Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Here we go. I now call to order the February 11th planning commission meeting. Um Liz, will you please take roll call? Commissioner Austin here. Bosa here. Campbell. Uh Michaelitz here. Ryberg here. Roasted here. Sailor here. Urbansky and vice chair Perie here. Uh we do have two new members. If you don't mind standing, Matt, you want to go first? And then Tess, you want to go second? Introduce yourselves, please.

Welcome. Hi, I'm Michael. Welcome. Um, has everyone had a chance to review the tonight's agenda? Yep. Uh, would anyone like to make a motion on the agenda? Motion to adopt the agenda. Second. That would be uh first approval would be um Commissioner Rostac, right? Got that right. And then second was by um

Commissioner Assan. Motion carries. Move us on to item number four, uh visitor presentation. Is there anyone in the audience that or online that would like to speak on on behalf or about something that's not already on the agenda for tonight? Anybody online? Okay. Um we'll move on to item number five. Um approve the pre previous planning commission meetings from January 14th, 2026. Can we get a motion to approve and a second? Commissioner Boswa.

Second. Second. Commissioner Rostart. Consent agenda. There is one item on tonight's consent agenda to recommend approval for the final plat for Fulton Wood Fultonwood PY Homes. Now would be the time for any final questions or comments from anybody here before we move on. or anybody in the audience that would like to talk about it. Okay. So, we were talking about like some materials and porch uh length about the length of the porch. No, this is a different one. I believe that's a different one. Yeah.

So, we need a motion. Yeah. So, Commissioner Bosa, um, just to help with the question, uh, both projects are being pursued by PY, so I think maybe that's what you're remembering. Um, but this is, this project is located south of County Road 61, um, kind of on the border with the city of Carver. Yeah. Off of Spring Creek. We referred this one to just compare the things and materials and all those things, right? Like, yeah. Okay. Yep. Same staff, same developers. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. So, we have do we have both motions in already? I think just one. Oh, I need a second. First by basa. I don't think there was a second. Second. Second.

Uh, the motion carries. Uh, this item will get Commissioner, you'll need to call for the vote. So, you have the motion in a second. You'll have to call. All those in favor? There you go. I I nay. Motion carries. Next item is uh the first item is actually action item is 7A is a public hearing to recommend approval for the easement vacation and final site and building plans for the PV business center. Uh PC number 2026-01. Um Ashley, I believe this is your item.

It is. Thank you, chair. Uh tonight is the final request by Shaw Construction. Um this request has come before you a few times. So this is the third time you've seen it. Um as a commission is aware, generally um projects when they're in that final stage uh are typically on your consent agenda like the item right before this. Um this evening uh this project is a little bit following a different path only because we're also uh having you host a public hearing for the vacation. Um otherwise typically the final site plan uh would have been on the consent agenda. So my presentation this evening is going to be brief. Hopefully it is a record breaker for speediness. Um we'll just quickly walk through uh again the plan just as a refresher. Um, again, the concept plan came before you uh late last year in October. Uh, the preliminary site and building plans and the zoning ordinance amendment to allow that outdoor storage area came before you last month. And then this evening, uh, we're looking at final sighted building plans and then again that drainage and utility easement vacation. Uh, just walking through um the minor changes that have happened since the preliminary review. So, the last time you saw it, uh the electric transformer was previously located uh inside the outdoor storage area and then the fencing was wrapping around that. Um that location or that has been relocated uh to the north side of the driveway. Uh staff is supportive of that. It actually works better uh for our maintenance crew even uh with that needed retaining wall uh on the north side. Uh the second change is uh previously in the last round there was a minor one- foot encroachment of the parking lot into that southern setback. Uh that has been revised. So now uh the parking lot

meets all of the setback requirements. Uh the third item uh is related to landscaping. Uh the applicant did work in good faith uh to meet the requirements as they were outlined in the last round of review. Unfortunately, uh staff myself inadvertently did not uh adjust the landscaping requirement for the increase that of that building size that we saw from preliminary. And so there's just a a a few additional trees that are going to be required uh to really accommodate for that increase in building size and we'll uh work with them as it moves through this process and into permitting just to make sure that we're meeting that requirement. And then finally, um we've talked about this a few times as well. uh there is that cross access easement uh that remains on the property as a result of those previous approvals. Uh the applicant and the property owner uh are continuing to work with that adjacent property owner in what's needed in order to get that dissolved and again we'll just continue uh that remains as a condition of approval and it's just something that we'll continue to watch uh as it moves into permitting stage. So this evening uh we are asking you to hold the public hearing uh for the easement vacation. Uh there's drainage and utility easements that remain from the Chesa business loft. So that previous land use approval. Um you can see that they encumber a majority of the property. Um they were really intended for to cover those shared amenities uh amongst those buildings. So like the parking lot since that project was never constructed. The property has been vacant. um that large drainage utility easement is essentially obsolete and so the applicant is requesting to vacate it. Uh in its place they are proposing and showing that they'll rededicate a new 10-foot easement around the perimeter of the property to ensure that we can continue maintenance of that

existing infrastructure to the north. Uh and then also uh that's really our standard easement uh that we show. So they're showing consistency with that. So staff is supportive of that request. Uh so this evening we're asking for two things. Uh the first is to hold that public hearing uh for that easement vacation and then second uh looking for you to recommend approval of the final site and building plans. So with that I'll turn it back to you chair for any questions.

Thank you Ashley. Um bring it back to the we're going to bring it back to the commission. This is a public hearing. But before that we ask any questions of city and st does anyone here have any questions for city or staff regarding this? Okay, we're going to open the public hearing at 7:10. And would anybody like to speak on behalf of this project? Okay, we're going to close the public hearing at 7:10.

Any further questions from anybody? Would anybody like to make a motion on um action item 7A first the um vacation final site building plans for PV business Business Center PC number 2026-01. I will make a motion to pass action item 7A PC 206-1 first by um Commissioner Ros. Second Assan mo uh all those in favor I

opposed. Motion passes. Next item 7B. Item 7B is a public hearing to recommend approval for the preliminary plat and reszoning of Firefly Acres PC number 2026-4. I believe this is your item, Liz, to present. your screen there. Um, we have a preliminary plat and reszoning request this evening for the project known as Firefly Acres, uh, which was formerly known as Zero Creek Road. Uh, this project is being proposed by Jen and Scott Schlottoff. Uh the site in question is outlined in kind of a yellow orange on this aerial exhibit. Uh the site is located within our southwest area of the city. Um it borders on Creek Road and on the north side of the roundabout at Savannah Way and Creek Road. Um it's currently a vacant site um with some farmland and wooded area um that has surrounding uses uh of additional residential on either side of it and additional agriculture or farmland on the north and the west sides. And then you have highway 212 uh immediately west of that. Um and then some other um relative context um are the Harvest developments. So this site um is immediately north of both of those residential subdivisions. Um so we've kind of gone over um the three-step review process um to a certain degree um but I might go into it just a little bit more depth since we

have two new members here uh this evening. Um the city has a three-step review process for most of our land use applications. Um so each project essentially has to go through three different steps with the city that are all reviewed by planning commission and city council um until they're valid for permitting or construction. Um the three steps are concept plan one, second is pre preliminary, third and final is final. Uh the concept plan is more of a high level overview and introduction of the project and when um issues are starting to be identified so that they can be addressed in the subsequent steps. Um so once you get into the second and third steps that's when you get into more of the technical reviews of these projects. uh preliminary is kind of that um big step in between concept um uh looking at more of the details and starting to identify and resolve some of the issues that are addressed or highlighted during concept plan. Uh final is uh kind of a similar review. However, at that time it's more dotting eyes and crossing tees. Um and hence why you typically see those finals on consent agendas is they don't require discussion. for this project in particular, it's at the second step in the process. So, we're at more of the technical review um of the civil drawings and other details that kind of come with the project. Uh just to give a little bit of a background, uh the property owners uh have resided in Chaza for over nine years. Uh they actually own the property immediately east of this site at 4080 Creek Road. uh they purchased this property back in 2024 with the intention to develop it for their family. Um and

then they did start their um land use process uh with the city um before October of 2025, but that first step for cons approval um occurred in October of last year. And the former concept plan is shown as a snippet on this screen. uh the existing conditions of the property. It's roughly 8 acres in size. Um there is an existing field access road that comes off of the northwest side of the roundabout at Creek Road and Savannah Way. Um the west side of the property is kind of the buildable area with that existing farmland there and that's kind of the the focal point of where development um will be occurring on the site. The east side is encumbered by wooded steep slopes um and a creek. Uh so that's not a part of the the buildable area of the site. Um there is a permanent roadway easement on the south side of the site that uh came along with the construction of the roundabout uh a couple years ago. Uh the highest point is basically where the the farmland farmland sits today. Um and it's roughly 34 feet higher than Creek Road. So you see quite a steep um change in topography uh from the roundabout there. Uh when you negate all of uh the wooded steep slope creek permanent easement, you're basically left with 2.4 acres of buildable space there. Uh the current zoning is an open zoning district. So that's basically a holding zone until it gets developed and can be reszoned to a more appropriate zoning district. Uh these are just a few images from the roundabout and uh from on top of the site.

