi. And we had a lot of amazing snowmobile trails and if you're familiar with Shakipi, it's developing a lot. uh we worked with the snowmobile association down there in order to make sure that we it's it's part of our character, part of our life. And so we got to figure out how to make it happen. Part of the way that we did that was we directed some of it through our park areas or along our trail areas. And so maybe the routes changed a little bit. Uh but people still were able to find access and I'm sure we'll be able to do that here. All right. All right. So, I'm going to try to really speed through the rest of it, but anyone feel free to contact me um after the meeting if I I go too quickly for your question. And and and she's going to uh run through these quickly because I've asked her for to allow me to take a break. So, uh public notice radius is 500 ft from the edges of the boundary. Uh everyone within that 500t did receive it because it's the city that sends that out. Um so we can provide you with the addresses that fall within that radius and confirm that that when it was sent out. Um make uh the skip that. Uh just to be just to clarify the proposed cemetery is not being approved with this application. They will have to come in for a site plan uh once they're ready to move forward with that cemetery. They have not provided us with enough information for that to be approved as part of this plan. Um the Kathy screening issue, I apologize. I was in I was informed incorrectly. Um we can certainly make them put up the screening screening from I don't think that's going to be a problem if that's desiring at this time. Um water drainage is uh engineering's domain. They have to they can't make things anything worse than existing conditions. And I know there's been a lot of effort to try to improve things and I'm going maybe your engineer would like to speak to a bit more about efforts made on that uh regard. Um Parking on Hunter Ridge. It should be a sign for no parking on one side to reduce it. We also have parking restrictions that uh do not allow overnight parking, but it is a public street, so people are allowed to park on that street. Um the again the town homes will have two garage spaces, two driveway spaces, as well as eight um guest parking spaces throughout the site. Uh so it is well above what is required for a town home uh per our city code. So that they're not asking for flexibility from parking for the town homes. Um I think I can live with missing the other ones, but if anyone feels I cannot answer their question, please contact me and I'd be happy to discuss things with you. God bless you. And with that, we're going to take a fivem minute break. Thank you. All right. Thank you for that well needed uh break there. Uh sir, you you you indicated that you had a follow-up comment. Yes. Uh first, are you the bouncer? I need to stretch my leg. I just noticed both you back there. I was like, "What is going on right now?" Animal will not be aggressive. Okay, fair enough. Excuse me. So, um you know, one of the one of the things that we did not talk about tonight, I think is relevant given um a concern of traffic is that it's not as if this development is going to develop at 100% of its intensity, you know, the second it if it were to be lucky to get enough to get approved. We're anticipating, you know, based on market conditions, you know, it could be anywhere between 10 and 15 years before this entire thing would be really built out. So, this isn't like we're we're coming at it uh and expecting, you know, every bit of this to be constructed day one. I just want to point that out because I do think it's relevant is that it's while it is a big change, it's incremental just based on how the market takes the project or looks at the project. And the second thing I wanted to mention uh and if you would entertain it um would just be a bit of an explanation on storm water because it is something that was brought up tonight. So with that uh I would introduce Mark Anderson with Samotech or civil engineer. Sure. Thank you. All right. Good evening. Um yeah, as Josh said, Mark Anderson, civil engineer, and we've been working on this journey for quite a while. um good share of the last year, but it's really helpful to get the the residents input because there's always nuances, especially when you're converting a farm field to a development. And so, I just wanted to give an overview in that we're not just putting in a bunch of parking lots and letting the water grow. There's actually six ponding areas around this site. So, literally one, two, three, uh four, five, six. And so it's all of that ponding that's going to help control that runoff both for the smaller storms as well as even those 10-in rains that he was talking about. It's important and it has to work. And so what's unique about this size of water actually goes in three different directions. It's coming from the south. So there's 12in tile here. This yellow line represents. We need to maintain that or get on a new lake program. Um so that's important. and we're going to route it around the development and off to the east um through a new pipe around the development. We need to maintain a flow to the south. We're also going to route a new green pipe here to the east to a ditch that's on the east side of 116. Uh we're by no means sending everything to the west. We've got a two two new uh routes here in yellow and green. We are going to maintain the flow off to the north after it goes through the ponds uh to help control that rate so it doesn't leave the site, you know, with any more intensity than it used to. Uh the Kathis brought up some good comments about the area along the cemetery. I was taking notes. It's it's easy for us to direct this water to the wetland area so it doesn't impact their farm fields. Um, so we can certainly do that on the other side. This is a little bit of a tricky area because it's low now and um I'm sure in heavy rainfalls there's there's water gathering there now. And so um we're we're maintaining that same path. That's important. But we're also putting another pipe in here. So, if it doesn't flow out naturally the way it's supposed to now, um there's another pipe to drain it out of there. And the other thing is some of this uh church property actually drains to it. Now, we're going to turn that drainage and send it the other way. So, maintain the path, add a pipe, and then run more of it to the south. And so, that's kind of an overview of our plan. Um it will get reviewed and approved um not only um by the city but the wershed also reviews this from a kind of larger scale uh level than just this project and looks at what's going around these properties. So, it's it's a pretty extensive process to make sure this all works and um so we've completed the preliminary design, but we can still make these sorts of adjustments uh with the public's input to make sure we get it right. And I will add there is um a storm water specific engineering memo. It's about two pages and they must comply with the with um edits required for our city engineer team. So, um it's definitely not a done plan at this point, but it is something that is being reviewed extensively. Absolutely. Great. Thank you. That was helpful. Uh so, if I could just say, you know, first of all, uh Natalie, uh thank you for this report. I found it to be um easy to follow uh especially given the complexities of the application. I know that you did a ton of work on this and uh I I'm I'm certain I speak for my colleagues here that uh we we appreciate your hard work. So, thank you. Um you know, obviously this application is involved. If um my colleagues uh up here are uh agreeable to this, I think that it would make sense for us to break our discussions down into the core parts of the application. I think we should first discuss the comp plan amendment and then from there maybe we can uh combine the discussion of the resoning application PUD plan and preliminary plat. Does that make sense? Are are you all agreeable to that? I I just figured there's so much here. Maybe if we can kind of organize it into little buckets. Sure. Does that make sense? Okay. Y So, um can I ask a clarifying question, Natalie? You had said of course we would go through and we would approve each one or its recommendation of if any of them are to be denied the entire thing is denied. Is that correct? Uh Mr. Chair um Commissioner Lyn that that's a great clarifying question. So essentially um we're talking about a pretty different plan pretty different plan if the comp plan amendment doesn't get approved. So, I would say if if that's how the discussion starts that we don't want to approve it, then you're basically would be a um a motion to recommend denial of the project. I would caveat that with um you may want to consider discussing the um PUD plan and if there's any benefits and flexibilities that you think are still worthwhile to discuss. Um, technically that wouldn't be the recommendation forwarded to council, but I would try to summarize it as best as possible if there was anything constructive that could be forwarded to council if they disagree with that recommendation because they have said in the past that it when they get that flatout denial, um, it doesn't really help them inform the negotiation process, which is the point of that PUD. Um, so I would say you you can certainly decide right off the bat that if you don't like the comp plan amendment, you want to recommend now the project, but I would still probably have some discussion on the proposed flexibilities and benefits of the PUD plan. Um, and then go from there. Otherwise, um, you could go line by line to recommend approval for each item. Thank you. That that's helpful. So, what I would like to do is I'd like to discuss the comp plan amendment first and then we can go on and we can discuss the resoning application PUB plan and preliminary plat. Um, Natalie uh am I kind of uh representing these uh components accurately? Okay. All right. Thank you. So, um, I'd like to start with the amendment to the comp plan. And I'll I'll just say, and I think I'm right on the law on this point, that if we choose to recommend denial on this part, the parcel that is subject to this request cannot move forward, and we have no discretion in that uh, the following reasonzoning application would have to be denied because it would be inconsistent with the comp plan. Am I accurate in saying as it's currently proposed, we can't redesign the site for them. So what what I understand from the staff report and the presentation is that this part of the application concerns the northern portion of the development. This portion is guided public semi-public. Uh what the applicant wants to do is reguide this property to conform to the surrounding general mixeduse parcels and kind of detach it for planning purposes from the parcel with the church. Do I have that correct? Uh the the portion that would be regued would be detached from the church. