Perfect. All right, we'll call this June 10th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order. Uh, we'll look for a roll call. >> Mr. Olson? >> Here. >> Osborne? >> Here. >> Campbell? Michaelis? >> Here. >> Purdy? Rydberg? >> Here. >> Rostad? Sailor? >> Here. >> And Chairperson Urbanski? >> Here. All right. I'll look for a motion to adopt the the agenda. >> Motion. >> Motion made. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Perfect. Uh, on to number four, visitor presentation. So, this [clears throat] would be if anybody wants to address the Planning Commission for something that's not on the agenda tonight. Don't think we've ever had somebody do that, but Anything online? Or >> Nope. >> Nope. All right. Move into uh, look for a motion to approve the previous meeting minutes from the May 13th meeting. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries. We have no consent agenda items tonight. Which brings us into our one action item. Um, which is a public hearing to recommend [clears throat] approval of the prelimina- preliminary site and building plan, prelim- preliminary plat, rezoning and consent comprehensive plan amendment for Big Woods Business Park BWBP North phase one Skinny L properties PC number 2026-08. I believe you're presenting this tonight. >> Yeah, I just got to bring it up here. All right, I'm assuming you can see that in front of you. Thank you. All right, we have a preliminary site and building plan preliminary plat rezoning and a comprehensive plan amendment request this evening for the building one in Big Woods Business Park specifically on the north side. This project is being proposed by Skinny L properties. So to give you an understanding of where the site is it's located [snorts] on kind of the southwest area of the city. Up to its western boundary that borders with the city of Carver and Dalgreen Township. The area in question this evening is outlined in blue on this screen here. Um there were a few former Dalgreen Township parcels on kind of that west edge of the project area that were recently annexed this year. And this again is um a site that's positioned on the north side of Big Woods Boulevard and immediately east of Jonathan Carver Parkway. So we're at the second step in our three-step review process so we're in more of the technical review. Looking at civil drawings. And reports and starting to uh identify and satisfy some uh that were raised during concept plan and establish additional conditions into the the final the third and final step. In terms of background and previous approvals, um the concept plan was approved back in February of this year. Um and then we did get those two parcels that are in Dahlgren Township annexed into the city of Chaska in May. Um we did go through that environmental review stemming back uh from September of last year and then it was formally adopted in April of this year. Existing conditions of kind of the overall area, um it's over 300 acres total both on the north and south sides of Big Woods Boulevard. It's made up of 16 parcels. Majority um the north side is made up of parcels owned by the Reiser family. Um also owned on the north side is one parcel owned by the Morison family, two par- parcels owned by uh Traditions, and then one parcel that's owned by the city of Chaska. Um Skoglund will be kind of the main developer of those 300 acres. Um however, don't have um that land control over Traditions or the city of Chaska parcels. Uh today the property mainly consists of agricultural use, um as well as some wooded areas. Um there are total of 27 wetlands across uh the 300 acres. Um and then you have West Ches- Chaska Creek kind of on the north side there. Uh the comprehensive plan guides uh this area to have two key community entrances, one that's positioned at uh the Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard intersection, and then one that's on the south side uh near Chaska Boulevard and Highway 212. So, phase one um that's moving forward with preliminary approval. Um again as shown in kind of the green outline here on the uh upper image um and is roughly 44 acres uh proposed for the first user, which is a distribution center. So, the current request again includes a preliminary site and building plan for that distribution center user uh totaling 218,000 square feet on 44 acres. Uh it also includes a preliminary plat request, a rezoning um to a planned multi-use district um and a comprehensive plan amendment. Uh the pre-plat includes uh two lots, one lot for the distribution center um and then another lot for the future water tower uh on the north side here. And then seven uh remnant outlots for future development um and stormwater ponding and the wooded ravine area. The comprehensive plan guides this uh first phase uh for business park um open space uh rural residential or green belt um and then the former Dalgran Township growth area, which is in that hatched out area. So, the comprehensive plan amendment request uh would include three different components with it. Uh one to allow for a cluster development in the green belt area. Uh the second to expand the MUSA boundary, which is the metropolitan uh urban service area. and establish land use guidance on the former Dahlgren Township parcels. In terms of the green belt and where that is situated, it's basically on the west edge of the project area shown in green here. Um, this uh, green belt edge is uh, established around the city edge to physically and visually separate the city of Chaska from adjacent communities. Uh, the