So one part of the request is for preliminary plat approval um which is basically subdividing the land. Um so the pre-plat shows subdivision of the property into three parcels. Um uh two will be buildable lots and then a third parcel will be for an outlot for a future lot. Uh these range in size from 1.6 acres up to three and a half acres. Uh so the larger lot one is on the northern side. Um then we have um lot two which is in the center of the site at 1.8 acres and then that outl lot for that third future lot of 1.6 acres in size. The setbacks proposed are consistent with the R1B zoning district that they are requesting to be reszoned to. In addition to that, there are wooded steep slope uh setbacks both for grading and for buildings um that they plan to adhere to um as well as a centerline setback from Creek Road 100 ft. Uh the property or the lots will be accessed off of that existing access that's on the northwest side of the roundabout. Um the driveway will be realigned from what it is today, kind of skirt inward a bit, um and uh have the construction of a retaining wall to kind of meet grades out there um which will provide access to the two um buildable lots. Uh we do allow for shared driveways to exist for up to two lots. So that is why the third lot is going to be platted as an outlot. So until either a future street goes through or um a private road um is available or is constructed then

that third lot can be developed and platted. Um the preliminary plan also uh included a tree inventory and preservation plan. Uh a total of 21 trees on the site do need to be removed um to accommodate uh the grading as well as the new driveway into the site. Um of the species included in that, there's none that we would consider significant in terms of quality or size um that are being removed. Uh they do intend to add nine new trees uh to the property on the west side to kind of make up for some of those losses. from a comprehensive plan perspective. So how this area is guided uh uh for long-term uh the site is guided for lowdensity residential as well as open space uh in green there. Uh so the proposed use and kind of the layout out there is consistent with that guidance. Um the comprehensive plan also guided this area for a future local road to kind of come off of that roundabout. Um we did go through um more of an analysis during the concept plan to kind of uh look at how this proposed plan kind of fits into that long range plan. So they were able to demonstrate that uh the layout of the lots shouldn't preclude uh the construction of a future road um if it's needed. uh when surrounding development occurs. Um but the need the location um would really be determined once more development occurs uh north of um Creek Road and in other surrounding areas. Um just in conclusion again um we went

through more of an analysis back in the concept plan phase of this project um about the density and the future local road and how that fit into this plan. Um and we did come to a conclusion um and then based on ghost plans that were provided that they did demonstrate uh meeting um the intent of what the comp plan has guided out here for density and for the future road. Uh the other part of uh the request is a reszoning um request. So again, the zoning district that exists today is our open zoning district or holding zone. Uh the resoning is um to R1B, which is a standard lowdensity residential zoning district. Um the table on this page, which is also included in your report, um shows how the proposal meets the standards that are laid out within the R1B district and all of uh the standards are met. uh utilities do need to get extended into the property um to serve the uh two new lots and ultimately third one. Um so those will be the utilities will be extended from the roundabout where they're stubbed at today and extend north um to provide service to both lot one and lot two up there. Uh these will be private utilities extending across the lots. Um so because of that and um they're sharing um um extensions here a maintenance agreement will be needed between the uh property owners. So in conclusion we are asking you to make two motions this evening. One is to um recommend approval of the preliminary

plat for Firefly acres and then based on the conditions listed in the staff report and then a second motion to recommend approval of the reszoning from the open zoning district to R1B and then based on that draft ordinance that's also included in your packet. Um this step does require a public hearing. Um so you'll have to conduct that. Um, and if this moves on this evening, uh, city council date that this would go to is Monday, February 23. Happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, we do have, uh, the applicants in the audience as well if you have questions for them. Thank you.

Thank you, Liz. Um, any questions from the commission to the city or staff? Um, north. So, just south of Angler there, there's a farmland right there. What's is that within that? I mean, is that set for residential currently or is that got future plans? Uh, so I believe you're talking about the Extramm property north of this property. Um, and that's a different property owner. So, at this time there's no plans um that we've heard of that uh they're planning on developing. So, okay.

At this point, it's staying as is. And then 212 currently goes over um whatever the 110 Creek Boulevard there, right? Any future plans in terms of an on-ramp off-ramp that would interfere with this? I think you answered that, but I just want to confirm. Not at Creek Road. There wouldn't be any on or off ramps at Creek Road. Um there is um intentions for a full interchange to occur at Big Woods Boulevard, which is south of this site. Um and then angr is a full Yeah. as well.

Commissioner Ryberg, just to add to Liz's response, um the extrom property, it is guided for single family development at the time that development would occur there. Um so you could expect to see um well, low density residential is what it's guided for. So, you know, something like what exists around it to occur there. Um but right now, you know, there's no plans in the process to proceed with that with anything there. And that really ends up being at the discretion of the property owner, you know, to pursue if they want to do some sort of development there at what time. But it'd probably come the roads would come off Angler, not off Creek then, right? This would kind of close that option off, I guess, in terms of

No. So the the comprehensive plan does call for the potential for um Savannah Way effectively to continue northward and connect to Ingler. Um it it calls for that possibility. Now whether that's going to be necessary or not, um I think we would evaluate that at the time that the Extrams are, you know, potentially pursuing something. Um and that's where part of the analysis for this proposal has considered, you know, what that could look like and what, you know, what the grading would need to have be and all of that. Um, we've worked really closely with the applicant on that question because I think, you know, to the nature of your question, we want to make sure that if we're approving new homes there and there's a potential for a new road, um, that we're not setting it up that those homes would be in the way. Um, so at this point working with the applicant, um, city staff, city engineer, um, looking at all of that, I think we're feeling comfortable, um, to the extent that we, you know, that we can foresee that, right? Um, that we're placing these homes in a location where they're set for the long term.

Sounds good. Thank you. Um, at this time, 7:26 will open up for a public hearing. Would anybody like to address the staff or commission regarding this project? Anybody online? You'll need to state the time that the public hearing was open. 7:26. I did. Oh, I'm sorry. I missed that. That's all right. I'm not seeing anyone online raising their hand. Okay. Thank you. We'll close the public hearing at 7:26. Also

I'd like to look for a motion on the two items we need to make. Just a quick question on that staff like these kind of scenarios like first we are doing two two different motions to approve it right. So is it like always the first one to rejoin motion should be going first and then the second one is doesn't matter like because all these conditions are whatever we are talking about in the actual plan is based out of the jone is related to the residential right not the open district. So do we need to adjust the motions to first make the motions to rezone it first and then the do this one or it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because as long as we are doing it the same time. Okay. Y

okay that's a technical question. Would you like to make a motion? Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh, I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the city council approval of the preliminary plat for Firefly occurs subject to the following nine conditions. Second motion approve. Motion made by Commissioner Bosa, seconded by um, Commissioner Rosard. I'm sorry by um, Sailor. Sailor Scott's favor. Sorry. All in favor? I I opposed. Motion carries.

As as Liz mentioned, this will go to the city council on February 23rd. Um, we need the motion. Oh, for the resoning. For the resoning. Okay. Can I get a sec? Um, first on the resoning motion. I'll make the motion to reszone the property from open to zoning district R1B. Second. Motion made by Commissioner Assange. Second made by Commissioner Roster. Motion carries. All in favor? I opposed. Motion carries.

Next item. Moving on to 7C concept plan for the N PC number 2026-03. And I believe Ashley is back on the board for this one.

Thank you, chair. The next item on tonight's agenda uh is a concept plan for the inn. Uh it's located on two properties off of Yellow Brick Road. Uh the site is really kind of halfway between uh Cross Town Boulevard and Chaza Boulevard on Yellow Brick Road. Um tonight you've gotten to see kind of the steps in reverse order. Uh and as Liz mentioned earlier, uh in the first step in concept plan review, uh the plans that you see are generally pretty general. They're high level. Uh and our review on a staff side is really intended to identify items or things that we would like to see resolved or questions uh that the commission or the council have to be answered as the project continues through um those final stages. So, for the new commissioners, um the plans that you'll see as part of this plan are going to be not as detailed uh as some of the plans that you've seen uh for the previous two requests. Uh the site, um I'll walk through some of the background and some of the previous approvals. Uh the site was part of a much larger 57 redevelopment a uh redevelopment area of the former brickyard. Uh in 2009 um the Brickyard's Villa concept plan uh was adopted. That was really the first formal adoption of a concept plan uh for that area. It included 46 detached dwelling units uh including four lots on the east side of Yellow Brick Road, which is in the area that we're speaking about this evening. Um and then it also included uh three apartment buildings with 180 uh total units. Uh in 2014,

uh the site was then part of kind of the final phasing of that concept plan in Klein Brickyard 13th edition. uh it included the final 20 lots uh six of which were on the east side of Yellow Brick Road. So that's really what created uh the sites that we're talking about this evening. Uh the con that preliminary and final approval uh for those project did show that these six lots uh would develop with one-story detached dwelling units uh with shared driveways and utility connections. So, we'll see some more of those details as uh we move through my presentation this evening. Uh the site came back uh in 2019 uh to for a zoning ordinance amendment and that was really to align uh what the rear yard setbacks were in the ordinance language uh to reflect what was approved as part of the uh preliminary and final plan. So, there was a discrepancy in what those rear yard setbacks were. So this was to create alignment in those. Um and as part of that uh there were a row of evergreens uh that were required to be planted in the rear of those properties kind of those southern three properties if you will. And that was to provide some additional screening and separation uh to the creekrun town homes uh that had developed uh kind of to the southeast of this project. Uh so looking at the site itself um it's just over a third acre in size. Uh grading and the tree clearing for the site began in 2014. And so that grading created the high point in the northwest corner of the site as it slopes down uh towards kind of the roadway in uh those directions. It also created the building

pads really for those six lots. Uh as well as created a more significant topography, but it's not a steep slope uh swale that uh you'll see if you go out to the site in the rear of the property. Uh the sidewalk connections uh both on the north and the west side uh were also constructed uh around that time and that really connects this site uh and uh the properties to the south uh to this much broader uh pedestrian network within the area. Uh there is one existing tree that's kind of in the south very southeast corner of the property. Uh, and then there were originally five boulevard trees uh along Yellow Brick Circle. Uh, if you're out there today, you'll only see three of them uh as two of them were removed after they uh declined in health. Uh so the concept plan at a high level uh before we kind of start walking through the details of the plan um the site the two properties uh would be graded in order to accommodate that new building uh and to create uh space for that parking lot as well as the internal uh sidewalk connections uh between those amenities. Uh the building would be two stories in height uh and would be just over 3,800 square feet in total size uh with a footprint of just over 1,900 square ft. Uh the building uh would contain uh four two-bedroom uh rental units. Uh each of them the floor plans are generally the same. Uh so they contain two bedrooms, kitchen, bath, some living area. Uh the upper levels uh the two upper units would have balconies as well as a small outdoor storage area. Uh and then the lower levels also would have storage but they would have a patio.

