Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'm calling the Monday, March 23rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. Will everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank you everyone. All right. First up is the approval of tonight's agenda. Does anyone have a request for a change to the agenda? Otherwise, entertain a motion to approve the agenda for the evening. Motion to approve the agenda. Do you have a second? Second. Second. All those in favor of approving the agenda this evening, say I. I.

Opposed? The agenda is approved. Next up, we have uh the minutes from the last meeting on March 9th. Does anyone have any concerns or edits or not seeing any? Entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from March 9th meeting. All right. Second. Second. All those in favor say I. I.

Opposed. Minutes are approved. All right. We have one public hearing this evening. This is Prairie Lakes Corporate Center subdivision 2026-01. Plan unit development amendment on 13.07 acres, preliminary plat of 13.07 acres into two lots and a site plan amendment on 13.07 acres. Will point of the project please come forward. Good evening. Thanks for being here. If you could state your name and spell for record and tell us about your request, please.

Uh my name is Robert Cunningham. I am with Krauss Anderson and I am the representative for the uh proposed subdivision this evening and my address 501 South 8th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404. Thank you. Um there we go. Uh we have a few slides that we'd like to show this evening to Would you mind just pull it just a little closer to you? Closer. Thank you. Sorry.

Okay. Uh we have a few slides this evening just to familiarize everybody with the uh property and every flicker I've ever seen is different. So I hope I can operate this. Apparently not. Thank you. Uh the project right now, it's cold season. I apologize. Uh the project right now is uh comprised of two buildings. Um one's larger, one's smaller. We're proposing to split the lot so that we can start to deal with the problem building. We have one building that is very functional, very uh well leased and has been throughout its history. The other building is functionally obsolete and we're looking to maintain the building that m that uh remains functional and to look to redevelop the building that's not functional. Um there's some specific issues that we need to discuss this evening. Um one is that um we have uh when we split the lot uh nothing ever goes perfectly. We uh are reducing the parking setback. There's a 20- foot setback requirement in the city in this office zoning and we have a location where there would be a zero foot parking setback. So, we're asking for that exception. Um, we are there's a bridge that connects the two buildings presently and we'll be bicting that bridge. Um, we also uh I think we continue to maintain uh the parking ratios required by the city. Um, and the building that would be the northerly building would be required to have 100 ft of frontage. On the road, it's got 75 feet of frontage. So, we're looking for uh acceptance of that uh that change.

This is a uh obviously the site plan. Um it's difficult to see exactly where the uh the does this have a does this have a laser? Oh, there we go. Thank you. Um you can see the uh outline of the proposed subdivision being traced right now with the red dot. Um, so the building that's to the north would be the building that is going to that's been functional, stays functional, and the building that's to the south is the one that we feel is functionally uh um it it it's it's seen its better days. Um when we get into the building a little bit more, I'll tell I'll tell a better story about that. Um but um is there anything else on the site plan? Jeremy, is there anything else on the site plan? Thank you. Um so the smaller building is 73,000 square ft and uh the larger building is 133,000 ft. Um the you can see that the uh parking uh meets all of the requirements. back to the site plan. One of the things that we uh that's a a requirement in our uh in the application, a staff requirement is that we have a reciprocal easement agreement that will allow for the cross easement for both parking access and utilities. So, to the extent that there's a utility that crosses uh the property line, that would be allowed to stay under the reciprocal easement agreement. That's something we still have to um present to staff. This is a lot of detail that I'm not even that aware of. The drainage

salt management I really don't have much to say about that emergency response. Obviously, the uh the hydrants will be live and with anything that we do, anything that changes on the site, obviously we'd have to come back for further approvals. Shoreland management. Um there's actually two parcels of land between the parcel that we're discussing this evening and the shoreline of Anderson Lake. One is owned by the park district and one is owned by the city. So there's not much uh we really have to do to meet the the uh shoreline. Uh thank you Jeremy. He went back to the building. As you can see, the building that we're talking about, uh, the one that's functionally obsolete is something of a parallelogram. It's not a shape that you would kind of see in today's modern office buildings. The thing that you can't see on this site plan is it is actually a wedding cake style. So, the the footprint at grade is bigger than the next level and the next level after that and the level after that. By the time you get to the top of the building, it's a very narrow building. But when you're down at the bottom, it exceeds uh kind of the the depths that you'd like to see in a modern office building. The other thing this building has as part of as part of its functional obsolescence is that the uh bathrooms, the hallway, the elevators and everything are sight loaded. So they're uh all set to the to the western side of that building. So that the building element that faces the parking lot is almost all spandrel