objective of that is the protection of the rural character at key community entrances. Um, with phase one, um, it includes uh, a little under 30 acres of green belt area. Um, in terms of uh, the impacts uh, or impervious surface uh, within that area, there's roughly about 9 acres within that, so about 31% of the green belt area uh, that would be um, proposed with the site plan. Um, there is a policy within the comprehensive plan that does allow for cluster development within the green belt area, uh, which I'll go over in the the next slide here. So, cluster development is allowed uh, within the green belt area if it meets the 10 stated objectives uh, from the comprehensive plan. I'm not going to go through all of them. Um, those are included in the staff report analysis. Um, just a few of them that will touch on, um, the area does need to be serviced by Chaska utilities. Um, this is proposed as a part of this project is utilities will be extended to the site. Uh, view sheds at key community entrances are identified, prioritized, and protected. Um, so the key community entrance in this area is at that intersection of Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard. Um I'll show in a few subsequent slides here the the proposed ponding, berming, and landscaping that's proposed in those areas. There are a few refinements that are being requested for the final submittal um to uh bolster uh the landscaping um in certain areas along that edge. Uh specifically the northwest edge of building one site and then near that vehicle entrance proposed on Jonathan Carver Parkway. Um and then the other piece is uh development activity is limited to approximately a third of the site. Um and yes, they are meeting that with the development activity limited um to third approximately 31% of that area where 33% would be allowed. Uh this slide includes a couple view sheds uh from Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard uh showing the proposed landscaping both at uh kind of that initial installation or 5-year growth as well as um what it would look like in 20 years um which I'll show uh the comparison of that through a video uh analysis um on the next slides here. Uh those two areas needing refinement are identified as one and two on this exhibit. So again, on that northwest side um here, you can see portions of the building uh at that five uh year growth period and then number two uh where that vehicle entrance is. Um there's definitely some um ability to fill in there to bolster that view shed um from a more natural standpoint at the beginning stages of installation. >> [snorts] >> Hopefully this will work. I've got two videos to show you. One is showing the 5-year growth and this would be traveling from Big Woods Boulevard and then on to Jonathan Carver Parkway. So we're on Big Woods Boulevard here and we'll start to round the corner to go north here on Jonathan Carver Parkway. And again, this shows the edge of the property along that green belt area with the proposed berming and landscaping. And that's kind of the area on that northwest side that will need some refinement into the final. >> And the [clears throat] trail stays there also, correct? >> Yep. And then this is the 20-year growth view shed. Still on Big Woods Boulevard rounding the corner going on Jonathan Carver Parkway now. Um continuing the comprehensive plan amendment request. So the amendment would include establishing land use over those Dahlgren Township parcels. Um and the existing is on the left, the proposed is on the right here. Um also included is the expansion of the MUSA, the area that's serviced by city utilities. And again, uh because we didn't have that guidance established for those Dahlgren Township [clears throat] uh parcels, that expansion would basically continue into that growth area that has been annexed. Uh this is the phasing plan just to show kind of what's proposed at phase one here, um and what's uh for subsequent development later on. Uh so phase one really includes everything in turquoise, and then uh the uh pink areas as well. Um so building one uh effectively is that turquoise area on this screen here. Um and then also part of phase one [snorts] would include public improvements uh to the intersection, the main intersection into the development at Big Woods Boulevard, um and an access onto Jonathan Carver Parkway. Uh also included would be uh the extension of that local uh public road, public road A, uh which would end in a cul-de-sac on the north side there. Also included would be the um extension of a public trail um that would follow public road A and uh extend across the wooded ravine up to Chaska um or Creek Road and Chaska Creek Boulevard to the north there. That would basically follow uh where the utility extensions are proposed uh across the ravine. Um and then masquerading basically um to the uh extent of kind of where the blue area is shown for the north side um at the beginning [snorts] here. [clears throat] Uh in terms of access and right-of-way, so again a new collector road or local road um is proposed to be kind of that main north-south um uh spine road into the development. Um this is also a state-aid road. Uh so it has its own set of standards that need to be met uh from a state review perspective. Um the intersection of where public road A meets uh Big Woods Boulevard uh is proposed to be a single-lane roundabout um and then an additional access uh would be at Jonathan Carver Parkway, which would be a private access into the uh site for um a right-in