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, who would like to start the discussion on this? I don't have much of a discussion regarding this issue. I don't um I would at this point in time be in favor of just recommending uh approval of the component amendment. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Uh any any more discussion on that or no? So when we're saying this, we're saying we approve the change in zoning. Nope. We are saying that we approve the change to the comp plan amendment, which means that this area would be allowed to be not semi uh public. It' be mixed use, right? So we're reszoning it to mixed use. Uh not yet. The comprehensive plan is reguiding it. So you have you're Yeah. So we're getting there. We're only we're only recommend so uh Natalie I have a clarifying question. The re guiding would not happen for the whole parcel with the church just the northern part. Correct. Just the northern part carved out um y on page. Okay. Seven. Seven. So then the only thing that stuck out to me about the comp plan amendment is the question of whether the property that would be reguided has been subdivided. My instinct is that if we move the recommended or move forward the recommended uh approval that the property that is to be regued would have to be subdivided so that we can know precisely what the limits are. So, for example, I don't think and I I don't know, maybe I'm I'm wrong here, but uh I don't think um uh but I I don't know that it is legal to have one parcel that is guided two separate ways. I see. Sure. It is legal. We we have several properties that are guided multiple ways. We do. I I can point out three of them off the top of my head as well. It doesn't need to follow a parcel line. It can be a general area of a piece of a parcel. Yes. Okay. Does anyone have the authority on that? Is there like a statute? The Metropolitan Council reviews our comprehensive plan and they've approved it. I I can find you the statute, but I know it is legal. Our plan is in compliance with state law. Okay. All right. Um, now, uh, I I do see that the draft resolution references the the property to be reguided. So, I I guess my question maybe for you is uh because when I check with the county, it it kind of looks like you're you're looking to subdivide. Am I getting bad information from the county? Mr. chair. What you're seeing as subdivision right now on that church parcel is because we had to do a subdivision for the water tower for the 1.28 water tower, which the city did approve. So that's why it's in Henipin County system is a lot further behind than I'd like it to be, but that's what that's the subdivision they're referring to. Oh yeah, because they don't, you know, they didn't they weren't willing to share the additional. So when I'm doing my homework, I like to get my information right from Henipin County. And it kind of it kind of looked like there was some sub subdividing going on. Yes. So to to Natalie's point, the Henipin County GIS website is woefully behind. And also uh for a good portion of the last six months, it had shown the city of Corkran owning the entire parcel. So they were just they were all over the place. But to to I think to answer your question is you can have multiple guidances on a single parcel. Uh what we would need to be doing and what we'd need to preparing be preparing for the city in this situation is likely a legal description through meets and bounds uh to include in their application for the M council change. So it's just a legal description, not a subdivision. Okay. All right. That's helpful. Thank you. Does anyone want to make a motion for recommendation for the comp plan amendment? I'll make that motion. I will second it. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. Now, um the only thing that I would like to add is that the recommendation be conditioned on whether or not that property does become subdivided. Um yes, I I can't remember if it's in the resoning or this ordinance, but the I believe these um these first couple of resolutions, ordinances are contingent upon approval of the remaining components. Okay, great. Thank you. So, the hard part's out of the way. I think I think that that was kind of the main hurdle. So what I'd like to do is move on to the resoning application preliminary PUD and preliminary plat. Now the second component of the application is to reszone the property to PUD and naturally I think that for our purposes the resoning application, the PUD plan and the preliminary plat all kind of run together. Uh my initial thinking is that the reasonzoning application is consistent uh with that kind of plan. Is that correct? Okay. So for the PUD resoning, there are a a few things that the applicant is uh asking for. And if you for reference, I'm referring to page nine of the staff uh report. Um does anyone have any thoughts on these items? Yes. And um commissioner or planning commission, I'm happy to put up my slides, too. Would you provide a few slides? That's what I was going to ask you to do. The ones in particular that were regarding the flexibility. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, the first slide is the applicant identified flexibility and then we go into the narrow down staff. So, let me know if you need me to change the slides. Oh, I apologize. That's okay. There it is. Do you want to start with the ones that we don't have an issue with or only bring up the ones that we do? Like, how would you like to proceed? However you would like. I'll just take the bull by the horns. There you go. Um, okay. So, in terms of parking reductions throughout the project area, I don't uh especially with some of the proposals at the state level regarding what cities are going to be allowed to do in the future, I don't think I have an issue with that. Um the um one question that I did have regarding the town home unit that's at the farthest north end is where is the guest parking for that? And maybe I missed it on the maps in here. No, you didn't miss it. They provided some revised plans after the staff report went out. Let me see if I can pull it up. Why don't you keep talking and I'll try to pull it up real quick. Okay. And then just a a red flag to me or a concern. It was brought up that this really is the first development kind of in this area. So, it really is aside from anything that's been done by the city, it's the first development that we're um reviewing within the northeast district design guidelines. So, talking about the flexibility in with regard to the parking lot, um uh where is it? If I'm looking, you know, how we were requiring the planters or the the plantings require uh the second from the bottom, right? Right. And so I guess I just have like a little bit of a because we spent so much time on the northeast district design guidelines. And so if there's some meat to that that can be communicated perhaps uh um Commissioner Brown. So I I um the Northeast District is kind of my baby and I do not want to see deviations from it. However, um the tradeoff was supposed to be um because of the shape of this parking lot and I'm going to try to and we're talking in particular about the one that kind of arcs around. This would not be a flexibility granted anywhere else. It would just be the shared commercial parking lot. Okay. And the reason why I kind of can I conceded on a staff level like okay I can see the argument there is because of the shape of this parking lot. 15 bays here isn't going to be the same as 15 bays here. Sure. And so I would like to see more of this where we have a unified pedestrian pathway. So I have asked them so part of the conditions is I like all right we're going to be flexible. So make like make a pathway here, make a pathway here, make them make sense uniform, make it make sense where we're going to make that deviation and then I can see the argument on staff level. Um so that that's the thinking behind that deviation. If they're not going to do that pedestrian connection, then I I I wouldn't want to see that flexibility. Okay. I appreciate the additional information regarding that. And then um as far as a closer view of the town homes, I already forgot what your question on the town uh where is gas