Uh so looking through uh some of the review uh that and the issues that staff have identified to again kind of be resolved this project is moving forward. Uh under the 2040 comp plan uh the property is guided for lowdensity residential. Uh so this land use guidance is typically used for uh detached single dwelling units. Um but there are uh mid-rise apartment buildings or multiple dwelling units uh that can happen uh within that low density so long as that uh density range stays within two to five uh units per net acre. Uh so as we're initially looking at this project, initial calculations are suggesting that we're kind of teetering on that upper end if not exceeding it. Uh and so we'll be continuing to take a look at that uh as the project is moving forward. Uh so the the property in this site uh is zoned planned residential district 57. So PRD 57. Uh this district essentially establishes the standards uh for the three areas that exist within that district. Uh so open space uh the multi-dwelling units uh as well as the low density areas uh within kind of that uh larger area. Uh the low density areas are shown uh in the brighter yellow here on the screen. uh within that district, those permitted uses within that low density area, which again the site is uh included within are detached single dwelling units. Um special use permits, so like a conditional use permit would be required uh to bump that up to a detached two dwelling unit. Uh so this proposal uh is showing a a fourunit building on one would be one contiguous parcel. And so there's some misalignment

there. And so a zoning ordinance amendment uh would need would be required essentially to to up that um to allow for the four units. And typically uh for the benefit of the new commissioners um like you saw before this typically that resoning or that zoning ordinance amendment would happen in that second phase. So concurrent with uh preliminary review. So, taking a look at the building, um the the PRD57 does again establish the the standards that we're looking at when we're reviewing the buildings within it. Um this particular building at 20 ft uh aligns with that maximum building height is allowed. So, we're meeting that requirement. It's also meeting uh the setback requirements. So, that distance between the building and the property line. So, we're meeting or exceeding what those requirements would be. So, we're checking that box as well. Um, the ordinance uh does require that the low density properties do also meet the city's anti- monotony and building design standards. And so, that would be applied um unless again a zoning ordinance amendment would change that. And so for this particular property, what that means is that uh one, we're going to need some just additional information about the types of materials uh that they're proposing and the amounts of those materials. We know that their proposal is currently showing that they the facade would be brick and hardy board. Uh we just need to have a better understanding of how much of each of those materials um would be included. Um and again uh the anti- monotony also has uh what's called 360 degree architecture when uh a property is either a corner lot or the view of the rear of the building is viewable from a ride ofway which this building would would meet

those criterias. And so there's some additional architectural components that would be required. Um so in one instance they could add some building articulations uh to the elevations to help meet that standard. So that's another thing that we'll continue to look for as we move forward. Uh so moving away from the building review and more into kind of what's around it. Uh so the site uh the proposal uh is showing that those two lots would be combined into one. Uh and again as as if you remember from my initial uh or my earlier presentation, there's usually drainage and utility easements around those perimeter uh lot lines. And so with that uh lot being combined, uh there would be an easement vacation request that would likely come before you essentially to vacate uh that easement that would exist along that shared property line uh that would no longer exist. So that area is there shown in red. Uh looking at parking uh the parking plan uh we would want to understand as this project moves forward uh the number of parking stalls uh eight would be required under ordinance and so uh that's what we would look for unless um a proof of parking plan is established or um there is you know studies done to support a reduction uh into something less than that. Uh the parking lot as it stands right now um would not meet the front yard parking lot setback. Uh they're showing 10 feet. Uh the required amount is 25 ft. Again, uh that's really because it's established as that uh low density property. if it's absorbed into or the zoning ordinance amendment would shift that classification to meet with the multi- uh unit dwellings, uh then that setback uh would become significantly reduced. And you see that if you're driving along Yellow Brick Road, the

apartment uh parking lots are much closer to the road than 25 ft. So, um the sideyard setbacks in that instance would would increase, but again, the takeaway is is that we're going to continue to look at uh what those setbacks are as we move forward. uh under our landscaping and screening ordinance uh the parking lot uh would need to be screened uh predominantly from Yellow Brick Road uh as well as uh to those residential properties to the east and the south. So we would continue to look for that as well. Uh the grading plan uh currently shows that there would be grading that extends onto the adjacent residential property in order to support um the parking lot. And so we would ask that the developer and the applicant take a look at are there ways and opportunities to reduce the amount of impact those adjacent properties uh as the project moves forward. Um another uh point that we'll continue to evaluate is the original approved plans uh for this project show a shared driveway. Uh ultimately this driveway would we're showing one driveway for two lots. So in the grand scheme of things, we're meeting that requirement. Um but we'll have to further evaluate with um you know, is this alignment kind of shifting over to the east? Is that still going to work uh from a distance spacing to those driveways on uh the properties to the east? Uh but then also uh utility connections into Yellow Brick Road. And so staff kind of since this original approval has continued to evaluate ways uh to reduce impacts to the Yellow Brick Road roadway. Uh and so we would work with the applicant to figure out, you know, is this utility alignment the best solution? Is this driveway location the best? Or is there an opportunity to further combine those connections with

those remaining lots to the east uh to further u minimize that impact onto the roadway? And then again uh just touching on landscaping um some additional information just about the types and species of uh being proposed are needed. Uh and then we would look for uh those evergreen trees that were part of that original approval uh being shown on the landscaping plan. So we would uh again just continue to look for those changes as the project moves forward. So, just a quick recap uh of those items um that the applicant will work on uh before this comes back before you um is holding another neighborhood meeting and providing us a summary of that. Uh ensuring that our density falls within that allowable range of 2 to five units per net acre. Um and then again, you know, whether it be through a zoning ordinance amendment or plan changes to address uh that detached single dwelling unit threshold uh and some of those setbacks and screening requirements as well. And then finally, uh the vacation to remove that center uh DNU easement uh as well as just further collaboration on the driveway and utility access points. Uh so with that, uh chair, I'll turn it back to you for any questions. Uh and tonight, we're looking for a motion to recommend approval of that concept plan subject to those conditions in your report this evening. Uh and then this concept plan would go to uh the city council on the 23rd of February.

Thank you, Ashley. Um this is not a public hearing, but we will open it up for any questions or comments after we bring it back to the commission to discuss with city and staff. Anybody would like to ask any questions? Is there parking now along um Yellow Brick Road? Commissioner, I don't believe that there is parking on Yellow Brick Road. I'll just I'll just supplement there. There are I know there are areas where there is parking on Yellow Brick Road, but I don't know if there is on this curbside. We have a couple people who live in fact one right across the street um

in the audience this evening may be able to confirm um are correct. Um would you like to step up to the podium sir and just tell us your name please?

I live at 1110 Yellow Road right across the street. Yellow Brook Road itself is from curb to curb is 32 feet. Uh for uh in front of the apartments to the south um there is a designated parking lane um and that's in front of uh Sunlake Apartments. Um, as it gets up towards and like in front of Creek Creek's Run in front of my house, it there aren't stripes there. People park in front of my house all the time. I park there all the time. I think and but I think about it, it's because it's undeveloped. I think when it gets developed, it actually I'm sure it's one of the things that we'll talk with the staff about um as we talk through the end. What should happen along Yellowback road from a parking

as far as dedicated spaces? It's clearly wide enough to have parking, but only on one side. And where should that be and should it be and whatever? I can tell you the inn won't require on street parking. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question as well and it might be for you. Are you the one resident who attended the neighborhood meeting? No. No. Although I do live there. Um. No. All right. Thank you. I'm just curious to know the sentiment of others in the neighborhood around this project.

We had one neighbor attend. Um, he came because he was very supportive of the project and then he wanted to know how we could become a member of our foundation. Um, and so we've been talking with him about that. But yeah, he he I don't want to say he didn't care about the end, but that wasn't the reason he was there. Okay. Thank you.

I'll just add from my perspective, I think it seems like a great project if you know the utilities and the roadway and the parking is able to be worked out. I think you know thinking about a zoning amendment that allows for this to be the way that you know city and development think it would be most beneficial. I think a zoning amendment could make sense. I know that's at the next phase, but just from my perspective saying this, I think that would make sense.

I'm also supportive of having multi-unit dwellings where we can. I do think that parking may be um something to underline, especially when we see those more shallow setbacks from the street. you get a lot more people parking in other places. Um, and another thing I appreciated is the thought around walkability in this area. I think having, you know, walking access to other spaces is a huge benefit. I can't remember. Are there sidewalks on both sides of Yellow Brick?

That was going to be my question. I see there's a sidewalk on that side. Does this plan retain that? It's just a sidewalk. It's on the east side of the road. Yes. And it's uh and there's a sidewalk that goes through uh Creek's Run and that connects into the trail that's along the creek that's in there. So, but yeah, it's just on one. It's very heavily used sidewalk as it connects up to the park. Okay. And the plan retains that sidewalk. Okay. Anyone else in the audience like to address the issue?