right-out. Um not a part of this project, but eventually uh will be constructed in the near term, would be another roundabout project at Big Woods Boulevard and Jonathan Carver Parkway, uh which was a county project identified for this area. Um so a couple things uh the applicant will need to work on into final um is there are spacing requirements along a collector road or public road A that need to be met, um which is a 600-ft spacing requirement between access points. Um the two that don't meet that are where the truck loading dock access is and one of the van lot parking lot access points. Um they're roughly 100 ft from each other, so they'll need to work on a plan that meets the spacing requirements um into final. Uh additionally, they'll have to continue coordination with Carver County given that this about two of their county roads and they're proposing two access points and improvements on those roadways. Carver County will have the final say in kind of what those intersection designs need to look like since it's their road. So, that'll be a requirement going into finals that will need that certainty from Carver County that the designs proposed are good to go. From a traffic standpoint, they did provide an updated TIA with this preliminary submittal. Um and really focused on the traffic generation for building one as a distribution center. Um the proposed user or distribution center user would have roughly 3,000 daily trips from their site and this is broken down from kind of personal vehicles um the trucks that would use the loading dock area delivering the goods and then the delivery vans that would be dispatched from the distribution center. Um the uh personal vehicles um would make up a majority of the daily trips there um the majority of these trips are when these employees would come to the site would be during um off-peak hours for the most part a lot of them will work overnight doing um sorting as trucks are dropping off goods. Um they'll be doing sorting activity during the overnight hours into the early morning hours and then have other subsequent shift employees that will work within the distribution center during the day. The trucks will be roughly 88 daily trips and these will be mainly overnight during the overnight hours and then sporadic few during the daytime hours as well. And then vans those again will be dispatched out of the site kind of after off-peak hours in the morning so they'll have most of the van drivers arriving at the site in their personal vehicles around 9:00 a.m. And then start to be dispatched out around 10:00 a.m. And they have an 8-hour to 9-hour shift so they typically come back around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. at night after their deliveries are done. Utilities so as I mentioned before utilities will cross the ravine. Utilities are currently available at that intersection of Creek Road and Chaska Creek Boulevard to the north so those will be extended across the ravine to access the project area. They will need easements and agreements from the abutting property owner Traditions as they own the property immediately north. They are fully supportive of the extension of the utilities to the project area as it will also service their area as well in the future. Um for trails and sidewalks, um the project plans to incorporate um a layer of sidewalks and trails within the development. Uh so off of public road A, uh you have a sidewalk on the west side and then a trail on the east side uh for the public streets. Um the trail uh also shows to extend across the ravine to connect into the trail system um to the north there. Uh there's also an offshoot that kind of winds its way into the wooded area too to provide um public access into that wooded ravine system. Um and then also a trail extension um off of that regional trail on uh Jonathan Carver Parkway that would extend on kind of the west side there and into the wooded ravine as well as proposed. Um for outdoor gathering spaces, um the site itself uh will have its own area um for employees there just on the outside of the front entrance. They're showing tables. Um they'll have a ride shelter for people who will get picked up at the site um from carpoolers or family members, friends. Um and then another outdoor gathering space uh is shown in a city out lot kind of where that uh trail extends off of the northern cul-de-sac there. Um just one thing uh for the applicant to work on into their final um is enhancing the outdoor gathering space um for building one site um to make it a little bit more desirable and shaded uh for uh their employees there. Um so that's one thing they'll have to refine into final. Uh for screening, landscaping, and tree preservation, we did kind of touch on that in those uh initial slides here. Um there are a few areas that they'll need uh to further refine um uh kind of on that greenbelt area side that we mentioned before. Um they'll also need to show Boulevard trees along public road A, and again that's the area that's between the curb and the sidewalk within the public right-of-way there. So that will need to be shown on the landscape plan. Um and then also um provide enhancements for Burmingham landscaping on that east edge of building one's property where the van lot um abuts the uh public road A there to try to screen that area as well as the uh loading dock area from the public road. Uh for building one um again this is on a roughly 44-acre site. It's over 200,000 square feet. Um it's 40-ft building. Um the building proposes to use