parking or the additional parking given for Yeah, there's it's in the center, right? Yep. And actually, I think we have even a more advanced version that shows even a few more additional spells compared to that. So, we're still working to add some more, too. All right. I started the discussion on parking, y'all. I mean, I can keep going, but feel free to jump in. Yeah. Um, so we find ourselves here, and to quote your kind of beginning statement, I, you know, it's true. You manage change. change management for our community as you can feel this is a this is a huge change um unfortunately Jay I think your point of you know the density if we if we meet it here we don't have to meet it elsewhere doesn't drive a lot of relief to a lot of people that are coming here particularly expressing concerns today but I understand and I respect that our community is growing um and we have a need and senior living is one of them. Um, one thing about this application in the beginning of it, it grounds itself in that this is a vision to have a senior living community and resources for our community. I think there were a few things that made me concerned about how we may not be directly hitting the mark on that in that 60% of the residents based on my math wouldn't be seniors or wouldn't be dedicated to have to be 55 plus based on age restriction. Now I understand the research is that you know senior citizens want to live in multi-generational communities. So I understand that too. But you know as we think about a city and our vision for the city and the flow, we have a downtown aesthetic vision potentially. We have, you know, areas of higher density um particularly mapped out. And I I I'm curious as to we are to make our mark with multifamily housing and it's this far west where then the transition is it's rural agricultural farther west from here. I'm unsure if particularly we see the benefits as listed in the proposal to our community of why particularly this spot for multifamily housing based on um you know the benefits we would need to see as a community. I know there were some benefits listed, but um the other piece that I I just wanted to bring up as well, you know, Met Council density requirements. Um you know, Met Council we've seen recently is going to go through its own restructure and potential revamp of the plan. I'm not saying that that factors anything in our current decisions or should it, but it is a fact of when we think about making decisions today versus 30 years down the road. Does that change or does it not? I'd be looking for staff's perspective on that given that that is an ongoing and relevant current situation. Um because it's guiding a lot of this project and the reason behind this project. Okay. Commissioner, if you'd like me to answer. Oh, I've got more, but go ahead. Okay. All right. Nope. I can definitely take down the question. No, please. You want me to answer? Okay, I'm sorry. Um, so as far as the multif family density, just keep in mind that the GMU multifamily density, I'm sorry, multif family buildings are allowed by right. Yes. So those um so that really isn't where the flexibility is being requested. It's to have the um town homes, twin homes, and villas to actually have the So um the as far as why on this site, the city's already said we want to see residential units on this site. we want to see it at that with that multif family density. So really the question is are we okay with allowing to have a lower density product on the site as well. Um and that's part of the reason why we have to have that GMU uh that PUB to the GMU because the GMU did not contemplate lower density products. It only contemplated multif family housing. So the district standards are just not making sense with those use additional uses. as far as the multifamily density um I'm sorry as far as the metropolitan council density whether or not that impacts our 2050 comprehensive plan if I'm understanding the question correctly um and it would so what what would happen is when we get our updates our system updates next year I believe is when we start the um unofficial process before like the pre-process before we actually start the planning process um the approved density and built out d all that gets factored in. So if we were to approve the density here uh 641 housing units that absolutely would go towards uh how many housing units were are average in the uh Musa and potentially there might be some wiggle room. Uh I can't answer that for sure without doing the math. Uh but that I mean if it if we have properties that come in at the higher end of the density then yes it's going to allow for other projects to come in a lower density potentially for us to reevaluate lowering some density in other categories. Um so it's I just to what extent I couldn't tell you but it it would definitely be factored in with the update. Right. Could could I make a comment on that? So so new to the conversation but not new to cop plants. Uh so so uh I was you know in a different city when we were doing the 2040 comp plan. Uh but but the decisions I think if you go back to the 2030 comp plan and what happened in the 2040 comp plan uh the density push doesn't get less. I I think that's a fair statement. Uh uh so so that that's an important factor. So, uh, in terms of expectations on multi-use, it's been guided. I I don't think it's going to get less. I think there's actually going to be a push from that council to get more dense. Uh, and so so having density already constructed helps us with future calculations. Uh, if that makes sense. Uh, the flexibility point that Natalie made is actually asking to become less dense, not more dense. Right. Yeah. So, so just clarifying that part that that's important and in terms of when you talk about what you want the vibe of the community to be, uh, having that go from less dense what's currently the Hunter Ridge neighborhood to a less dense town home to a more dense. That's actually what you want to see happen within a community. uh is is that transitional from less dense to to the multi-use more dense. Uh so that this is an attempt of the developer to not have that abrupt that abrupt change from a neighborhood to high density right there on the cusp. It's it's a transitional effort is is how I would communicate it. And I just want to say I appreciate the effort where I think the the um the in hindsight, which always makes things clear, it maybe wasn't even the best place to say let's go from 5 acre lots to 44 foot wide lots. Unfortunately, we're here. We can't do anything about it. Well, I mean, I should say this to go from five acre lots to high density. So the the fact that we can go from, you know, a larger lot to a 40 foot 44 foot wide lot to then a multifamily housing, it actually is um it is a thoughtful I mean it it's appreciated. Um and I believe that that even though that's not going to land like a a benefit to folks in Hunter Ridge right now, uh in reality facing what the reality is, it actually is a it is a benefit. So, um I guess the the one thing I do just want to say, okay, I don't know where we're at and I feel like we've kind of been going in circles, so I might just be all over the place regarding some of the flexibilities. Um I appreciate the meat. So then at that point in time, I would agree that if there's some sort of uniformity, not just for the pedestrians benefit, but also the visual uniformity of the parking lots, I wouldn't have a problem. Um I I just really uh feel like we wanted to put all that stuff in place in the northeast district so that we wouldn't have to be making those deviations, but I understand once there's more meat um on it. Uh I'm trying to look at everything else. The allowance of town homes and those detached villas is great in there. The uh is the garage um width on those villas. Is that considered a flexibility? That was something you mentioned. And it ends up being like 70% of the front. Yes. Right. Okay. And to someone else's point, 20 ft. Like, is that even too small? Well, yeah. So, do we care about the And I'm going to throw this out there that not only that, but sometimes we're asking people to keep three trash cans in those driveways along with two vehicles or garages because now we're forcing organic, right? So anyway, um, so all these things to say that once you get this, it I just wish that there was a way to to the end user is who we want to try to keep in mind right now. Um, and so what is it going to be like for folks who are going to be moving into these places and then having to use these places and function in these places? And so, um, I don't like love the idea of, you know, 70% of the front of a house being the garage, but I think at the end of the day, if we're asking someone to, uh, keep in their garage what they're going to be required to keep in there, I don't see how there would be a way to with them in mind get around making that flexibility. Um, so in that regard, I guess, um, I am okay in in um, considering that flexibility. The only other option I suppose would be to do larger lots with a little bit of a larger home, right? So that the 70% wasn't a garage, but other than that, there is not there's not a way to get around the fact that No, especially because we as a city with the PUD ordinance, we said we will not consider setbacks of less than 15 ft separation between two detached structures. Um, so that really does all the it starts cutting in. Um, and my concern is I think it makes absolutely no sense to have single family homes that were going to mandate less of a garage um than twin homes and attached homes that must