glass, not vision glass. So we can't even think about moving all of that so that we could get this building to a point where we'd have glass on all four sides of it. Um so the likely outcome for this building is to be demolition at some point in the future where we could replace this building with something that would be more functional. And with that, I'd take any questions that anybody has. Great. Thank you. Any initial questions for Mr. Ka ask? Go ahead, Commissioner Far. May I Mr. Chair?

Um, let's take an easy one first. So, the one waiver about the front um the street frontage. Okay. If you go back to that site plan for me, Mr. Barnhard, I appreciate it. Thank you very much. uh that small property line that comes right off the curve of the road. Yes, sir.

Is not uh perpendicular or normal to the street, but rather comes off at an acute angle like that. And your problem could be most easily solved by just straightening that out from that point right down there. Exactly. Um and so it that would seem like a more logical split to me and it would solve the problem. So, uh why not? That's a very good solution. We'll we will we will definitely uh make that change.

Okay. Thank you. Um number two, um we had within the last couple years another office building in Eden Prairie be demolished as you may know on the other side of the freeway. Um and they came to us with a plan showing what they were going to do with the land. along with their request to take it down and I forget if there was a lot adjustment or not but um you're not showing you've said everything including that the building is probably going to get demolished. So um we're anxious since this is a planned unit development plan. Usually those come accompanied with a comprehensive plan to show what's going to happen if you're going to amend the planned unit development. And so we're not sure if it's coming down, what's going to replace it, or more to the point, what's going to justify the property line alignment that you're talking about with these waiverss. There's two points that I'd like to make in response to that question. First is that this probably should never have been one lot with two buildings on it in the first place. This probably should have been, and this predates probably everybody in this room, this probably should have been two lots with two buildings on them. Um, what we're trying to do is at least rectify that. We do not have a plan for the demolition yet of the building. We don't have a plan. We've we've got a lot of concept plans. A lot of the concept plans aren't in a place where they yet economically are economically viable. One of one of the things that we wanted to make sure that we had in place is this subdivision so that if it if the building became anything resembling an attractive nuisance where there was graffiti or anything else going on uh we could have the opportunity then to demolish the

building, eliminate the attractive nuisance. We had a similar circum circumstance if uh Krauss Anderson also owned Southtown Shopping Center in Bloomington which is right at the intersection of 35W and 494 and we had a vacant department store building in there and it became an attractive nuisance and we wanted to demolish that so that nobody got hurt and uh basically maintain safety of the site. So, one of the reasons we're doing that is so that we have that option in the future, but we do not yet have a plan advanced enough that we would be confident enough to fold that into a plan unit development. Understood. Understood. So, I'm hearing that without a plan, we're not sure if it would be or even should be another planned unit development. As you said, it should have been two independent buildings on two independent lots if not for the shared parking arrangement that you now have with the zero setback of sideyard setbacks for parking. It it could have been should have been. So that's our concern. If you split the lot and let's say you have five acres on the north and seven acres on the south, you're going to go out and try and sell seven acres of land to somebody, right? And if they buy it, they're going to expect that they can take the full use and benefit of that land. But then if they come in and it's not a planned unit development, cohesive development, it ought to be two separate developments and you'll drop the PUD, in which case the north parcel will have a non-compliant sideyard setback to the parking because it's no longer qualifies for the PUD status. So, you're drawing the property line prematurely of us knowing whether it'll be retaining a planned unit development or it'll be two independent lots.

It's it's a likely circumstance that if this subdivision occurs that there could be a sale of one or either of the parcels. Um, however, it's my understanding that anything that happens on either of these parcels after this subdivision would be subject to plan unit development requirements and would have to come back through uh for any plan unit development amendment, which would be a complete examination of all the plan unit development components before there was any sort of an approval for uh a revision of the plan unit development.