Could I just absolutely comments? Yeah. So, I'm Dave Piccardi. I'm with the Community Acid Foundation. Um, and I just want to tell you a little about the project. Our

um Community Asset Foundation's a a local nonprofit group. Uh, it's all Chaza people. And actually for our first eight years of existence, we did projects outside of Jesus. Uh we've actually developed a fair number of senior small senior assisted living in really small towns. But a couple years ago, we took on the project of West Creek, which is a 18 19 unit uh apartment on on uh Hickory for young adults who are coming out of homelessness. Um and um we're very proud of that project. It turned out very nice. We think it's really a nice addition. Uh what we're our board is most excited about is um we did we took it on as a project that was brand new and we didn't make any compromises in the quality of the building even though it's for people quite frankly that are normally used to living and probably they're not the nicest. uh apartments in town. But from that uh one of the questions that came up uh we were approached by people from New Beginnings uh who serve young mothers um um who are struggling with housing. Um and they wanted to know if that was a place for them. And we said no, it's actually not. It's set up only for single adults, uh 18 to 28 men and women. So they said, "Well, we have a real need for uh additional housing." They have the project on uh Walnut Street today. Um and so that's what really began the journey on this project. Um we spent fair amount of time working with city staff and we identified as this is one of the possible sites. Um I

um well we've guess we always known we needed to amend the uh plan residential district. Uh and so assuming you support a reasonzoning in that the other conditions um I I'm I'm sure we'll work out with the staff. um um you know landscaping uh we can fit the number of trees that's um the parking um uh by ordinance it requires eight um I think we're showing seven today be six or seven spaces is what we see kind of the need for uh if it had to be eight we would do that but for sure we would agree to uh six with a place where we could add to if it was needed in in the future. Um, but this type of the tenants that we see there, um, it'd be unlikely that there would be four tenants that each have a car. Now, could it happen? Sure. Um uh but again I assuming you support that I'm very confident we will come back and address all of the concerns. Um um it will be a building that will look very nice and fit in uh with the neighborhood. We don't want it to look exactly like Creek Front. We want to see it as being something different but some colors u but we want to make it a high quality uh uh building. Uh we are uh well into fundraising. Uh we think we'll hit our goal so that we can uh break ground as early as we can get through city approvals. Um so it's like spring. Um and we would hope to open uh by the end

of the year. Um, you know, if we could open at Christmas, that would kind of be our goal. Um, again, open to any questions. Uh, the way the financing is set up, it will be a long-term affordable uh, facility. Um, and um, long-term for at least 30 years. And I because I would expect it's much longer than that. Um, and it might well end up being owned uh in some type of public ownership. Uh, part of our discussions we're having with the county CDA is we we will be placing the the building within the the housing land trust. Um, and we may even go further with having them have an ownership position which is still being discussed. So if I understand right, this is not a regular commercial type renting building. It's more or less

all of the tenants would be um part of the new beginnings program. So the um they'd be young mothers um um that have I don't want to say they're homeless, but they've been struggling with permanent housing. Um, and as part of that, they they they'll be required to be involved in a case management support program, whether they're going to school or helping get a job or just helping uh maintain life when um if you have a if you're 18 and you have a two-year-old, to me, that's enough work. Um, it's why I went to work so I didn't have to be home with the two-year-olds. Um but yeah, all of them will be in that type of program. Okay.

Um and all of them will receive some type of rent subsidies. Any other questions? So uh the jooning right? So adjacent properties do we have some similar kind of like a jooning um I mean concessions or like some kind of amendments or anything requested in that street? I mean I see some of the apartment buildings are there in that street. Right. So you you were talking about the apartment buildings where the parking lots are much closer to the road. That means there might be some amendments were given before that.

Yeah. So um Dave and I were speaking earlier today about you know possibilities for what that zoning ordinance amendment would look like. Um, and so the PRD57 does have standards, separate standards for the kind of the three different areas. And so today the site is is viewed under that uh low density, so that detached um single

area. Yep. Uh and so when we were looking at more of that multi-dwelling unit category, uh there are standards that are different. So they're lesser for those uh parking lots. And so it essentially reduces it from 25 feet from that north property line down to 10. Um the sideyard setbacks increased slightly from like 5 to 10 feet as well. Um but there would be some just minor adjustments uh to meet that requirement. Okay. So there,

for example, Creek Run, literally across the street from my house, um they have uh parking that is eight parking spaces that are parallel parking that are are 10 ft off of property line. And then all of the ones is the um uh Sun Lake departments, they all have off streetet parking that butts up. Um, but I agree that needs once you're at 10 ft, you there's a landscape issue you need to deal with and other things. Um, we could move it back. Actually, I think it would look kind of funny, but we could. Um, one of the reasons we would prefer not to is one of the comments that the staff had is about grading. uh the further we move anything to the east, the grades fall off and now we start having grading issues where we are impacting uh the property to the to the north. Um we've been in uh discussions with the people that own the north. Um and uh the grading plan that we're working on now actually will fit their grading plan when they actually develop those lots. So it There's some great issues there now that we're going to improve for them. And so again, I I'm sure that we can solve. Um but moving the parking too far to the east will cause some great problems with that swale to the rear.

Yeah. The only reason like there are some more vacant lots or something on the east side of it, right? Just making sure like if we are giving any amendments or anything to joining we end up giving the same thing for the entire street. I mean we don't want it to be in that kind of scenario. I definitely it looks like a great project. Just wanted to make sure because if there is no space obviously that is a different concept but I definitely see there is lot of space on the street right so just wanted to make sure consider I think so many things need to be consider looked into I can understand that maybe hopefully everything works out in the next phase

you ready for the motion no I just wanted to ask if uh Liz or um Ashley is there anybody online that would like to address this issue I'm not seeing anyone raising their hand or jumping in. So, okay. Thank you. Uh, I'll look for a motion on this on um concept plan for the in PC number 2026-3. I'll make the motion to recommend approval to the the concept plan for the inn at 1201 and 1207 Yellow Brick Road to the city council with the following 10 conditions. Seconded. Motion made by Commissioner Assan, second by Mr. Rice. Ryberg, I'm sorry. All those in favor?

I opposed. Motion carries. Next item. Um, final action item on tonight's agenda is a recommendation to approve the Big Woods business concept. Big Wood big woods business park concept uh planned by Scanal Properties PC number 2025-34 and I believe Liz is presenting this one.

Just a precursor, this one is a pretty large project. Um so there are going to be a lot of details that we're going to have to get through this evening. a lot of this stuff just for time purposes sake, I am going to kind of simplify through. Um, but if there are any questions as we're kind of running through this, I do welcome those um, as we're going through kind of each of the themes there. Um, but just want to point out there's, you know, the thorough analysis in the report and so if people need uh, further details on some of these topics, that's where they can find it. Um this is a concept plan application for the Big Woods business park uh being proposed by Scanel Properties. Uh the site in question is located towards our southwest border uh of the city. Um it borders with the city of Carver and uh another jurisdiction of Delgrren Township. Uh the site in question is outlined in red on this aerial exhibit. It encompasses roughly 338 acres of land. So again, hence why there's many details to get through on a piece of property of this size. Um, a couple adjoining uses or thoroughares to note. Uh, we have Chaza Boulevard or County Road 61 on the southern side of this project site. Uh, we have Highway 212 flanking the east side. Um the north side is um towards kind of that uh wooded ravine and what's known as West Chesca Creek. Um and then we have the west sides being both the city of Carver, Delg Dogren Township and Jonathan Carver Parkway or County Road 11. Um there is a major roadway that kind of uh bifurcates the site um in the middle here and that's Big Woods

Boulevard or County Road 44. And I do want to note there is one property that is cut out of this concept plan that is 4645 or 4655 Big Woods Boulevard. So just want to note that too. Uh so we're at the first step. So this is the uh general overview and introduction and starting to identify uh issues for them to resolve in the next steps. Oops. Um to give you a little bit of a background um since uh um this is a concept plan, there is a neighborhood meeting that is required prior to submittal of a concept plan. So they did conduct that meeting back in November of last year. Um they had nine people attend. Um there's a full uh synopsis of that meeting and who attended um in the full uh concept plan package. Um but uh to summarize there were a number of questions that pertain to some of the uses of the site um utilities uh the green belt uh end users and who's been identified for that construction timeline kind of those typical questions that you get with uh projects. Um because of the scale of this site, it does require an envir environmental review as a part of it. Uh because of the sheer size of it and how much square footage is proposed from an industrial level. Um so the applicant um and their as well as the city has been working through that review process. Um and there's a couple ways of doing that. You can go through an EAW, which is an environmental assessment worksheet. Um, or you can do an alternative, which is an AUR, or also known as an alternative urban areawide review. Um, this option allows you to look at a couple different scenarios

versus one specific project uh layout. Um and it uh the purposes of these reviews are to identify any envir environmental concerns and ways of mitigating them um as they kind of work through um that review process. Uh so that did get kicked off uh um during the fall time of last year. Um so in September of 2025 is when we uh had the draft AU order and scoping document published. Um that's kind of the first step in the commentary and review period or process um for an AUR. Um and then in November uh the council approved that order and scoping and then a week later it was uh the final of that was published for additional commentary. And then in January is when the draft AUR document was published. um we just wrapped up the comment period for that. So the next steps um that would come uh for that AUA would be the city council adopting the final version of that and that final version um getting published. Um the two scenarios that were looked at as a part of this AUR are on this screen and kind of described in more detail in the staff report. Um but it looked at two different intensity levels uh for this site. Um the first scenario was a less intense um scenario. Um looking at 1.8 million square feet of business park building area as well as 200,000 square ft of commercial square footage. Um and then also the uh breakdown for rural residential green belt and open state open space um acreage as well within

that. And then the second scenario was again a more intense like maximizing the site um looking at 2.7 million square feet 300,000 square feet of commercial space. Um and those same metrics for rural residential and open space for the remainder. Um and again these are important because uh again it this was kind of that uh first review process to start to look at um kind of the impacts of a project of this side size. Uh the site in question um again is uh an area that expands over 16 parcels in the southwest CHA area and 338 acres total. Uh, of the 16 parcels, it is owned by um, six different property owners. Uh, so we have the Razer family that owns six of the parcels on the northern side north of Big Woods Boulevard. Um, and two of those parcels are in the Dogrren Township um, jurisdiction, which are kind of in that lighter gray tone on this exhibit. Uh the Close family owns four parcels on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard. Um and then we have the Dice family who owns two parcels also on the south side. Uh we have one parcel owned by the Morian family uh immediately north of Big Woods Boulevard. Uh and then we have Traditions um who owns two parcels that are immediately west of Highway 212. And then the city of Chasa, US um owns one parcel just immediately south of Traditions properties on that northwest corner of Highway 212 in Big Woods Bo Boulevard boulevard.