have a minimum garage. Um, I think it makes sense when we're talking about large houses. It makes less sense when you're trying to talk about something more compact for senior living. Um, okay. So again, I'm I apologize if I'm jumping. So if I wasn't clear, like I guess I understand the need to allow some flexibility there. Um, monument signs. I know some people really care about monument signs. I don't know. I'm not a I'm going to let somebody else pick up that uh mantle and run with it. But here's what I will say. There have been some neighborhoods um highdensity neighborhoods where I feel like there are just it's an overload of signs um everywhere directing you like to each direction. And so I guess I would just say I'd be on the side of of fewer signs um how those signs are divided in particular regarding the split uh footage so that you can have it on two sides of the building. I don't have a problem um you know allowing that kind of flexibility. Um the one thing when we talk about uniformity that kind of was like weird about that uh the town home area or twin the row home area is that there are like three or four I think it's three different sized units and just aesthetically I think um you know I would make a recommendation to pick two lengths or two two and go with it right but to kind of have I think there's only one unit that's like three and then the rest are kind you know, a a different uh number. And so, I think just to keep things consistent and visually aesthetic, I would recommend picking two sizes and sticking with that and then seeing how you can get that to fit in there. Um, okay. Where where else are we going here? Jump in you guys if you got stuff to say. Could I ask a question about the drive-thru component of the application? It looks like there's maybe some some gaps as far as how it's going to be buffered. You know, it was mentioned like the commercial space will serve the community rather than like attracted. What's the what's the thought behind what what would go there? Are there constraints on what goes there and how do you think you're going to buffer that? Yeah. Uh that's a great question. So, I think, you know, Natalie did a good job in the staff report of just illustrating kind of I don't know if you put up a plan, just how difficult it would be to kind of go away from a drive-thru fronting a a public road on this particular site where we have public road public road. It's just we're kind of going to be in that situation um really wherever, you know, wherever we site this building. Um we are I don't have a business in mind that has a uh or like that we're in contact with that is a user. Um but I our intent is basically to utilize this 50 foot setback and provide some additional landscaping that would essentially buffer out you know seeing pavement and order boards and things like this. Uh and then balancing that screen landscaping and screening with the need for you know say signage on the top of this building so that you can see oh that's a Starbucks caribou whatever that would be in that situation. So the idea would be hey I don't I understand if I'm I think if I understand the northeast area correctly the idea would be you know you're not seeing a whole bunch of queued up cars as you're driving by. It's meant to be a little bit higher end and we're we we're buying into the northeast area too in terms of the architectural standards. It's really just we're stuck. So the next best option for us is to utilize softscape and landscape material to kind of buffer those views to a drive. And then nice segue into some landscaping stuff. Um I just had a question. We did just pass that buffer zone um uh ordinance. Is that applicable to that area uh behind the villas? Yes. So, and does the existing or the trees that will be left there do that does that satisfy that buffer ordinance? No. Okay. So, the applicant I'm going to go back to his exhibit on it that he shared uh because it was I like what I have. Um is it was it the No, that's enhanced. So, these are the buffers, right? This Well, these are the existing tree buffers. These are this is actually the landscape plan. This is the Okay, thank you. So, it does apply on pretty much everything besides the wetland area by the church and then uh there was some screening approved of that cemetery and I apologize for the misinformation on that, but uh if the copies want that back up, then we will work with the church to get that or not back up, but get it up in the first place uh to close that out. So, that um so that'll be added. But right here, there there's a buffer and they're proposing the the 30ft buffer with the fence and then there's some plantings in there. And then this all of this would have a buffer. This is an existing wooded area that would remain if I remember correctly to help. Um so that would count towards the buffer. Um but yeah, they honestly everyone's been really struggling to meet this buffer ordinance and this is the first plan I see that has it ready to go from pickle. So, the only thing uh additionally regarding landscape that I wanted to say is I I super appreciated uh that there was a list of all the trees that were going to be removed and the ones that were going to be kept. And the only thing I want to say and I know we don't have a tree preservation clause and I'm not asking to do that, but there is a loss of 25 basswood trees on here and only two remaining. And believe it or not, with especially with the loss of prairie is that one mature basswood tree at 60 feet can produce as much as 40 acres of clover of nectar for the bees. And so if there's any way and I know it takes I think those trees only grow like 3 feet every um every year. So it would two to three feet. It would take 20 years even for a new planting. I don't know the maturity of the trees that are going to be removed. Um, but the Northeast District has those landscaping design guidelines. But if there's a way that some consideration could be taken into what is replaced to um offset what is lost. Sure. So, if I'm hearing you correctly is to try to match the species as best possible with the replacement um where where they're not, you know, an invasive species for example. Correct. So, like Chinese. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Right. But like I think oftentimes folks like to go with things that maybe grow at a faster rate or like they're the lilac bushes, that kind of stuff that are ornamental. And I just would like to see an effort made to make sure that we're considering uh maintaining what's, you know, replacing what's lost with something that will be valuable. Obviously, we're losing maple trees, too, but that requires human intervention to create syrup from the maple trees. So, I'm not bringing that one up. But obviously, the bees will just take nectar from where it's available and then produce that honey. And we have a lot of beekeepers in this um city. So, that was just one thing I I wanted to um mention. Mr. Chair, if I may, no disrespect, I need to go. Um I'll sit through this again next week. I look forward to listening to you guys on the way home. Um thank you. Thank you for everybody that was here and everybody that is still here. We are listening. It sounds like we've got a pretty good collaboration of things going on. It's interesting. And they'll be interesting to hear your recommendations to us and we'll go from there. But uh I wish I had more ability to stay up, but I I hit the road at 4:00 a.m. in the morning. So this actually Well, I'm going till the 22nd. Oh, so not next Thursday. All right. So I've got time to digest a little bit. But thank you guys for what you do. Thank you all for participating. It means a lot to all of us. Well, I'm sorry to see you leave because, you know, all of our best work is in the ninth. So, let's come up. I'm going to keep You're gonna Okay, you keep listening. I'm sorry. Please. Thank you, Gail. Uh, the last Well, the last thing that I'll touch on for a moment is just um it was mentioned in the neighborhood meeting. Um the idea that there would be some sort of a park area for these residents living in the um the multif family housing. And I see that we're doing cash lu in hand. So, I just wanted to ask, is there a plan then to say, "Hey, we want to, you know, uh, on our parks and trail or whatever to have this, um, area through a walking path connect to some kind of de destination park area. It's okay. It's late tonight." Um anyway, the they do have a little bit of a tot lot carved out behind the church. Uh it's not quite clear. Um there's really no like design details at this point, but it's like an ear marker and it is a whole that they would have um have that available. Uh and then the market rate apartments are required to have um like a courtyard, some type of recreational on site. Uh, and so they that is part of the reason why I believe they have designed the buildings the way they have these S shapes so they can have that courtyard space which might include pools or um some type of a playground or something. Again, that part hasn't really been flushed out because we don't have an enduser for these or yeah, the we don't have a buyer in Yeah, we don't have the buyer, but that would be finalized and it would be required that they have some kind of recreational space on site for their um resident. And then as far as our park system, that uh underpass is going to allow for a connection. Uh Diamond Lake Regional Trail will connect to the east. Um and the Oswald Farm property is zoned business park, but uh that the concept plan for that is coming imminently. Uh and