a mix of uh form liner uh glass and concrete panels, smooth um application concrete panels. Um they meet the city's ordinance in terms of industrial buildings. Um the parking lot our parking provision for the site is well over the city's requirement uh as they'll have to park both employees and delivery delivery vehicles on site. Um, and then there's also an accessory building, uh, which would be a fleet service building for the delivery vans on site and that also, um, meets the industrial standards. As it'll be stone and stucco to match the the colors of the primary building. Um, a couple other things to work on for final that I haven't already mentioned, um, they'll need to get a fully approved wetland mitigation plan as there's one, um, incidental wetland on building one site that will be impacted as a result of the project. Um, also need to get an approved comprehensive plan amendment done by Met Council which would follow the city's approval of a comprehensive plan amendment. Um, and then ensuring, um, through outlots and, uh, easements, uh, the greenbelt implementation strategy strategy. So, in, um, for any areas within the greenbelt that aren't owned by the city or planned to be owned by the city, they'll need to either be, um, in an easement or have some type of preservation document over it. Um, so in conclusion, we are asking three motions this evening. One of them is to recommend approval of the preliminary site and building plan and preliminary plat for Big Woods Business Park, uh, specifically Big Woods Business Park North Building One based on the conditions listed in the staff report. Uh, and then a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning from the rural residential RR2 zoning district to the planned multi-use district PMD 24. Um and then a motion to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to allow for cluster development in the greenbelt um to guide the former Dahlgren Township parcels um and to expand the Musa. Um if this uh moves forward this evening, this will go to council on Monday, [clears throat] which would be this uh upcoming Monday, June 15th. Happy to answer any questions, otherwise we have uh representatives in the room uh on the applicant side as well. >> Perfect. Thank you. Um so we do have a public hearing tonight, but before we go there, any questions for staff from the commission? >> So the road improvements on the Jonathan Carver and that intersection, right? So would that be completed before the actual building operational? Or like we it's not yet decided. >> I'm sorry, the the intersection of Jonathan Carver >> Big Woods and the Jonathan Carver, that roundabout. >> Um it's likely that well, that is planned for 2027 construction. So it might be kind of at the same time that um the user will be under construction too. >> we see a lot of vehicles coming in and if if that is not completed by the time building is operational, like that intersection would be a mess. I mean, you can't even turn left or right or whatever like that. Because all the trucks and delivery things going on and they can they just need to stand there, so >> Right. >> So just a problem. >> it's actually 28. Um so there will be a bit of a mess. Um but you know, messes are part of developing areas. Um the developer is in direct coordination with Carver County. The roundabout that's being programmed at Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard is a county led project. It's part of their um you know, highway improvement program. They're their identified CIP um you know, timeline and things. So, we are working with them to coordinate. They're aware of this project um and you know, it'll it'll definitely I think benefit from the improvements um but the county would have been pursuing this project in that timeline regardless of of this project coming forward or not. >> Yeah, because the if they are not completing by that time, probably need to consider some mitigation plans like having four-way stop sign or something. Otherwise, like it would be really mess. >> Yeah. >> I see that. >> Nothing more our residents like than close the road one year to work on part of it and then close the road the next year to do the other part. Uh other questions for staff? No. I've got one. Uh and the utilities that are going to come through the ravine to service this, uh >> [clears throat] >> would that be stubbed in on the other side of Big Woods Boulevard uh service the south side right away? Okay. >> Yep, it would extend all the way to Big Woods Boulevard. >> Okay. Question for the developer. All right. If we have no more questions for staff, we'll call the public hearing to order at 7:32. All right. I think we've got a couple representatives from the from the developer here. Would you I'm sure we've got a couple questions for them and you might have some presentation you would like to >> Jake from Nolan Properties. Uh all all commissioners and staff, thank you very much. Um here and happy to answer any and all >> questions. I think the presentation that Liz put together was pretty thorough. We've obviously been working with them very closely and doing our best to accommodate um, not only from the conceptual phase, but also what is forthcoming um, here in the future. >> Perfect. Thank you, Jake. Questions for Jake? Um, Jake, just curious. For this facility, this first building, how many employees do you see when we talk like job creation and stuff like >> Yeah, roughly about 300. >> About 300? >> Yep. >> And that's 24 hours a day, 7 days a week type