So Scanel Properties, who's the applicant in this concept plan, um plans to develop roughly 304 acres of that 338 acres total. Um so they're basically developing the properties that are owned by the Razer family, the Close family, Dice family, and Morian family. Uh and they don't uh at this point in time don't have intent of developing the traditions or city of Chaza uh properties. The reason why all of these are kind of in one project um or concept plan is just because of the proximity of them. They all relate to each other in terms of how you gain access out there. So that's why everyone's kind of grouped into this concept plan. Uh the main use of these properties today are agricultural use um as well as sprinkling of farmsteads and um outuildings uh within those properties. Uh there are a few areas of forestation um which the exhibit kind of on the bottom right portion of the screen in the hatched areas is kind of where those main forestation areas. Otherwise, the majority of the areas are kind of that open farmland um residential uses. um wetland delineations have occurred on on a majority of the properties. Um and 27 total uh were identified. And then we also have West Chesa Creek that flanks that northern side um of the project area. And lastly, um, uh, what are notable are two community or two key community entrances that are identified in our comprehensive plan and our Southwest

Chaza plan. So, those are both on the um intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Jonathan Carver Parkway and then at the crossing of Highway 212 and Chesca Boulevard to the south there. And this will come into play a few times um as we work through uh the review here. Uh so the request this evening is for uh concept plan approval uh which really breaks down to uh 14 industrial or business park buildings, four commercial buildings, uh a water tower and an electric substation. Um just for ease of kind of working through this large area, we have identified or broken up the the property or project area into two uh different um areas. So we will be referring to the area north of Big Woods Boulevard as business uh Big Woods Business Park North and then the area south of Big Woods Boulevard as Big Woods uh uh business park south. Um the breakdown of kind of the uses are a little bit more specified in these exhibits here. Um but to kind of indicate the difference between the north and the south side. Uh the north side is roughly 184 acres in size. uh the industrial or business park usage amounts to 715,000 square footage of building space and then uh the commercial portion is oriented only on the Big Woods Business Park north side uh roughly 55,000 square feet of commercial building area and

then also on the north side is uh where the uh future water tower and substation would also So those are highlighted in blue and yellow on the top exhibit there. And then also a portion of what the city considers green belt um is also on that north side about um uh 30 acres of preserved um and then nine acres um that would be impacted by the improvements that are shown on the north side. Uh the south side is defined by 154 acres of area and then uh would take up most of that business park industrial usage with 1.2 uh million square feet of building area. Um as well as a large uh chunk of what we consider green belt. Um so 57 acres are shown to be preserved and then 13 and a half acres shown to be impacted by the proposed improvements on that side. Uh so that in total again the um uh business park square footage amounts to 1.9 million square feet um and then 55,000 square feet of commercial. Uh the total green belt area across the two areas is uh roughly 87 acres and then an impact area to the green belt roughly 22 and a2 acres. Uh in terms of zoning and the comprehensive plan, uh the properties are uh a majority of our zoned rural residential or RR2 zoning district which is also our green belt zoning district um or what's referred to as the green

belt zoning district. Um and then there are a few properties um the ones owned by traditions in the city are zoned open. into that holding zoning district until they develop. And then the two parcels that are in Delgrren Township are unzoned um as we currently um need to annex those parcels into the city. Um in terms of how the comprehensive plan guides this area, um the majority of the project area is guided for business park. Uh so really what falls under that is office light industrial employment centers and um gets to high quality site design and um does allow for supporting retail as well. So that's why we see a component of commercial proposed um in this area. It does give a max um allowance for supporting retail and business park to 10% of the overall business park area. In terms of how this proposal um meets that or stays within that um they're showing 3% um of the total business park area for that commercial or supporting retail um allowance. Uh the open space area um is kind of the green areas um shown on the comprehensive plan. Uh this is basically for protection of environmental or natural resources that are identified in the area. Also allows for historic preservation, recreation and public and semi-public uses. And then rural residential, uh, which is the brown color on the 2040 comp plan, um, also known as our green belt, um,

guidance, um, really relates to larger lots, uh, for rural single family detached homes and allows a density maximum of four homes per 40 acres. Um, and I'll speak to the green belt um, in a later slide here. Um and then it also defines those two parcels kind of on the northwest edge of the project area as um the Dolin Township growth area. Um so we have anticipated that those parcels would um be annexed into the city's jurisdiction um through an orderly annexation agreement um uh being that county road 11 is kind of that natural western boundary uh for the city. Uh so before this concept plan uh the city had been working with um Delgrren Township to put together an orderly annexation agreement on those two parcels and that was adopted back in September of 2025. So we do have kind of an outline to move forward on those parcels um and for this council plan and subsequent uh steps to occur. Uh so that agreement basically lays out the framework for the city of Chaza to have zoning and subdivision authority over those two parcels um before they're formally annexed into the city. Um but uh that annexation would probably come um uh congruent with the preliminary step of this project or kind of the first phase um going um into the next steps. Um and with those parcels being annexed, um we do have to amend our comprehensive plan to establish land use uh guidance

over those parcels since that's not uh achieved at this time. Um getting into the Chesca green belt. Uh so when we talk about the green belt um we are referring to an ideology um that's laid out in our comprehensive plan um and uh is defined as a permanent green belt to be established around the edges of the city to the extent possible to physically and visually separate Chesca from adjacent communities. Um in addition to that uh there's a need to protect the rural character um at key community entrances. So kind of those major crossing points into the city um that are identified. Um and really the point of establishing the green belt or the um the intent of the green belt is to create that visual um separation from adjacent communities like Dolgrren Township and City of Carper. So the objectives that are laid out within the green belt um section of our comp plan um are meant to create that objective. Uh so in terms of how much green belt is out here in this project area, we are at 85 85.8 acres of green belt in the project area. Uh 29.95 acres on the north side and 55.85 acres on the south side. Um the applicant proposes to impact uh these green belt areas uh with their concept plan. Uh on the north side they're showing roughly nine acres of impact or 29% of that area

would be impacted uh by the plans. The south area um is showing roughly 13 and a half acres of impact or 24% of that green belt area. So in total um uh there's about 22 acres of impacts for the total project or what amounts to 26% of the green belt area with the proposal. Um impacts to the green belt um are allowed uh per our comprehensive plan um as long as they uh go through a comprehensive plan amendment and meet the objectives of what we consider cluster development. Um getting into those objectives uh listed in our comprehensive plan, there's 10 stated objectives to be able to go the route of cluster development. Um I'm not going to completely run through each of these. Um they're all spelled out in the staff report. Um but a few of them to point out is the area that is proposing um cluster development or impacts to the green belt has to be connected to city utilities uh which they plan to do with this project. Um view sheds at Q key community entrances are identified, prioritized and protected. Um so we'll we'll get into a little bit more of that in the landscaping portion review. uh development activity is limited to approximately onethird of the site or onethird of the green belt area and then the remaining 2/3 has to be preserved, protected um and undeveloped. So those numbers that I went through um on the earlier slide um shows that they're staying within that one-third um development area.

Um we do want to point out that specifically on the north side green belt area they are showing storm water ponds um in the areas that are considered preserved um which uh we've said could be a possibility um or acceptable um in that area as long as uh they're still preserving the natural rural character and they're enhancing the viewshed um with those storm water ponds. Um what would be considered unacceptable is if um they're proposing dry ponds and storm water equipment in those areas. So something that would kind of negate from that natural feel and view uh from the storm water ponds. Um they did include an example image um in their package uh which is also included on the bottom right of this slide here of an example that they've done on a golf course. Um I think the devil is in the details. So, as we get into the preliminary steps, we'll want to see more details around um what they're able to achieve with those storm water ponds to meet the intent of enhancing that natural rural viewshed um that the green belt is meant to establish. Uh the Southwest Chaza plan, um this is another guiding document that was approved back in 2013. Um it covers 2.8 8 square miles of land. Um, and really this document guides land use decisions in this area, uh, planning for public infrastructure and also establishes design guidelines for developments in this area. Um so a lot of our conditions and analysis are really taken from this document um and

from some of the design guidelines uh that are listed within that um and how the concept plan either needs to work on that um or how it compares to those guidelines. Uh the southwest CHASA plan guides this area for business park and rural residential open space. So pretty pretty much similar to what our 2040 comprehensive plan guides this area. Uh just in general, the the concept plan that's proposed generally meets the um guidance that's outlined in the Southwest Chaza plan. Uh because of the uh scale of this site, it's going to have to be phased and kind of be chunked off in terms of its development. Um the applicant has identified what they're moving forward with from a phase one perspective. um um in terms of their first step and what would be included in phase one which is also highlighted in red on this exhibit here uh would be construction of building one uh which is a distribution warehousing type user. Um, in addition to that, it would include um the construction of what we identify as public road A or kind of that main spine road on the north side of Big Woods Boulevard. Uh, which would also include um intersection improvements at um where public road A intersects with Big Woods Boulevard. So there will be improvements necessary there. Uh which right now it's being identified as a single lane roundabout at that intersection. Uh utilities would also need to be extended to the site as a part of phase