they have um what's shown on that plan right now uh includes the pathway. There's a connection to Bellweather with some public plaza spaces as well. And and again, those might not be a playground, but they might they might be a nice place to go read. Yeah. And then um and eventually it would connect to through Bellather and there are public park spaces in Bell Weather. So there there actually will be that underpass will make a sign. And now obviously the underpass they will not be building that's a Three Rivers project. But having the easement in place and no having it finalized as part of this will allow for that to um move forward as fast as possible um is government but and then um that um it would eventually get to additional park space. Okay. And then last uh question, will the cup for the daycare at Hope still continue in the midst of this? Yes. Okay. I can certainly clarify that in the resolutions, but yeah, that would remain. All right, somebody else take it for a little while. I I had a kind of a follow up on the drive-thru. Um, again, just thinking of some of the precedences knowing this is our first foray into northeast district standards. So, I I know that that we're we're I think by the standards we that wouldn't be allowed. So I I guess why would why wouldn't we just say just just remove that from the from the plan and now you don't have to worry about it. The enhanced uh I'm sure it limits the limits the use of it. So certainly financially it makes sense but I'm just thinking of our of our standard was there for a reason. Um is it allowed drive-throughs? Drive-throughs are allowed. It's that they can't abut a public right ofway. Um however it's not a northeast district standard. It's a GMU standard. And honestly, I'm ready to throw out the whole after all. That's not part of the northeast. So that's not a northeast. We're in the middle of it. Yeah. No, I know. But what I'm trying to say is that's a GMU standard. So it's not a northeast. It wasn't something that came out of that public participation process. Okay. Um it but it is a it is a standard we we typically have for drive-throughs. Um in this case, there might be an argument that could be made that there's there's two street frontages. where if and with our stacking requirements and all that for a drive-thru, where would we put the drive through? I was more thinking of the Northeast because that was one of the questions like which which do we want to lean towards? And and I I kind of want to just say from my perspective, the Northeast standards would be it's kind of what you were saying too, but it's I think we just would want to lean towards that. We all invested a lot into that one. Uh so, okay, scratch that then. It doesn't sound like that's necessarily applicable. I mean, I like the idea of the of the screening and all that. I'm just I'm just kind of like we we put a lot of effort into the Northeast District standards. So, anything we can do to not deviate on our very first development cuz then it'll be like we're referencing well we did it for St. the so we're going to have to do it for everybody else and then our standards aren't standards anymore and it's just everything's a very and if I may I mean we we've continually basically committed to the northeast area standards with our we think it's actually not only is it a high standard or is it's going to basically make this whole area more desirable over time. So I feel like you know you got to recognize that you have a a church that's going to be there and the people that are developing this you know are they're not going to away. this isn't an investment for them. This is they're also going to be here. So, they want high quality development around them as well. So, we're we would if we had to pick between the two, we're with Northeast Area Standards on on our side, too. Okay. Cuz I think then in is it really the only one was the the parking the parking islands? Was that the main variance? And the set was the setback related to that that number two. Was that the one that's no longer uh uh a a flexibility the setback reduction because I think originally it was 40 ft but is it but now it's 50 ft with the enhanced landscaping. Was that within standards now? So 60 ft is what's required with enhanced landscaping. So we're reducing it to 50. Their argument being that you they are dedicating significantly more rightaway again which cuts into that 60 cuts into that 60 feet. Um whether or not that's you know that's up to to you to deliberate upon but yeah the the 50 foot is what is proposed. Um but was that one of our northeast district standards? No, that's just our typical just a normal standard. Okay. The only Yeah, the only huge deviation is really those parking islands. And they would still be required as prescribed in everything but that shared parking lot. That shared parking lot does seem to have um some considerations that may make sense to allow for that deviation, especially if it could enhance the the safety for people walking from their cars. Um, I know that the ice rink in Shakipi has the parking islands are lined up and it's so nice and people really and it's when you're driving through a huge parking lot. When you're driving through a huge parking lot, it it gives you a space to actually see people crossing uh instead of just kind of not knowing where to look. So, I I really enjoy it. So, I think there's a good argument for it. Um uh but that is really the only deviation as far as the other deviations. It's more of do we want the GMU to prevail or do we want Northeast District to prevail? And my argument is Northeast District is a plan that we've had a lot of community outreach on. Um and I think that should be what prevails at this time. C can I ask a question about the standards because I'm not as familiar with them. Did I hear you say planters rather than uh plantings? Yeah, planting. It's landscape islands. So yeah, they're supposed to be supposed to be plantings. It's not winters. Okay. Correct. So So with that with Natty Ly's talking about in Shakipi, uh a lot of our trees didn't make it with the winter and and so uh what we plant being very conscientious of that uh it becomes pretty pricey to have to replace those in the future and it's not very attractive to have dead trees and so wonderful. I'm thinking about the the flow and I I appreciate and I didn't think about it that way of you know you have town home then multif family like transitioning it nicely and then you think about our our plan and farther west is rural as of right now it's planning to stay rural of course we know it may not right residential right mixed residential to the west uh so the property directly west is guided mixed residential Okay. And then uh as far as I think that is the Musa. That's the Musa. Yeah. And then and then everything else is rural residential. Yep. So what does that flow like just strategically, right? Like what does that flow feel like? If we've got the a parking lot, we've got a couple drive-throughs, we've got a couple apartment buildings. I'm just wondering like how do we how does it not feel out of place there versus in some type of downtown uh vision? My second question would be thinking about this strategically and sorry if I'm beating a dead horse here, but if we meet our density goals here, what do we have in mind for what is changed impact to other areas of our city? What are we thinking about as our next three plays ahead? Right. um versus reacting. How are we? And that's maybe a question to staff on how we think about that. Well, I'll address the feeling. It feels like a holding place because that's ultimately what it is, I think. And so I uh like I uh in terms of how do you transition? Um there's there's just going to be a cut off because that's where that boundary is. And I remember at the um time that we were considering the um in the northeast district the dying guidelines there was uh roads like uh that had been selected and I remember at the time the there is right if you pass the kraddies there is a property that's like 2 acres that's stuck right in between the 80 acre parcel to the west and the kraddies and they're like what do we do cuz the mucus line cuts right here so our property lacks value as a residential home but it can't be commercial yet. And so I think that that's just some of the pains of having a mucus line run right through your city. And I don't know that there's anything that we can do uh about it. So I think the I think what it why it feels in the middle of nowhere is because uh that that 30 corridor this is the first development to go up. But once if you look at that the comp plan or the how it's guided all of that area around 30 is it correct me if I'm wrong but it's like the upscale commercial buildings um for corporate offices and so I think when you begin to think that that's essentially what's going to go in that corridor over time then it doesn't look so out of place. Um, I think if you drive down 30 and you hit uh right before where the connection for 610 will be, there's all that. I mean, that's everything that's going in there right now is all fourstory plus apartment buildings um behind uh the auto zone and um and some of it back in that tree line even and there's still a field in the middle of it and so it does kind of look out of place but I think it's just kind of the growing pains of being at the point in development where we are. Um, so yeah, this is on the end. This is on that this is on that far end of that section. I don't know that there's a way to do it differently. Yeah. Well, I guess that leads me to a question