You're exactly right. it would come back through to us. But if that one new property owner came back with that request and the property owner to the north was not necessarily party to that request, the northern parcel would not want to move the property line and take land away from the southern property to recreate the proper sideyard setbacks to the park to the parking area. It's not unusual though in in many circumstances where we're looking to densify or or otherwise modernize site plans to have zero uh setbacks on parking between property lines to begin with. So I don't think this is an unusual sit situation. Uh, and it's likely not going to be an unusual situation in the future. If this ends up being something else and the parking on both sides of the property line stays at a zero setback, I don't see that as being an unusual circumstance in Eden Prairie or any other community that I worked in.

Sure. And that's part of the planned unit development process where we grant those uh waiverss uh in tradeoff for other benefits of the whole, right? And we don't see the whole yet on what's going to happen. That that's the issue. So it just seems premature to me that we're approving a lot split and retaining the PUD status without knowing whether it will ever qualify to become another PUD or not. Owning real estate is a complicated endeavor where we are trying to balance a number of things and and the number of things includes obviously all city approvals. It also includes financing. It also includes buildings becoming functionally obsolete

and trying to lease those so that they maintain some level of economic significance. Sure. Um what we're trying to do is get to a point today where we can refinance, sell uh either one of those or both of those parcels so that we can come up with a site plan that will be uh economically feasible. Right now we don't have that or we would certainly be presenting it this evening. Sure. Okay. Enough said. Thank you, chair. Any other initial questions? Thank you. Thank you.

Jeremy, will you take us through the city staff report and and can you um touch on your thoughts about Commissioner Far's concerns whether Yeah. starting or after or however you see fit?

Yeah. I guess I'll start with just a summary of the waivers requested as as Bob had mentioned there are four waivers. The building setback, let me use my screen here. Building setback relates to this kind of corridor between the two buildings. The building proper the larger portion of the building. Those will meet the setbacks as if um there was no connection there. But at this point there's a connection. Um the parking setback um deals with a portion in this area where the property line kind of goes right through the park the parking lot. Um, again, we do see parking setback waiverss pretty frequently in commercial zoning districts. Um, usually because of a shared parking situation, as is the case today, the number of parking stalls, because they're two parcels, they're proposed to be two parcels. Um, the the ratio uh for parking requirements would go up with two um two buildings of this size on the single lot. the ratio for parking is is reduced uh because um there's an expectation of shared parking u within the within the larger lot. In this situation, there's two lots. However, there's cross parking or there will be cross parking and access easement. So, it will function the same as it does now. And I think that's maybe the main focus. Um is this project is not there's no development. There is no um there's no redevelopment of the property. There's no changes to the site plan. There's no changes to the building. This is a paper change um in effect showing two separate properties um with no real material change of how the site operates. So from that perspective, staff can support the waiverss I just described because it's going to function as it does tomorrow or the day after the council approves it as

it does today. Um, Commissioner Farad questioned about the frontage. Um, in this situation here, that that's one of the four waiverss request is the width uh the frontage uh requirement. Um, this was actually staff's recommendation is to reduce that frontage as much as practical. Um, in fact, we suggested going a little bit further because what we're creating is kind of a no man's land. recognizing that this property likely will be redeveloped um and seeing some concepts that trying to to put the town homes in. We don't want to see uh apartment buildings. We don't want to see higher density structures in this property. I want to see town homes. It requires a little bit more space. So, trying to maximize as much space on this parcel as possible to facilitate that eventual uh redevelopment. So we we're actually from a staff perspecting perspective advocating a little bit more a little more space for this lot to be developed. That said, this property right now is used for offices uh is proposed to be used for offices based on the best information we have now um and based on how the property is used used. um all these waiverss support that use. In the event that one or both of these parcels come forward with a redevelopment proposal, at minimum a site plan will need to be required or will be required and likely a PUD amendment or we'll scrap the PUD and and do a new one like we did for uh Lotus Villas uh where that was an office building and that was redeveloped as a as a a villa type neighborhood. we have a new uh development agreement for that piece, new PUD for that property. That's how um we can from a staff