one and those would come from the north uh from Creek Road. Um and I'll show a different exhibit uh showing that later on. Um and then also mass grading uh the Big Woods um business park north area. So the area north of Big Woods Boulevard. Future phases uh which are uh shown as blue and orange uh would come at a later date as end users are identified. Um, and as I noted before, Scanel would really be developing what's in red and blue on this uh phasing exhibit. And then the orange area, which is owned by traditions in the city of Chaza, would happen by others. Um, in terms of access and right ofway, um, and breaking this down from the north and the south sides, um, the north side, uh, would include, uh, a new collector road or what they're proposing to include as a new collector road, also known as public road A, and also highlighted as orange on this exhibit of this slide. Uh the north side would also include a new single lane roundabout at intersection B. Uh so as I mentioned before where public road A intersects with Big Woods Boulevard. Um and then a new um access um yeah a new access uh known as public road B. So that would be just east of that um main intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and public road A. Public road B would essentially be that um main

roadway through that commercial area. Um, and then we have intersection A, which is a right in, right out, private access into building one site, and a new private road on the north side as well, um, known as private road A or purple on this exhibit. In terms of the south side, um, public road A or that main collector road spine, uh, through both of the north and south sides would continue south off of that single lane roundabout and then connect to Jonathan uh, Carver Park Parkway or Carver or County Road 11. Um, that would be full access on both of those intersections. And then a another new public road would extend off of public road A um which is known as public road C or green on this exhibit and then extend down to Chesca Boulevard and also uh proposed to be a full access. Um these exhibits here show the access points on the uh main roads main public roads of um the north and south sides. Uh the north side is um on the left and the uh south side is on the right. Uh this just shows where um some access points across the street of each other do align and then where there's um additional beyond that. Uh so a couple things um to work on for access and right ofway um specifically for the building one site which is that likely going to be that first project that you see come through next um for intersection A which is was that right in right out onto Jonathan Carver Parkway. Uh there's a few comments there

in terms of its location. Um so moving it approximately a quarter of a mile north uh to meet both um Carver County spacing guidelines and their comments as well as the desire um that the city of Carver has um commented commented to us as well. They'll also have to coordinate with um the city of Carver if on any of their alignment um plans on the west side there. And then we've also included a comment to uh further evaluate um how that access is going to be treated. Right now it's being treated as a private access into building one site. Um but understanding um or further evaluating um from uh a usability standpoint uh it being public versus private. Is there a way for it to serve uh the rest of the north side there? Um as well um in terms of public road A which is that again that main collector road spine uh through both the north and south sides um because it's classified as a collector road um there are access spacing requirements at the city level which is 600 ft. Um, so if we look at this previous exhibit here, there are quite a few access points that are not meeting those spacing requirements. Um, so we'll need a an evaluation of that or an understanding of that with the sites that are proposed along public road A. Um and then for any uh development and uh sharing a road with other users on either side, access alignment for those

sites um is uh best practice. And then other comments related to access and rightway. Uh the county does require access separation up to uh or of 160 feet from any county road intersection. Uh so we'll need to understand that with the layout of their plans. Continuing uh to coordinate with Carver County on um county road access spacing and any of the improvements that are proposed along their county roads. And then lastly, uh again for building one site, uh because we understand there to be uh a s significant um uh use of trucks um that will be accessing that site and coming out of that site. We'll need to understand truck turning analyses and traffic volumes from that site. So we can understand that the improvements um that are planned for along the county road as well as um interior of uh the site for public road A and any other roads that um they are designed to be able to accommodate those movements. uh for the other buildings as they work on a preliminary plan. Again, some similar uh comments. Um and then additionally, um understanding uh the spacing from intersection B for that commercial road or public road B. um and trying to get that 600 feet of separation as much as possible from that single lane roundabout intersection. Um

that distance um is preferred um to create the best layout there for traffic and then access alignment again. Um, as we get into traffic, um, the project did go through a TIA or a traffic impact analysis as a part of the AUR. So, some of that information, um, h was a nice precursor into this concept plan. And it's typically not something we would require at a concept plan level, but uh, the luxury of an AUR or an environmental uh, review is um, doing a a traffic analysis as a part of those. So um that was completed with the AU au it's also an appendix um in the uh full concept plan application. Um in conclusion uh that TIA um concluded that the surrounding transportation network can support the development uh with appropriate mitigations uh that are identified in that TIA. Uh just a few highlights uh from that um analysis uh as it relates to public road A um on the north side. Um they do envision 7,000 daily vehicle trips uh with 10% of that value being um truck traffic. Uh full access at intersection B um currently doesn't meet county spacing requirements from access points on a county road. However, the TIA um has recommended full access um to um be accommodated at intersection B to um accommodate the increased traffic

from the project um and maintain acceptable operations along the county road. Um and then also what um another evaluation that was completed was um public road A um was identified in our comprehensive plan as well as the Southwest Chaza plan to punch up north to Creek Road. So basically cross the ravine into Creek Road. Um, and we did kind of look at this a little bit as a part of the municipal services building to the north there. Um, but in a little bit more detail with this TIA. Um, but this development doesn't um, warrant the need for that road to punch all the way up to Creek Road. U, we'll still need um, additional information about that uh, leading into subsequent steps. Um but at this point that's kind of the um general conclusion uh that we're getting to and hence why a culde-sac is proposed at the northern end of that public road. Um and then building one um is kind of unique in itself because of the user that's planned for that site as a distribution center. um they do anticipate uh pretty hefty vehicle trips from that site. Um so 3,000 daily vehicle trips are anticipated from that user. Um so for traffic and specific to building one um and things to work on for preliminary um so uh we will uh require an updated TIA um specific for the building one site uh to include um more analysis on the connection of public road A up to

creek road and how that um looks from traffic impact um and improvements uh needs uh uh for that analysis. Um, a comment uh that mainly came from Carver County was um understanding how intersection B can operate at different scales of access types. Um so they want to see that looked at on kind of a um full range of um access types at intersection B. So anywhere from a right in right out up to a full access um and everything in between there. so they can understand the need uh for what's being proposed there today. Um also incorporating more details surrounding building 1's proposed use. Um also looking at um when Highway 212 does get a full interchange there, how does that um look from a traffic impact analysis? Also looking at intersection A, so that private right in write out access. Um looking at it both from a public and private standpoint and how that um those metrics look for that those types of um accesses and looking at the spacing of public road A and B's intersection. So again, that yellow or commercial uh road punching into public road A or the main collector road. Um understanding that spacing need from the single lane roundabout on Big Woods Boulevard and how much space is needed um away from that. Uh getting into utilities here. Uh so utilities are currently stubbed at Creek Road and Chaza Creek Boulevard to the

north. Um, so that's across the ravine there. So they will have to pull those down south uh to connect into the project area. Um, they will need the participation of traditions um to be able to extend those utilities down because they'll be crossing a portion of their property to do so. Um, a new city water tower um is identified as a part of the concept plan. Um and they are showing that kind of on the northwest side of that culde-sac on public road A. They'll need to coordinate with our water and sewer director to understand timing uh location etc. uh surrounding that proposal. Um a new city substation is also proposed on the northwest or northeast side of the north uh portion of the project. This would be a city-owned substation and something we've anticipated um since the comprehensive plan and Southwest Chesa plan have been adopted. Um currently the project areas within um Minnesota Valley's electric territory. Um however the city who we have our own electric um service territory here we do anticipate absorbing this Minnesota valley territory in the next 15 years. So because of that um there will need to be continued coordination not just with MVC but with the city of Chaska too in terms of how we're planning for those utilities. Um just a few things uh to work on for preliminary related to utilities. Um evaluating where the utilities need to come through. So what is that path uh that needs to be taken to connect into

the site? Um we understand that there may be a few options to consider there just from uh what's more feasible or less invasive to um the wooded ravine out there. Um but all of that to come with further detail. Um for the other buildings, um they'll have to continue to coordinate with our electric department to ensure that we're planning for an adequate size site for that city substation. uh which would also include soil testing needs um to ensure that we're um acquiring a site that is uh feasible to build a substation on and then easement planning for future um water main and electrical extensions that are needed. Um trails and sidewalks. Um the proposal plans to incorporate a trail and a sidewalk on either side of those public streets that are proposed. Um our comprehensive plan and southwest plan anticipates a trail extension to come from Creek Road down through the ravine and to connect into this site. Um they are showing that connection on their plans. Um we have a few documents that kind of guide um best practice or anticipation of trails out here which is both both our 2040 comp plan and a newer document that was adopted in 2024 known as our Chesa pedestrian and bike master plan. um which showed uh shared um uh facilities uh planned for this area in that green um outline on the exhibit on the bottom right here. Uh so some things that they'll have to uh both on the

north side and the south side work through in their subsequent uh steps. Uh so to be more specific, building one um will have to show sidewalk trails and shared paths that are consistent with both of those plans. Um building one will also have to provide for internal connections for their employees uh within their site and then how they can connect to kind of a greater network outside of their site too. Um and then also um uh reinforcing or planning for that trail extension uh to the north uh within the wooded ravine um and will ultimately cross um to connect into Creek Road. Um and for the other buildings, the same comments apply. Um and then also where are those opportunities from uh a connection standpoint to connect into the natural amenities that are out there? The ones that we've identified are those two large wetlands on the north side and then the wooded area on the south side and the southeast edge. Um what also kind of feeds into the trails and sidewalks piece is um the outdoor gathering space um piece that is defined in our Southwest Chesa plan. Um so including those outdoor gathering spaces, pedestrian connections and bicycle infrastructure um throughout uh building one site um and future sites and also the inclusion within the northern wooded area. You know, there's natural amenities out there that can really be taken advantage of in terms of planning for that. And the same applies to the other buildings uh within the big big woods business park area. And then

also looking at those two different areas um I mentioned earlier. Screening landscaping and tree preservation. Um uh the screening and landscaping piece is really important for this site due to um the guidance of the green belt and two key community entrances um here and the site being abudded by major roadways. Um so those edges um will need to be enhanced. the viewsheds will need to be um protected uh specifically in those uh green belt areas and key community entrance uh viewpoints. Um, the applicant uh did put put together several cross-section exhibits just to give give you a initial flavor of what those um relationships are like between the roadway and the proposed layout of the buildings and sites. Um, I'm not going to go through all of those. I'm the only one I'm including in my presentation is um kind of the main priority area or what's the next to come through our process which is building one site. Um and those section cuts are included here. Um so as I mentioned before preservation andor creation of natural rural views will be required um specifically along that green belt edge or what's um highlighted in green on the exhibit here. Uh so they'll really have to work on details with that in their subsequent submitts to show that um that objective and policy is being um maintained.