cuz I'm I'm pretty sure I'm not understanding this right. So, I'm so sorry, but you had made a comment of like the density. There was no other way to do it other than for it to be multifamily. There was no way to hit the requirements. And where I'm confused is cuz it was a range. It was a guided. It was 8 to 30 units per acre. Okay. And it requires multifamily units to get to that to even hit that. Yeah. So, but also to your point relative to having this parcel seem like it's out in the middle of nowhere right now. It's also where the water and the sewer are. So, it's kind of going to it's going to radiate from here and work its way back. It's just kind of the kind of the circumstance of where the utilities are which allows or which uh yeah which almost ultimately uh needs we need the utilities for this type of development team to be done. And to Natalie's point in once again in the middle of the field right now, but there's there's applications or there's going to be concepts that come to to the city council in short order here that start to kind of paint this vision out um as it moves further to the east and that's imminent. Um so it's not it seems like it's in the middle of field because you're looking at a middle of a field when you're looking at it application right now, but you know it's happening. um there is more growth going to kind of work its way back east and and that transition I I think Commissioner Lynn a a great point is if you're coming down 10 from Maple Grove and then you've got that density right along 101 and then boom you hit Corkran and it's stark right now that's not what it's going to look like forever and and and we want to manage growth in a way that we don't have that abruptness you know so so as you hit Corkran, we have single family homes that are coming and then it will transition and and this planning commission is working with our department to make wise decisions. So to to your point, we we what do we want to look like? We want to be strategic about it and and with that strategic decision, we've made decisions about where the water treatment facility is and where the water tower is. And so that is where we plant our first development. That's why we're making this decision now because strategic decisions have been made about where we're going to put the water tower and where we're going to put the water treatment facility. So, this is the first strategic decision about density of this level. Absolutely. That it's it's not happen stance that this is where it's going to happen. A lot of decisions have been made up to this point and that's why it needs to be made now. Commissioner Lind, I'll add as far as how the communition would work to the west. So should the cofferies ever choose to sell or develop that the farm is guided as mixed residential uh which requires density of 8 to 10 units per acre. So you would likely see some multifamily uh buildings to kind of pop up with the multifamily and that again that was intentional by the applicant to have a transition from the commercial to what was expected to eventually be developed to the west. Now, that could be that could be 30 years from now, but should they ever decide to develop, that's what would based on our current plans, that's what we're anticipating for that area. And so, that's how they have um have that's how they make their decision on their planning as well. So the so yeah I would say this entire county road 30 area we don't have a lot of areas in the city that can support a lot of commercial and industrial and because of the road improvements that are because the 610 and some other improvements in the area anticipated um one this area of 101 and 30 are were identified as one of the few areas in the city that can support commercial. However with commercial you need rooftops. You can't have commercial without rooftops. kind of what the chicken or the egg. So this development really helps to provide the rooftops to start the commercial development. Um and so it's um it is kind of what's projected for this area based on having a healthy commercial tax base. Otherwise, the residents are the ones that are going to have a heavy bill. Uh Brooklyn Park is a great example of a city that is a bedroom suburb that did not really plan very well for commercial industrial uses and they have some of the highest taxes in the area. So it it's in terms of their residence. So that's I think that was part of why this was planned the way it's this way. There was a desire to have some commercial uses um and how to do that meaningful. You brought up something that just spurts a comment that you made commissioner which is you know of these units you know a fair amount are not age restricted. And so I just wanted to speak to that. One of the biggest constraints to actually having senior living and senior housing constructed anywhere is an employment base and to be able to draw um people that can be a CNA or something like that in these facilities. So when we're having discussions with senior developers, that's actually one of their chief concerns. Where's your rooftops? Where are you getting our future staff members? How are we going to have these buildings operate? you know, uh, with with kind of people living in the area that don't have to commute from Brooklyn Center, Bookham Park, those kind of things. So, that's one of the important pieces of trying to build kind of a a critical mass of of people that can also help to work at some of these facilities. Um, I could speak for way too long on kind of the issues or the difficulties with development of senior right now, but employment is like the top in terms of the ability to recruit and retain uh employees within kind of a a worker shed, we'll call it, of an area of one of these facilities. I I understand. And I I made the comment cuz it felt like the marketing and the the the foundational vision from Hope was senior living. And if I run the numbers, 60% are not dedicated to seniors. So that's why I made the comment. Okay. So I would like to touch on the setbacks. It's the one main piece in this application that I'm hung up on. To me, this seems like the most drastic departure from the requirements. Basically, there's a lot of interplay between the building height and the uh required setback. Here the PUD is requesting flexibility from those standards and requests both first a higher building height and two a setback that is below the minimums. The requirement factoring in the building height for some of the buildings in this case is 175 ft. The application provided that there is 50 ft but it is really only 40 ft because the 10- ft right of way is being included uh in that calculation. So if I did the math right so no what can I f I'll give you an opportunity of course. Okay. Uh so it it is really only 40 feet because the 10-foot rightway is being included in that calculation. So therefore, if we recommend approval, we are permitting the structure to be almost 80% closer to the property line than otherwise allowed. This seems uh like a lot to me. I did not see the public safety report, but I will say that I am surprised that public safety uh seems to support these reduced uh setbacks for access because I think the staff report did a uh you know had a a very good point in that it will have the effect of squeezing the parking lot out of the interior. But in my mind, that seems like it will provide better access to public safety to get around the uh the back end of the buildings uh than not. So, did you have a comment on that? I do. Yes. So, just to be clear, we have a we have a 50ft setback from the new rightway. Okay. So, we are we have a we are 60 ft back from the current rightway. We are 50 feet back from the current the proposed right of way after we dedicate. Okay. 50 feet from the new property the new property line and we're including the required enhanced landscaping. So, but to your point, let's just I I just wanted to give you some other information because I looked earlier today. If could you put up just an area map like one of the county maps, Natalie, please? So, while you're finding that, is that in the staff report or is this I called about a couple times that it was 40 feet by my measurement or by because there was a dimension on there that was throwing me off. And when we had a call on Monday and he's like, I don't know what's going on with that. So, that was something he's confirmed that it is 50 ft from the new property line and they are confident in that to the point where that's what that's the standard they're asking to be held to. So, they're not asking for flexibility of 40 ft setback. They're asking for a 50ft. 60 ft. Okay. And and what is the current requirement for with enhanced landscaping? It' be 60 ft. I do I do think that because I actually had this question earlier as well because I think that because the height exceeds 35 ft, wasn't there supposed to be an additional 75 ft? And is that what you're So if you want to talk to that interesting. So yeah, as far as the height that's Yeah, that's a different form I was trying. So I think it'd be So if we were saying 60 ft plus an additional 75, so they would have 135 foot setback from the county road with the enhanced landscaping, which I again I have problems with that. I just that seems like that I don't like the GMU. I'm just going to make that very clear. But the so the 135 and then that doesn't they also have frontages on all three sides of these two lots. So then you have 25 ft plus additional sight. So it it eats up the entire lot for and if we don't want the multifamilies here where they're supposedly