perspective support a PUD at this stage without knowing kind of what the next use is because we do know what the next use is. The next use is an office building. What's the use after that? We don't know yet, but nobody does. And so um we are supporting this property owner in this in the businesses in this in these two office buildings with these waivers. I mentioned the four waivers mentioned that there's no physical changes to the site or the building. Um there's some questions Mr. Far asked about um the parking lot issue and the non-conforming issue and it's a good question. So in this situation, if the parking the prop property line is here, potentially these spaces, which let's assume this property is going to redevelop in the next four years, let's say, um these spaces will butt up right against that property line. Um, the person who owns this piece will have to factor in reasonable buffer between whatever is going to be the use of their property, whether it's going to be residential or common space or what have you, with these fixed location of a of a parking lot, unless they can work together, but that's not a requirement. But that's something we look for when we start looking at redevelopment of pieces is how do you fit with your neighbors? Um and then what kind of um adjustments can be made that support both goals similar to what we saw with the uh the Chestnut Town Homes last week or two weeks ago where there was some um grading and some landscaping on the private property adjacent to the piece to help minimize the height of the wall and help provide a little bit more screening and buffering. In fact, the commission had that recommendation to add some more screening and buffering in there. So, I would expect to see something like that in this situation. Um, but I would also expect that this property owner, again, assuming the larger one is to be redeveloped, they

will have to factor in some sort of buffering or screening um between their use and this parking lot. Also, I envision um assuming it's necessary that there may be some opportunity for shared parking between the two. we don't necessarily need to add more parking, but maybe there's a situation where both uses can kind of use those same spaces at the same time. Obviously, the peak for residential is in the evenings and weekends and the peak for office is different than that. Again, way ahead of myself. The proposal today is to use this property as offices for the foreseeable future until we see a plan that changes that. So staff is recommending approval of the site plan that does not show any changes to the layout of the property. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat again assuming the waiverss are supported. Um that just splits this parcel into two. Final plat will be required um to to split that. Um and then the waiverss as I mentioned ultimately this is kind of the first step of a two-step process at least. Um, and we don't know when the next step is, but we know that it's going to be an office at least for the foreseeable future. So, that that said, I haven't answered any questions, but staff is recommending.

Great. Thank you, Jeremy. Questions for Jeremy? Commissioner Duncan?

I have a few. Um, hopefully I can make sense of them. So, I think some of what you just indicated actually triggers a few more questions. Um, so first question in regarding to the property lines, do we not require drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of the property lines? I understand there are already existing utilities in place that there's going to be uh a shared agreement with for access and utilities. But just wondering if there's unknown development in the future, wouldn't we want to require perimeter drainage and utility easements around the property line?

That's our that's our common uh comment uh that we want drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of a property. Y we do uh we do allow um parking lots in easements like we've described, right? But am I missing where they're outlined here in the new property lines? They they they're not showing yet. Um they're not showing. That's a that's a requirement that you we usually see as part of our final plan. Okay. Very good. Um and so you talked a little bit about the um potential use. I'll just call it the southern parcel being residential in the future. Is that something that's in our comp plan that it's guided for? No, not yet.

No, not yet. Okay. So, right now we are talking about office space for both parcels.

True. Okay. Um, and in agreement with Commissioner Farre about the process here and what's being done, is there an option for are there other options here to to explore instead of going through a PUB amendment and waiverss since you're just essentially subdividing this property and because there are two buildings, you have to put it through one of the buildings or and I'm just thinking on the fly here. Is the property line needed to separate the buildings right now or could they if they wanted to demolish one of the buildings and sell off the southern part

as a vacant parcel? As a vacant parcel,

that is an option uh that they could explore. They've elected to apply for this process which allows uh them to subdivide and still retain that asset on both sides. Um that's that's the choice that they've made in terms of um the the future use of the property. You're correct u that a change from office to any other use will require a comp plan amendment and a full review from the planning commission and the city council. Uh at this stage though they're asking for an office building to be separated into two lots. um the location where they showed is the most logical from stat perspective. Uh because really the only impact is that um nonvital corridor between the two. If that was to to be removed, you still have two freestanding buildings um that can be used for offices in accordance with the ordinances.

Sorry, couple other questions. So I look at this kind of as a blank canvas a little bit with that entire parking area. I mean, you can get rid of some of these um um islands or concrete separations of parking spaces a lot easier than you can get rid of the buildings. is when they come back for redevelopment or a new site plan whenever they feel they want to, is it possible they could essentially start over on the southern side and create a whole new site plan and not have to worry about any of the barriers between all the parking um islands. I guess they're called the the medians. If I understand the question correctly, if if the the the southern lot wanted the owner of the southern lot wanted to build a new office building, um are they limited to the parking configuration as shown now?