Uh so the way to do that uh to protect those views is through the use of BMS and landscaping. Um and again their cross-sections start to paint a picture of what that can look like. Um this is just a blown up view of that. So, if we need to refer back to that, but um just getting into what they'll need to work on specific to that these topics um and specific to building one site um working on um enhancing those viewsheds um birming and landscaping and screening uh parking lots, loading docks and up to tops of buildings. So again, we're trying to create that rural natural viewshed from those ma major um roadways there. That would be the way to um maintain that. Um and really specific to that, uh the Burming on the northeast corner of uh Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard. So again, this corner here and along this edge, oops, uh the burming over there really needs to get increased to create that viewshed um that needs to be maintained. Um screening will be needed um for other areas outside of Green Belt or key community entrances uh for both parking and loading areas from roadways and from trails. Um as I mentioned before, the storm water ponds that are shown in the green belt area need to be an aesthetic enhancement and wildlife corridor uh to uh be able to count in the green belt area. So, uh, staff would not be supportive of storm water ponding. That

would take away from that natural edge or feel, um, if that's what's being proposed. High quality landscaping, um, design will be needed. Uh, they'll also need to meet our landscape ordinance in terms of quantity, species, um, screening, all those components. Boulevard trees are required in all uh new public streets. So those will need to be shown. Um in order for us to kind of realistically understand some of these viewsheds, we will want to see renderings uh from uh several of these um edges uh from the roadways and from the trails to ensure that the screening and landscaping methods are being achieved. Um, as it relates to tree preservation, um, we have an ordinance that protects wooded steep slopes that are 18% and more. Um, so that will need to be delineated on their plans, verified by staff in the field, and then ultimately preserved um, within their plans and the overall project area. Um if there are significant oaks and maples identified within the site um as they go through tree inventory um uh a tree inventory um of the sites um those should be identified and preserved. Uh getting into building and parking design. Um there's a few things that will need to be met um for all of the buildings that come through within this area. Uh the city has a building design and materials ordinance um that's specific to industrial buildings as commercial buildings. There's different requirements between

those uses. Um so they'll have to adhere to those standards. Um, we also mentioned uh to prioritize an architectural theme uh throughout this business park. So when we're talking about a larger area, coordination, cohesion should occur um between the overall area so that it feels like they're a part of one business park. Um and then also adherence to the design guidelines that are identified in chapter six of the southwest chassa plan and what has come through in some of our analyses in the staff report. um specifically getting into building one site. Um again, this will be a part of phase one or the first site that they'll move forward with. Um and will likely be the um the next project you see in relation to this business park come through. Um this site is 61 acres in size. They are proposing a 218,000 ft building, 40t tall. um that's outlined in purple here. It's a rectangular building. Um it will house warehousing and uh dist distribution center. Uh the building would operate 24/7. Uh so it would be open all through the night. Um the deliveries would happen during standard business hours uh during the day. Um and then internal sorting and warehousing would happen during the nighttime hours. Um they are planning for a pretty substantial parking lot. Um a little over 1300 parking stalls are proposed for this site. Um which is about double

what our parking code requires. Um but the reason for the amount of spaces is really uh due to the delivery truck parking that they need for the site as well as their employee parking. Uh they do propose two accessory buildings on the property um that are outlined in blue on this exhibit. There's a larger one on the northwest side, roughly 5,000 square feet. That would be a maintenance building for their delivery trucks. Uh so if they need to do any type of mechanic work on their delivery trucks, that's where it would occur. And then a smaller 800 square foot inspection shed which would be closer to the primary building uh which would be more of that in andout daily inspection on the vehicles before they go out to deliveries or after. Uh this site proposes five access points. Uh four are proposed on that internal uh collector road or public road A is how we identified it. um one access point to the north would access the delivery um uh the truck delivery parking lot in the back. Um the next access point would be access to the loading area where trucks would come in and drop off goods. And then south of that is another access point which would uh access um kind of um a staging area in in front of the building um as well as additional parking there. Um and then the southern access point would be the main employee parking lot to the south of the building. And then that fifth access point as we've mentioned before is that right in right at right out private access onto Jonathan Carver Parkway.

Uh the design of the building is shown kind of in this smaller exhibit down here. Um so they'll have to show in their preliminary how they meet the building design and materials ordinance, design guidelines, etc. Um just a couple of other things that they'll need to work on. So ensuring that they create a high quality design and architectural theme. Uh provide variation in massing and scale um in the building and creating opportunities for plazas, courtyards, patios or outdoor dining. Really getting to that outdoor gathering space component. Um and then making sure that they're integrating those pedestrian circulation needs for the site and connecting outward of the site. Um, parking lots uh do need to incorporate planting islands um for uh 10% of the parking area. Um, and then a couple other things. So, this is we're almost we're almost done here. Um, a couple other things to work on uh for preliminary um wetland mitigation. So, as I noted before, there's 27 wetlands throughout the the site. So, as each site is coming in, if they're going to be doing any impacts to the wetlands, they'll have to have a wetland mitigation plan and an impact assess assessment. Um during that preliminary step, they'll also have to apply for a comprehensive plan amendment um which will be twofold uh from our understanding um for both the green belt impacts for that cluster development and then to um get those Dalgrren Township parcels identified um and guided for.

also need to adopt the final AU a AUR and another piece is working on their green belt implementation strategy. So preservation easements, how they're going to be owned, operated, etc. uh for the long term to meet our objectives for green belts. So, with that, um, we are asking you to make a motion this evening to recommend approval of the concept plan for the Big Woods Business Park. Um, and then based on the conditions that are listed in the staff report, um, if this moves forward this evening, it'll go to council on Monday, February 23rd. Happy to answer any questions. We do have Scanel here as well to help answer questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Liz. Um, again, this is not a public hearing, but we will open it up for any questions to the audience here in a second. But let's turn it back to the commission. Does anybody have any questions for I know that was a long presentation, but and a well done presentation. Um, any any questions for Liz and the staff? Oh, go ahead.

I just have one because all the other ones I wrote down you covered during your overview. So, thank you for being so thorough. Is a 29% green belt impact a precedented impact? It seems like pretty significant in size, but could you contrast it to some other changes that have been made?

Yeah. So, the proposal again for them to be able to do the impacts to the green belt would have to go through that cluster development process. Um, so there is an avenue that they can move forward with. Um the 29% um is probably not unique I would say or like um above normal. Um that's still staying within that one-third impact or developable uh allowance that they can do within the green belt area. Um and to give some context or precedence, we have gone through a process like this before um with the Chioal development on the northeast side of or northwest side of the city. Uh they went through a cluster development uh comprehensive plan amendment back in the early thousands um and had to show that same um review and impact analysis with their proposal there. And that was also towards that 30% impact area.

Okay. Got it. Thank you. Yeah. Couple of things like uh if you go to the uh trails section of it, right? We were anticipating there is a regional trail connection between that uh whatever is ended at the after the 212 roundabout all the way to Jonathan Carver. That is a big long regional trail. But I do see like uh the other side is connecting. But if there is an opportunity probably we can uh look into that uh regional trail connection across the I mean besides that like big woods below all the way to the Janadan

that would that because I see lot of people use that and uh in summer all the time they do go on the road so that would be really helpful for whoever is using that trial. Mhm. Yeah, I can speak to that a little bit. Um, so yeah, I think the count, you know, Big Boulevard is a county road. Um, and as as part of that, with that being an urban section, uh, the county and the city would work together to make sure that there's continuous trail along Bigwoods Boulevard all the way to Jonathan Carver Parkway, which is where the, you know, Chaza city limits would al ultimately be. Um, and then, you know, if it goes on beyond that, they'd be working with someone else at that point. So,

Okay. Yeah. So that would be great. And uh couple of questions like uh I mean if I understand right uh we are we are seeing some glimpse of the building one uh of phase one of the proposal but we would be seeing a separate uh concept plan and all those things for the building one still right or is it part of this overall concept plan itself?

Yeah that's a good question. So the the concept plan this evening is to kind of set the stage for both the north and the south sides. Um so really if any building site moves forward um or wants to develop they would be essentially going into that second step right away preliminary. Um so for building one uh when they do come back uh they would be um going to that next step preliminary and that would be the same for any other sites or building sites within the concept area. Um unless for some reason they're proposing something completely different than what's being laid out in the concept plan then they likely would be going back to step one concept plan.

Yeah. for this concept plan. I see a lot of details I mean thorough almost almost close to the preliminary thing. So basically this will be the precursor for any inside parts part parts and parcels of the development would be like a second phase. Correct.