allowed by right, where are we putting them? We're saying we want the commercial there. I So I I do think that it I do think that it can make some sense that there'd be some deviation. I don't know of a multif family building that's below 35 ft in height. No. Well, I I get if I could I get that, but uh when you factor in the building height for some of the buildings, the requirement is actually 175 ft. No, it'd be 135 from the county road because it's 75 ft for an additional 15 ft of height. You would add a 75t setback and then it's 60 would be the requirement from the county road. would be 135 ft from the county road. And if I might, does either one of So 135 is the correct calculation. Um, but I I did take some dimensions uh from our proposed closest point to this closest point right here across across that um across the roadways 324 ft to that home. Over here, our closest point of multif family building to that principal structure is 533 feet. In fact, the closest um the closest home to another uh one of our structures for as propos is 75 ft and it's a villa. The closest uh this was a kind of funny one because if Brian Loather, who's one of the applicants, actually lives in this home right here. Brian is the closest to any row home by 5T. He's 230 ft. The next closest is 235 as currently proposed. Oh, you know, we're if if you take 135, 175, 135 is the right number, but we're well exceeding in terms of its actual impact in terms of a setback across across um a rightaway and certainly who would be impacted most by that type of decision. Yeah, I'm sorry, sir, that the public comments have closed. He's right. Yeah, I understand. And I and and I wish, you know, I wish I could give you the opportunity to ask the question, but the public hearing is closed. So, we have to we have to keep things on track. And this maybe this is throwing another jumble into it. So, if it is, we don't have to go there. But I'm thinking uh long term, right? And and ahead. So eventually, let's say that when 116 becomes that four-lane road, similar to how County Road 10 did in Maple Grove as it got built out, how does that impact setbacks? Like where is that? How do they plan for that? I know they do when they're deciding roads. It's it's already planned. So the right of way that um we're requiring is based on the idea of this type of boulevard. So it's the one with the four that had the thing in the center and then okay, the two already factored in. So, okay. Even if they wanted additional 10 ft, there would still be space to do that. Well, I guess I'm I'm curious to hear comments from my colleagues with respect to the setback issue. I I think it's a big ask and I'm just wondering if you think we should um be flexible. How how how flexible are uh how flexible is your team on this setback number? Is that locked in stone? Because I I think it's kind kind of a big ask. Yeah. Well, I mean, respectfully, I mean, we're really tight on this particularly on this Multit just by virtue of where like as Natalie mentioned, where we are with the other road on the on the western boundary of it. we're we're kind of hemmed in and the same position relative to Oslo Farm Road. We're kind of hemmed in pretty tight. Um we could certainly look at you know it's the building's position kind of east west but ultimately on for this kind the south building our multif family 8. Um but I don't know that we're actually seeking we're still showing 50 ft there. Um in this situation 50 ft we feel like we're adding a bunch of additional landscape buffering here. um to try to mitigate it. And then plus the I just feel like the impact our impact relative to the distance to the adjacent homes are kind of a situation where we're making the best with what we have to with we have with a kind of a narrow parcel as it's shown. Um we're already showing like a ton of underground parking in that situation or we're at least we are that is a very tight site. It it it doesn't I don't know that it uh kind of looks like it uh when you're looking at an aerial, but that entire basement of that apartment is going to be parked. Um two rows of underground parking there and then also the surface parking. We're just really hemmed in there as long as the we can't stretch that building any farther south because of the trail location. We can't move farther north because that's where Hope Way is. We're just we have what we have in that location. Uh I if you were looking at it strictly as numbers it looks like a big ask but in the context I don't think that it is a large ask. Um also I guess I just wonder why we care about screening things from a county road rather than like I if it to me was a neighborhood I I think that I would be like that's a big ask right um so and I know that there's a a reason behind that. I think about the residents who will live there, right? And I think about um how close some places are getting to even a County Road 10. Um the uh the apartments that my kids always joke cuz we drive by and we can see what people are watching on TV. Um so all that to say, my greater concern would be is that enough? And if that fits within kind of what's standard or what's expected for that sort of um market rate apartment, if that is something that that someone selecting to live there is going to be like, "Oh, yeah, that's pretty typical." I guess I would would not have a problem with it. Does that make sense? Yep. Okay. Thank you. I look at this, you know, it's stated in the report. In exchange for flexibility, applicant proposes the following public benefits. Architectural transition. We talked about construction of Hope Way, which could arguably in the future provide relief from traffic in the future. So, I'm not sure that one currently states. Coordination on existing rightway to allow for more economical constructions of water utility lines. Improvement of existing drainage conditions from neighbors. Establishment of significant tax base. Provide a trail easement. um a vital link for future development in the city of Corkran. Uh flexibility in required in applying required landscaping and flexibility to bypass the parking island parking bay requirement public benefits. Do we have reactions or thoughts for me? [Applause] any more discussion? I'm I feel like the things that h have um the few things that aesthetically or whatever were concerns I feel like I've addressed. So, as long as you feel like you've got them, then I am ready to transition to the next phase of this, which is to end the discussion and then just make votes or recommendations. That's where I'm at. Okay. Does anyone have a motion? Can you just ad advise us on how a motion gets made um under the discussion? Do we have to be so specific as to say amendments or can we just move forward and uh believe that recommendations are going to be specific? I would amend. The one thing I really heard from you as far as what you would like added is um um some language as to replacing And I don't know how we would put it in resolution, right? And now it's late and we're trying to come up with replace um replace species removed with a similar species uh in the landscaping plan. And I don't know if you it's it's hard to identify to the extent of what we mean by that in terms of like do we want onethird of the plants, right? Do we have to quantify it or in the spirit of it can we just move forward with some kind of confidence? Honestly, we're going to include it regardless if it's included here because I think it's a good idea regardless. But if it's if it makes you feel more comfortable, we just do a one to one replacement of anything that we if we take down the bass, which we plant a bass tree. Sure. Um so basically wherever possible that it's not an invasive species or a non-marketable tree or something like that, I'm fine committing to that. I think it's probably I'm like I don't know that anybody else has ever been thatable. So, so I'm just a little taken back. I am because we're already we have the quantities already adjusting. Okay. That would be I I mean that would make me I just feel like that is a uh um an effort that is not made by everyone and so it would be appreciated. Can I can I make just a a few more comments before we close the discussion too? You know, on behalf of I we had a full room here tonight. there's people that feel and and expressed a lot of opinions and there were a couple themes and I just I don't know how to how we appropriately document or reflected in the application or consider it in the application but you know the traffic could not have been more brought up and relevant to people who live here and try to commute every day and work here. The traffic study doesn't say so. Okay. Well, I don't understand how that can be so different than the reality of things and you know instated in here and the staff's and there was absolutely no mention of it and it says that this plan development will not create any excessive burden on park streets, public facilities, utilities. Technically that may be true is what I I know we're hanging our hat on, but I don't understand how the reality and the study could be so different. So, what can we do to try to figure something like that out? So, part of the condition is the improvements that they have to put in the county roads to support. So, they they have like the um and I and I didn't do a good enough job laying that out, so I apologize. But, as part of the feasibility study as well as part of the engineering memo, they are required to do off-site improvements so that county road 30 and county road 116 can support the influx. So, with those improvements, it