Correct. No, they're not. Okay. Um any change to that would require a site plan and and review of that. Um PUD waiver as we're discussing today would allow that that setback between the parking lot on the north to be zero feet from the property line. But all the other setbacks would apply. Um, and our obviously this property was developed well before our parking lot standards now. So we would require quite a bit more landscape islands for example. Um, so a redevelopment of a parking lot would require that now. Some additional landscaping that's not grandfathered in.

Okay, one last question I promise. Um, so going back to the property line that we were talking about earlier along the radius of Prairie Prairie Lakes Drive, is the is the hope to have a bigger piece of property on the southern side and that's why you're kind of pushing it all to the north the property line boundary that's being drawn. There was some and and Bob can speak to this maybe more than I can but my understanding was there's some contractual requirements from the number of parking spaces provided to each of the lot on their side but from a city perspective we wanted to u make sure that both parcels could function if one of the other parcels was redeveloped. So that's why they try to even out per square foot as much as practical the number of parking spaces allotted to each parcel. So we try to think what would happen if building on the north left or the building on the south was demolished. Would the site still function? We don't want to create problems u from a parking perspective later. And so that that's where that's kind of what dictated this this parking lot line.

Okay. I understand what's being done. I don't know that I agree with it, but I understand what's being done as as well as the property line indicated where it's being proposed. To me, I it just makes a lot more sense as Commissioner Far indicated to move it, but um I guess I'll leave it at that. Commissioner Taylor.

Yes. So, Jeremy, I'm I take it the purpose of splitting the property into two is to give the owner the flexibility to sell one of the one parcel versus the other instead of someone coming in and having to day purchase the entire property. I mean, that's the main purpose is to give the owner flexibility to sell one parcel or another. Sure. Okay. Thank you,

Mr. Chair. Yeah, just an engineering question over there. Um, I'm assuming the demolition of the building would probably also trigger some parking lot damage. Would that exceed the dimminimus for storm water management and trigger storm water compliance? So, like a land alteration permit, which uh requires some a watershed district permit. Is that where you're kind of headed?

That's where I'm going. Um, we typically do not issue land alteration for demolition of a building by itself. So like the Roars development for instance where that's an office building that's coming down. Um, we did not issue a land alteration just for the building itself. When the rest of the whole site gets developed, that's when that will kick in and require a watershed district permit. Sure. That make sense? Right. Okay. All right. Okay. So, sorry. Yeah. Go ahead.

So, just to follow up on the conversation that took place a moment ago about if the applicant comes back or if the south new south property owner comes back with an application. Doesn't have to be both property owners coming back. Does it? We ask that first. Just both property owners do not need to coordinate from a redevelopment plan perspective. Is that what you're asking? Yes. So that's that's a fact. Sure. So So the south property owner, the new south property owner could act on his own or her own behalf to redevelop that parcel. Yes.

Okay. So then they will be working within a property boundary that has been intentionally and prematurely gerrymandered between the two buildings without the ability to renegotiate, if you will, a more sensible property line between the two lots. There's a lot of words there. I don't necessarily a lot better than I did because that's exactly what I was trying to get across. that was laden with

somebody who purchases the irregular shaped building. I've called it a rhombus from the beginning. Um if somebody purchases that, they have a boundary to work within. Yes. Does can that boundary be adjusted? Yes. We have a simple administrative process called a boundary line adjustment if necessary. This is the the the boundary that they've chosen. And for all intents and purposes, this is what a new developer would work within. Yes.

Sure. Okay. So, the north property owner ends up with a building that has a a waiver for parking setback, a smaller acreage to pay taxes on, and the ability to sell more land off to this other development with no with no correct no corrections being made to their property.

No, not necessarily. um they they have their person who buys the north property line or the owner now they have the the boundary line that they've chosen or they purchased so that's not like a surprise to them if there's a desire to adjust that boundary there's a review process that they go through with city one of the things we look at is parking do you have enough parking on the property um are other waiverss required um other setback issues um what's the use of the building? I mean there there's a review process that we take um before somebody before I come to you with a proposal to to approve things or if I give the administrative approval if allowed by code. Um so it's not just because they ask do they get it that there's a review process. All right. So again, I just want to put a pin in it. If the property line remains where it is and the south property owner develops the south property on his own and and the north property then has an entrance to their lot and to their building that is now a dead end to the front door. There's no turnaround anymore to get vehicles or fire trucks out. That's one of those things we look at when we start looking at a redevelopment plan is how do you because I see your point if that if that that boundary line is a wall now.