That's right. Yeah. There's some precedent in that. um the business park to the to the north of here um where you know there's the the medical office building is in there and then the two buildings that Apadan did that are multi-use industrial buildings now um that whole that whole thing um went through sort of a master concept plan very similar to what we're doing here at that time and so then that allowed you know as those projects came forward to just you know go straight to preliminary um which I think can be very beneficial um when we're in a competitive market um trying to get you know good business partners in town um kind of being able to express that vision from the onset helps both the city and and the developer um maybe you know have one step further along at that point.

Yeah. Uh another thing is like uh the connection between that uh or the intersection between the big goods and the Jonathan carver right it's already like a kind of if you go there you have to wait for like 10 minutes to just get into the Jonathan carver is there if is there any way you can uh maybe the developer or like you guys can work on the with the county to see an opportunity there to put like a roundabout or something over there that Because based on current situation like you you see like there are lot of buses go in the morning to the Carver Elementary School and the regular traffic and everything on the Janathan Carver. But if this industrial park comes in and you see a private access point on the top side of it that some of the delivery trucks might come and go on that road. If someone is coming and just try to take a left turn on the big woods to Janadan it's really difficult. I mean I don't know whether that is included in the traffic study or not. They might have probably on this side of it but the intersection I would definitely see an opportunity there if you could uh look into that more detail.

Yeah I can speak to that a little bit. Um we are aware that Carver County um I think has some funding behind it and intention uh to do an intersection improvement project. I believe it's targeting 2028, 2027, 2028

um to do that improvement. And so we've been working with them. They're fully aware that this, you know, this is being proposed um that there's going to be, you know, uh improvements, enhancements needed to Big Woods Boulevard between the interchange and 11 as a result. And so we're coordinating with them on that. But whether or not this project goes forward, Carver County is looking at that 11 Bigwoods Boulevard uh intersection to do an improvement there. That would be really nice. Yeah.

So what is the project? Uh I mean probably the projected start time or like the project construction start and all like as you are talking about that improvements in 2028 whether they start the building one and 2026 itself like probably there will be we probably need to speed up the other process as well. Right. So what is the current I mean is there any projected timeline to start this project if everything goes well? Good evening. Thank you guys very much for uh listening to our proposal and thank you very much Liz for the very very thorough proposal. Uh the anticipated construction timeline is anticip anticipated to be summer of this year. So as soon as we are able to reach approvals and gain permits, we will go shovels on the ground. Jay, I have a question for you. While you're here, you already have a tenant in mind for the building one distribution center.

We are talking to a tenant directly like Walmart or I'm not at liberty to say at this time. I just wondered if it was going to be big box type distribution center. It will be a warehouse distribution facility, but yeah, I'm not able to to share who it is at this time. Thank you. Yeah, it would be definitely a bigger project. Yeah, it's a really nice project and we don't see like lot of details the first stage of the project this these many details. So yeah, this did a great job presenting as much as possible. No, it's really a nice project. Nice addition to the I mean the building design concept looks good. I think it's good for the community. True. Thank you. We agree.

Any questions from any other commission members? Just one confirmation I think for city staff on the 212 interchange assuming someday that becomes a full interchange. I just want to confirm that these plans don't encroach on the ability to do that because when I look at it like eats one of the four corners.

Yeah, I can speak to that a little bit. Um when the interchange that exists was built um and we went through the acquisition process for the rightway for the two ramps that are there uh we also folded into that acquisition of the rightway necessary for completion of that interchange. Um so actually if you go out there today um the city already owns the rightway needed uh for the two additional ramps um that would complete that interchange. Um, and if you look closely enough, they're they're kind of already rough graded in. So, you can sort of see where that roadway is benched uh into those those rightway areas already. Um, so short answer to your question, um, yes, we have the rightway. It's obtained and that's that's being observed by this application.

Okay, awesome. Thank you. Yep.

Um, might be out of scope, but the you mentioned a new utilities and substation um water. Is this uh proposed to I guess two couple things within the watershed piece is that um going to contain any of the the runoff? I mean I see a lot of additional waterways and stuff but uh the creek that comes through there and especially on the north side is kind of a natural part of the city. Uh is there protections built into that or is some sort of closed water loop? but because it's kind of below within a ravine, the ravine will be protected by the wooded steep slope ordinance. Um, so once we get uh that area delineated in terms of where the 18% is, then we'll be able to establish where those building and grading setbacks are going to have to come off of that. Um, so th those will be the protection measures that'll kind of be in place. Um, and I'm sure there will be some additional um ways of looking at kind of the proximity of the the nearer sites in terms of how they're organized uh from a storm water perspective, drainage perspective to further protect those slopes. And then the uh electricity of this site you know with an additional substation is there a protection to make sure that this uh outliner you know and if it ultimately the users don't draw more than what they uh I guess would be able to produce in that area or you know have that some kind of control.

Yeah I can Liz unless you want to take it I can speak to you.

Okay. Um yeah, so this area is actually served by uh Minvac uh Minnesota Valley Electric Co-op um presently today and they will continue to serve this area for the next till 2040 um per an agreement that the city has with them. At the time that that agreement expires, I think it'd be the city's intention um to bring um that area into the Chesca Electric utility territory. Um, so the substation that's being proposed is for Chasco Electric Utility, not Minbeck. Um, and that that substation is needed not just to serve this area in the future um, but also for what has already been developed in the southwest Chaza area. So, you think of all the the Harvest neighborhood and everything else um that's been built over there um for the redundancy and the capacity that's needed um to, you know, long-term serve that whole area. That's what the substation is needed for. Um so as far as it relates to capacity um we've done our best to try and anticipate what sort of capacity and demand loads there will be into the future um based on what we would you know anticipate typically would be um developed here. Um but the reality is electric demand is growing. We all know that. Um in fact our probably our largest electric uh demand growth right now is in our northern business park um which electric does serve. Um and so they've been working hard to make sure the system continues to deliver what it needs to. If there were ever an exceptionally large electric user um that would come into this location as a as a business um a data center for example or you know other other users are also pretty large electric users that are in our existing northern business park um that aren't data centers. There's plenty of other um electric needs and demands there. Um there would be the potential that maybe a study would have to occur to make sure that um that load can actually in fact

be delivered um and you know what sort of improvements and enhancements to the system need to occur to do that. And there's ways that we've approach that in the past but that would all be handled on a case by case basis as um you know projects are being identified and those requirements are known. Okay. Yeah.

Any other questions from the committee? Is there anybody online? Liz and Ashley. Thank you. Anybody else in the audience like to address the commission? Okay. With that, we'll entertain a motion. I'll make the motion to recommend approval to the city council the concept for the Big Woods business park subject to the following I believe it's 12 conditions second

motion suggest no motion suggested by Assan and approved by Boswa the motion up sorry um all those in favor I

opposed Motion carries. Thank you. Okay, other business. Anybody like to address any other business or ask the staff? I'd like to know what's going on with the uh Old Cooper location. Anything new on that? Old Cooper location? Um, so that one was purchased by a group um last I believe it was last year. Um, and they're looking to pursue um, uh, ger um, lommo bonita is the name of it. That changed from previously, didn't it?

Excuse me. Did that change from the previous tenant that was going to go in there? No. I thought it was like marcato or it is a it is a Hispanic. It is a Hispanic marcato type um, you know, business. So, it's a Hispanic Roer. Um, they they go under the name Lommo Bonita. Um, they have a number of locations throughout the Twin Cities. Most recently, they opened a location in Richfield where they converted a former Rainbow Foods um into um their, you know, Hispanic market grocery store. It's we we would we did a field trip um a few months ago to go check it out because we kind of wanted to see what, you know, hopefully they're going to be bringing here. It's it's fantastic. I would highly recommend going and checking it out. After

you went Yeah. weird conversation. I went to that store last couple of weeks back. Yeah. They have a very good section of bakery, the freshly baked things, right? I mean, yeah, everything is good, but like I really like that kind that bakery section of their store. It's like

Yeah, the bakery is fantastic. Yeah, there's a great deli. Um there's a great, you know, area where you can get taco, you know, sort of taco stand area. Um fresh tortillas are being made there um to get those and um yeah, is is super cool. So, uh we're excited to have them uh hopefully start what we've heard and I don't I don't want to, you know, get ahead of their messaging or anything, but it sounds like they want to try and start um you know, re, you know, redoing the building um as we get into this year sometime. Um, so hopefully that'll plan out for them. Um, but I know that the project that they did and if you went and visited and as Commissioner Boswell saw in Richfield, I mean, they put a lot of energy and effort into that building. Um, it was a big lift for them and I'm sure they're trying to make sure that that's stabilized before they take on their next big project. But yeah, it'll it'll be pretty great once they're able to do it.

How about the KFC location? Still there. Yeah, I think we all the eyesore. Yeah, there is a grocery store coming. Uh it's a Asian grocery store coming on the there is one business park, right? I mean for the Chaska tech center. Yeah, Chaza tech center next to that holiday holiday and MCD, right? There is uh one Asian uh is it the spice rack or something? Yeah, spice rack. So it's like uh there is there is one uh edible India is there, right? I think kind of some of the

Yeah. So the the the folks who are pursuing that project have an affiliation um with the oh what is the name of it India? Yeahible India. So that's what I I heard. Yeah they're connected uh with that with that restaurant. So yeah they're a good group too. Any other business anybody would like to discuss? Once again thank welcome to the commission and hopefully you weren't too overwhelmed. That was yeah a lot of information absorbed but they did a great job.

I I I think it's a nice uh meeting big meeting because that set up the standard expectations too right last few months it's a little light so this is a good way to start. Yeah looking forward to work with you guys. Okay with that would anyone like to make a motion to adjourn? Okay. Second. Motion approved. Uh oh. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion or meeting end. Thank you.