does not require air burden. If we were not suggesting those I'm sorry it doesn't it does not create a burden. If we wouldn't do those improvements then yes it would create a burden but with those improvements the streetways would be able to support the additional population and uh traffic going to the commercial site. I yeah I wish we could have addressed that when the group was here. I just it's hard for me. I'm sorry that it's just such a larger conversation than our individual city. And what's frustrating and should be called out is that more money is given to Southwest Transit uh rail, the light rail than given to the county roads out here. And that is not an at this level conversation. So it that it just I hear your frustration and I hear everybody's frustration. And if there's anything that I could recommend doing, it would be to apply pressure where the pressure could result in some kind of change. And I just don't know that it's here. I mean, I know that it's not here. Wanted it to be documented. And then the other thing would be too, and I don't know if this is a city thing or or what. It's just for food for thought later. In these types of big changes, PUB proposals, widening the notice distance, we actually we've already doubled it. Um it so it it does um the city about 300 and so now we we we went and about a year of debate with city council moved it up to 500. Um the it would be yeah the policy changed with council but at this point the 500 is is what we agreed on to start um and it's difficult to start saying well this application we're going to do 500 this one we're going to do a thousand. Oh, sure. It' just be like all PUDs, for example. Yeah. So, that would be a policy change with the council and we have to adopt it by code. Mhm. Might be appropriate. Just a thought. Yeah. I mean, my general kind of it seems like in general this aligns to what it's meant to be in this area. Apartments are by right. This is what you can build here and that's what they're building. So it doesn't seem I just I say this for others because it's there's not a lot we can do about this apart from some of the flexibilities. The rest of it is how it's meant to be used, you know. So I I just I hope others kind of realize that like it's you could say, well, it shouldn't be we would rather they don't go to 18, you know, uh you know, pe houses per acre, whatever it is, and get the lower end of that, but we don't really have a lot of wiggle room on that. The the the range is the range. And so it's it's we can if they're building within the range that that's what's allowed. I mean that's kind of where I'm landing on this. I mean apart from the setbacks and maybe some you know some of the landscape islands that are you know these flexib flexibility things most of this is not the flexibility. It's just what they can build. So I I just hope others realize that here that there's not a lot we can actually do because that's what's been documented on the plan. So then people buy buy buy land because that's what they're told they can build on it and then they go to build on it and then we can't really say you can't build on it because that's what we the people and some of this unfortunately has met council has said you must allow this in this area that we call the Musa. If you want city water and sewer then you must allow this and there's nothing nothing not much we can do about it. And other things like roads. Yeah. and other things like roads. Could I could I ask it? Oh, I'm sorry. Could I ask uh a clarifying question? You know, the application is um you know, I want to make sure is it is it now 50 ft without including the 10-ft right of way? So, it's a true 50 ft. Right. All right. But but the application is 50 feet including the 10 foot. So there was a confus a confusing dimension on the plan that the applicant has committed to fixing. They are asking to be held to a standard of 50 ft from the new lot boundary. So after we take out the rightway 50 ft from our new property line. Okay. I would entertain a motion if anyone is so inclined. Um I Okay, so it's going to be rough, right? But um I would say that with the things that we have discussed um that I would make a motion to approve the remaining resolutions which include the reszoning, the preliminary plat. There you have it. I will second that. I think there's an ordinance for redone too. So the resolutions ended with one permit. So all resolutions, all of them existed. I I will second that motion. All in favor say I. I. All oppose. I The motion passes uh 3 to one. Oh, [Applause] thank you all for attending the rest of kind of housekeeping. [Applause] so much here. Yeah. [Applause] Do we have anything? Is that one cheese? That was the one we just finished. Other business. Other business. It appears there is uh we don't have anything for other business other than it sounds um just to clarify to the commission that Commissioner Horn has tendered his resignation. Um he's doing a little bit too much traveling these days for to be able to commit to another term. Um, and I my my understanding is Commissioner Vanden was also up for reappoint. Are you I'm not going to I'm just going to let it expire, which is end of the month, I think. Yes. So, we have two seats as of next month that are Well, we still have a month to pressure Jay. So, don't let that go. So, just wanted to uh call that out. Uh there will be a resolution, a Canadian resurface that um will go city clerk helps coordinate that. So, I'm sure she'll be in touch with that. But hang that on your wall. We are sorry to see you go. Um, and I need everybody to make sure they can make the next meeting because we do not have a quorum until we have two people on board that we don't currently have appointed. So, what is the next meeting date? Next meeting is March 7th. I will. Okay, that's good to know. Yeah. Okay. Uh, I will be out of the country until the 8th. So, a little vacation. What? Someplace cool. Yes. I could potentially like apply and then resign or something if that makes Sorry to do it. Do it. So, all you get by each meeting. Well, cuz it's super selfishly, but once you hit a groove with a group of people, then you you're not rehashing some of the same stuff. J, don't do this to us. So, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I am scheduled to testify in Phoenix, Arizona the afternoon of March 7th. I can be here. I'm the most reliable thing ever. I go nowhere show now. Um, okay. Is there uh is there I would imagine there would be is there flexibility in uh moving instead of uh a Thursday? Could we do a Tuesday the 12th? Is that available? I could do Tuesday the 12th, man. You guys um Okay, I have Oh, March the 12th. March. Oh, March. March. March 12th. Hold on. I can do I can do 12 or 13. [Applause] I'm so glad I brought this up. I It could potentially work for me, but I need to make sure that that is a week that my husband is living in Minnesota. Fair enough. Yeah, I can do the 12th. What about the 11th in case the 12th doesn't Oh, you have to make sure it's a week that he's here. Okay. All right. Can you would you be able to confirm? I would be able to confirm with you. Yeah. Like this week. Perfect. Otherwise on March the 12th. So no fab meeting. Is that where? No. It's that I would need somebody to stay with my kids and take me. So then they have to go. We do. Jay would be available. So then would we not do February then? This is February. Today's February 1st. Oh my god. Right. Sorry. Okay. Yep. Yeah. I could let you know by tomorrow. Perfect. I would really appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Uh let's see. If any project update is um if there's any questions, I have no questions. Yeah, you were saying there's a a a concept plan coming for a the business a business park. Where where is that at? Is that Alwan Family Farms is east on County Road? The one right across the street literally across the street. And I think it's going to make the that trail connection. I think it's going to make it go sooner. Oh, okay. So, it is where where that trail would be. That Yeah, it's right here. That farm right there. Okay. Fascinating. Yeah. So, that's uh I believe it's the 22nd. Hey, you're not ready to be done yet. And uh city council report uh liaison uh Baron Camp uh is not here. Uh so with that, we just have one change to the um leazison meetings. Yeah. Going to move I'm going to do next week. Yep. I can't. And um Commissioner Lynn will do the 28th. Yep. So you Okay. Bremen is on the 8th. No. What? Yep. February 8th. Yep. Okay. And then Vandeny will not be able to do the 14th. So we kind of But you might have some new new people by then, right? It's possible. But what you could do is shift Lynn to the 14th. I can't make the Oh, you can't do the 14th. I'm on my honeymoon. March 14th. Right back going out of town. Good. Okay. Listen, I agree. I'm hitting the beach a lot this time. Leave me alone. Enjoy it. Okay. So, we have uh Brahman on the 8th, Landerman on the 22nd, and March 14th, and then Lind on the 28th, and then and the 11th, she's back. Yeah, I can do it. Yep. Okay. But then I feel like we might have some people by then. I just kind of worst case scenario. Otherwise, then you could uh if you're amending it without, then you could throw me in on the 25th so that it's not lantern, lantern, linen, lantern. I can do that. Whatever works. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Did you follow that? All right. All right. Is that it? Just have to make a motion to uh I will make a motion to adjurnn. Can I get a second? I will second. All in favor say I. I. All opposed.