Yes. The question is is how do you get people in and out through the front door you know from and and that's not again we're not supporting any changes to this scenario at this point. If a project came forward to to propose some changes that's one of those things we want to see. Sure. It's part of our review process. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, as as much as I may be concerned about that technical detail later, it's the action that I'm concerned about between the two property owners where they're not being forced to work together in the future to solve a problem like that.

Well, keep in mind too that there's a cross parking and access easement over the entire parking lot. So, that's already protected to some level. I mean, there will be. That's one of our recommended conditions of approval. Sure. Whether it solves that particular problem or not, time will tell. Both parties benefit from that agreement and both parties would have to agree to amend that agreement. Yeah. Right. Right. Yeah. Okay. Can I ask another question? Yeah. Commissioner Duncan. So the building size that is currently there, the rhombus,

thank you. essentially to meet the parking requirements that are there now they would have to put up the same size building or less. I haven't done the calculation of less, but right now the parking lot parks for both buildings at 4 per thousand. There's enough for both for both buildings four per thousand. In our park in our zoning code, um the parking requirement for an office is based on the square footage of the office. So, as you get smaller, you have more of a ratio. So, believe the answer to your question is if that building got um smaller, more parking may be necessary from a ratio perspective, but it still may be able to be parked. I mean, I think there's plenty of parking here. I think there's a lot of parking here, but I guess what I'm trying to get at is based on

the waiverss here tonight. That is solely based on the size of these two office buildings because that's how parking is determined. Yeah, it's based on both both. So, if they wanted to demolish, which it sounds like there's a good chance they might, it would have to be built, at least based on the waiverss here tonight, to be the same size. It would have to be built at four per thousand, right? So, whatever that size is, that that's what the proposed waiver is. Yeah. Okay.

Keep in mind, we're not recommending any changes to the property or changes to the building. We're not supporting a demolition of the building at this part. We're saying that both this this site functions from a parking perspective and a an access perspect perspective. It will ch it will be the same after this approval. We're not supporting any changes. We're just uh supporting the change to where the property line is. Um access easements will be since since it's all one property owner now, we haven't needed those access or utility easements. Since they're going to be two property owners, we're going to need cross access and parking easements, and that's one of our standards. So again, we're uh maintaining how the property uh and the site functions now. Okay,

last question. A, can we peel off the planned unit development amendment portion of the three actions tonight? Or B, can we insist upon the preliminary plat stopping at preliminary plat level and not going to final plant level at council? No. To the first because there's a PUD uh already on the property. We're amending what's there. Okay. Number two, what's the benefit of stopping at preliminary plat so that they can pivot once they get a development in mind and put the property line in a more uh logical position for whatever happens in the future.

The preliminary plat though won't create a lot and if that's what they're desire to sell off a piece of the property that can only happen with the preliminary plan or with the final plat. I'm hearing they need a tool to go to the market with to say that it's 7.03 do three acres and we can file for the preliminary of the final plant anytime we want to as long as we show the city what it looks like. Okay. And that's a question for for the applicant. Then usually have a time limit between the preliminary plat and the final plat. Yep. Um to file that. I want to say it's a year, but don't quote me on that. Good. Okay. Thank you, chair. I'm sorry. Sure.

Uh all right. This is a public hearing. Would anyone like to come forward and speak for against this project? Not seeing any. Entertain motion to close the public hearing. Motion to close. Second to close. I'll second that. Second to close. All those in favor of closing public hearing say I. I. I. Opposed. Public hearing's closed. Further discussion. Did you want to ask the applicant about that question or was you satisfied or

um out of curiosity? Sure. I don't know. Mr. Mr. Cunningham, would you mind coming to the podium? Thank you. So, my question to staff was um you're asking for the planned unit development amendment. You're asking for a preliminary plat and a site plan amendment. And if we were so gracious to recommend approval to the city council, they may grant you approval for those same three things. I anticipate that your next action would be to come back with a final plan to memorialize this action. Is that true?

That's likely. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, would you be willing to instead of coming back for the final plat stop and use the preliminary plat as your marketing tool to sell off the south parcel knowing that you'd probably have to get the preliminary or final plat prior to closing. um at uh but at at with the caveat that in order to come back for final plat you'd have to show this body the city what the uh purchasers uh site plan will look like. Uh it's been said that we're looking to get some flexibility in what we do with the site, right?

So that we could call it the site's plural and that includes refinancing a component or and or marketing a component. And we cannot refinance a component with a preliminary plat in place. It has to have a legal description associated with it. So it would be our intent to go through the preliminary and final plat process in a continuous manner uh so that we would have the ability to do the refinancing of one or both of these sites.

Okay. All right. Um, do you understand what I believe is a perceived risk to the north parcels um to the north parcel owner uh when the plan does come back to us that there may need to be some change needed either in the alignment of the property line. It it it is our intent that the way the lines were drawn and are proposed this evening so it was so that each building could stand on its own. Joining those two sites together is the reciprocal easement agreement which includes utilities, parking and so on. The reciprocal easement agreement is going to have to be put on both parcels. that's going to have documentation that talks about parking on both parcel A and parcel B if I may use that. Um so in order for that to change there is some level of control that any owner and right now Cross Anderson would be owner of both parcels but in separate LLC's but it would be to the benefit of both owners uh so that if any change occurs in the reciprocal easement agreement it's got to be agreed upon by both parcels. So there is a protective mechanism in place to make sure that you you suggested the dead end and no place for firet trucks to turn around and and that sort of thing. That protection is going to be inside of reciprocal easement agreement. We can't make changes to parcel B without parcel Agreeing to it if it affects the reciprocal easement agreement.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Uh Jeremy, just to clarify from a the final plat perspective, the planning commission does not review a final plat. The council reviews a final plat on consent and and primarily the function there is to verify that all the standards in the development agreement um are met and then also the final platin matches the preliminary plat. So that's kind of the test. Um but the planning commission wouldn't see the the final plan. other further discussion or

I guess one other comment I would make is that this doesn't forbid them coming back with a whole new preliminary plat final plat process if they do have two new owners, two new projects, you know, when they have more of a um project for both sites or vice versa. They could totally replplat the whole thing if they wanted to. True. It could be maybe a little bit cleaner with different different different knowledge. Different. Yep. It does feel like there's some protections, right? Yeah.

I totally understand, Commissioner Far and Duncan's concerned. I did too initially. Um, understanding the applicants and their financial situation, what they need to get done. But I strongly believe the city would do its best to protect any changes whether it's, you know, on plot A or plot B before. And I'm sure with the potential buyer, they want to during their due diligence want to get approval from city and whatnot. And they probably wouldn't proceed with the purchase unless, you know, there was a contingent approval. All right. If we're comfortable enough, I guess, would someone be interested in moving Make a motion.

Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. Uh motion to move to recommend approval for PUB amendment preliminary plat and site plan amendment on 13.07 acres as recommended by staff represented in the March 23rd, 2026 staff report. Excuse me. A motion for Commissioner Taylor. Do I have a second? Second that. Second for Commissioner Sherwood. All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. Nay.

Commissioner Far opposed. Anyone like to abstain? Okay. All right. It's recommending approval to move on to city council. All right. Got a question. Oh, yes. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion this evening. Appreciate it very much. Good luck. Thank you. All right. Uh Jeremy, planners reports.

Just uh just a note for the record that Mr. Piper is this is his last meeting. He has served on the planning commission for 12 years, 10 of them as chair based on my count. So, thank you very much for your service to the city. And Mr. Weber's um this is his last meeting to uh this is the second of his two stints. So appreciate both of you for your help and guidance. Great.

Yeah. Thank you, Jeremy. And thank you, city staff. You've always prepared. You're patient with us. And thank you to all the commissioners. It's really nice to come every two weeks and work with people who are civic-minded and volunteer their time rather than just complain, but try to make things better. So, and Commissioner Far, we've been on a long time. I've really appreciated it. And there's many times I've thought, "Oh, you just got some really good free advice when for people presenting their project." So, and Commissioner Duncan, best of luck as the new chair. And um when this comes back, if it's a mess, I'm sorry, I won't be here. So, thank you.

Thank you, everyone. All right. And I'm going to go rogue and I'm going to move to adjourn. I'm going to second it and say all those in favor say I. I. We're journed. Thanks everyone. Jeremy, do we have new commission?