thing or >> They're yep, the facility will operate 24/7, correct. >> And you know, when I look at this and and I you kind of get an idea who the who the end user might be. A lot of truck traffic, lot of van traffic, lot of car traffic there and you guys have studied this and and it it all looks good and I know being close to a major freeway like that makes a lot of sense. >> Right. >> I just it's hard to configure it or kind of kind of hard to picture it right now with the roads set as they are. So, >> Right. >> And your building is two units, right? Like do you consider adding like a renewable energies like a solar panels or something on top of it? That would like definitely help the I mean, reduce the carbon emissions and all, right? >> Solar panels, not at this time. No, we're not considering that. >> Um, we'll go back to traffic again. And so, we've got you know, the historic downtown down here. And um, it looks if if my guess is right on the end user anyways, um they've already got a facility over in Shakopee, so it doesn't look like there'd be a ton of traffic going through the historic downtown portion then. >> This facility will service the Southwest. >> Okay. >> Um obviously the proximity to Highway 212 is very attractive to run north and south. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions for Jake? Or staff? No? >> If I may. >> Absolutely. >> Uh Jason Bengtson, uh owner rep uh for the end user. Um just on the on the job component, uh obviously the the number of vehicles and the number of jobs that we're creating don't totally align and part of that also is the the vans are uh directly employed by small businesses that we contract with and then they create the jobs for the actually the the delivery drivers themselves. But they operate that business out of this facility. So it's a direct indirect job creation and that's probably about another three to 300 plus uh jobs or so from that. Those are full-time as are the um the folks that we working what we call under the roof uh in in the building and they receive those benefits that start on day one. >> Independent contractors basically. >> Uh the small businesses but the but the folks driving are not independent contractors. They're employees of those small businesses that we contract with, yeah. And then just as a as a comment on the sustainability, well this building [clears throat] won't be fitted with solar, there's a number of uh sustainability initiatives um that are being run out of this or that will be run out of this facility. During construction, they'll track uh kind of um the the carbon footprint of those materials and that that's then used to uh impact our total global build program or at least here in North America to sort of reduce those. Uh and I have a list cuz I don't have it committed to memory just yet, but low carbon concrete is about a 20% reduction in in carbon impact there. Um, low carbon rebar will be included in this. Uh, and then certainly the native landscaping which I know is part of the the city's plan anyways, but um, that's a that's a key part of our build program going forward as we kind of look at some of those things. >> And your name again was, I'm sorry? >> Jason, last name Vangalis. Thanks. >> Thank you, Jason. Is there anyone else that would like to speak at the public hearing here? >> Hi. >> You look familiar. >> I've been here once or twice. Uh, Travis Olson, 1439 Sophia Drive. Um, for those of you don't know, the green belt is near and dear to my heart. Um, and anything that encroaches on it, it it kind of hits me. Um, and for those that that don't or haven't read it, it's the the three key parts or two of the main ones are to help preserve and strengthen Chaska's sense of community and identity for free standing community, and to preserve and protect the value open space and natural resources. So, those are two of the three bullet points for why the green belt was created. So, when they're going in and pushing the limits and yes, they're allowed to. Yes. It's a great project. I'm not saying not do it, but they're pushing the limits on what they can do. Now, it's the this is where you guys can say too much. Push it back. Push it away from the the road. It doesn't have to be that close because they are pushing the limits. You saw from the video the berm is right there. It's not open space. That berm is right there. It's not natural. And then back to the bullet points, which is bullet point seven, talking about what is allowed >> [snorts] >> per the policy, it's the development activity is limited to approximately 1/3 of the site. The remainder of the site remains undeveloped with permanent protection measures. Undeveloped. The berm is actually development. The retention ponds are development. So, I don't get how they can get away with saying that that's undeveloped. So, keep that in mind as you're going through the the decision-making policy, okay? So, this is the part where, obviously, they're their business, they're trying to make the most out of what's available. You guys have the ability to push back. Not saying stop, because, like I said, it's a great opportunity. I I love I love that they're coming, but don't allow them push the boundaries. The other one is the access road onto onto County Road 11. I don't know why they need that. I don't know why they need a right in, right out. It's It's For one, it's not needed. And if it is, it's just going to create confusion, because now you have people coming up. They're going to drive in there, they're going to get stuck, and now they're going to have to come out. It's as you saw in the video or saw in the presentation, you got now two crosswalks going across that driveway, which is kind of odd, so they really need to take care of that. So, if you do allow them to keep that drive, you do need to have them fix the bike path or the paths they have because they have one that's going up onto the berm, and hopefully the bike path is still staying along the highway or so by whatever you do, they've got to fix that. Because right now they have two, which is silly. Um So, that's my bill. So, I do thank you. Please keep that in consideration when you guys are making your decision. >> Thanks, Travis. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on on this project? No? Going once, going twice. Any other questions for the developers based off of Travis's comments? >> I am curious about the right in right out. Just what is the purpose of that? Why is that part needed? >> I don't know if it'd be helpful to pull up that site plan at all when we talk about this. >> Sure. >> Um well, that's uh taking place. Our goal primarily is to maintain safety on the site. Uh there's obviously a a fair amount of uh activity uh and so the the primary driver for the right in right out is really is really safety. So, um the the blue uh is where all of the the van fleet will be um the way that the the vans kind of operate um and I don't have I I don't think an ops clock has been set for this facility yet, but typically between the hours of 9:00 to noon, there's a 2-hour block in that window where the vans will dispatch. And so, drivers will come in typically starting at 9:00 a.m. They'll park in that blue lot. Um so, that allows for an extra more efficient flow of traffic for the number of um entrances that are there. Uh and then they'll pull into the they'll pull into an empty spot, they'll get into the van, and then they'll go and they'll queue. And I don't think you can see the queuing lanes, but that's kind of the just to the left page left of the building there. Um it's kind of like a like a green greenish color. They'll kind of pull their vehicle there um and and then they'll disengage the ignition. There'll be a a sizable number of uh electric vehicles that will launch at this facility. Uh and then um once it's time to queue, they'll they'll enter a canopy, they'll disengage their ignition again. They'll load up. That process takes about 20 minutes start to finish. Uh and then they um go out in waves. And that process takes about 5 minutes. So, the total dispatch process is about 25 minutes per wave. And then they do that over the course of uh a 2-hour block of time. And so, um they'll you can imagine they'll service different areas and different routes. And so, this makes sure that some some will go uh uh onto the right and right out with intersection A. Others will go into the public feeder road and then exit that way depending on where their route is servicing. >> Is this kind of a normal for the facilities that you build, is this kind of a normal layout for them or is each one somewhat different? >> Uh we try to template it as much as we can obviously based on the the parcel of land that we have and kind of where we're at. Um I would say that that what you typically find uh is on either side you typically have a van lot. Uh and then in this in this particular design component, um you don't see that. Um but this is fairly standard. Okay. Yeah. >> Um Have you been in contact yet with I know you've been in contact with Carver County, but specifically for that right in right out there, would there be um like an acceleration lane going would that be north there? Um or a major turn lane coming from the south and also? >> So, you're talking in relationship going north on Jonathan Carver? >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Yeah. So, we're in direct coordination right now with the county and the design uh in meeting all the design standards. >> Okay. >> Um we can pull up the plans if you like. >> you get a lot of vans that are going to be coming in and out of there short periods of time and and um that that road gets kind of busy in the in the mornings and well, 24 hours a day now it seems like. >> Yeah, we've again, the county has been out on site. We've looked at uh site distances, uh making sure the proximity to the proposed roundabout as well and also the right in right out, also lining up with the city Carver on the west side of the road. So, we've been able to talk and and and work through um not only with with with staff, but also the county on top. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Okay. Any other questions from No? All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Great question for you, Jake. Where does that roundabout line up with my property as far as >> To the east. >> To the east. Where did that map go? >> Any other comments for the commission here? Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. And bring it back to the commission here for discussion. So, we have four four pieces here that we have to look at tonight. Um we've heard the comments from the developer, the builder and from Travis. >> So, based on the uh the comments uh from public hearing, so the 31% of the development like uh total the land usage, is it considering the burns and the and like uh retention ponds and all those things? Or is it like excluding those things? >> The impact area includes all of the parking area, the building area. Um so, the impervious surfaces essentially are in that impact area. >> Okay. So, you consider that that also is part of that 31%. >> Correct. Yep. >> There you go. The precedent that we have for development within the green belt under the green belt policy um the cluster development policy would be the Cheval neighborhood. Um and so, that that neighborhood implemented the policy. Obviously, that's residential. This is industrial. Different uses. Um but there's in that calculation that occurred at the time um the way that that worked there's there's a lot of uh storm water ponding. There's a lot of burning. The way that a lot of the screening uh you know, creating that vegetated natural edge relative to the county roads that surround that site. Um so, County Road 11 going east down the the west boundary. That's on a county road to on the north boundary. It's uh Is that 82nd? 70 >> 86th. >> 86th Street. >> Mhm. >> Uh to the north. Um the way that that screening occurred, uh if you drive out there, you'll see there's there's burning. um, it's vegetated. Um, and that's how that was that was achieved to create the, uh, the edge, um, relative to that boundary of the city there. Um, the 1/3 and 2/3 is not all dedicated to the edge, uh, in the Cheval neighborhood. Um, the preservation areas are woven throughout the whole neighborhood. Um, and, you know, the ponding and things were were counted towards that preservation, um, you know, native uh natural area. Um, in that scenario. So, what we're attempting to do is take the precedent that was set, uh, with the Cheval neighborhood, apply those principles, um, to this to this site, um, to, you know, come up with, uh, a, you know, an outcome that preserves that edge in a way that, um, is, you know, consistent to the extent that we can do that in a very different context. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Anyone else? >> Is >> Is there lighting ordinances, uh, for this with some of the overhead lights in a 24/7 operation? >> Yep, so our lighting ordinance, um, doesn't necessarily limit, uh, when they can have lights on, um, but it does limit, uh, the amount of foot candle or glare that can spread out to other properties. >> Okay. Sounds good. Question? Anyone else? No? >> Um, I'd just like it noted that we'd like to see that our green belt, um, preserved as much as possible. If there's any way we can work with that to to strengthen that. I'm I'm sure the answer is no, but I'm going to ask it anyways. Would there be any way of of eliminating that exit on County Road 11 and just having that have the bends run along the north side of the building and and work off of the the new road that's going in there? >> It's a lot of traffic there. All right. >> I will that does remind me. >> [clears throat] >> The crosswalk question that was brought up. Is there any additional clarity on like is there is there a crosswalk coming up a berm and then down a berm across a road or like what will that look like I guess is my question? >> On Jonathan Carver Parkway. Uh that would likely be outside of the where the berm is. So it wouldn't be going over a berm >> Okay. >> necessarily. >> It's similar to the grade it's at today? >> Right. Yep, so there's a regional trail on the west side there. Um so that basically will kind of stay where it's at and then modifications made um if the access uh uh proceeds there and then a crosswalk um up to county design standards would have to be made there. >> And then is it Carver County then that has oversight over how that crosswalk would operate through the new right-in right-out to the new development? >> Mhm, that's correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Would would we have a final um road map I guess or like literally what the road would look like at that entrance exit before the the third stage here from the county? >> We can certainly ask for one and see how far we can get the design um but usually it's it's kind of an ongoing iterate iterative process with the county until it's uh constructed, but we can certainly get as far as we can. >> Does the builder have I mean, what are you guys asking for, I guess? Or do you have a design at this point? >> So, I can speak to that a little bit to give a little more context. Um ultimately, it's a county road, and so the access onto the county road is a is an access permit with the county. Um and it ends up being the county's responsibility to ensure that their specifications for, you know, safety and circulation and and all of that with the access relative to their road are being met. Um so, it ends up being, you know, a process that is happening in parallel uh with the city's review process. Um you know, I think what we can do is, you know, aim to sh- to share um you know, what's what's relevant and shareable, right? At the time that uh uh the final comes through. Um but also recognizing that, you know, it doesn't really be, you know, we can comment on it, we can share our feedback to the county, we can share our preferences. Um but my experience is that the county often does what what their policy says um should be done. Um and and that will be what drives that. Um but yeah, I think we can, you know, as we get into that next process, share information as we know it at that point. Um it will be um in it, you know, in order for the development to proceed, right, into building, they'll need to have the permit from the county squared away. Um they need to ensure that they have the appropriate access and everything at that time. And that's consistent with how we, you know, a project that's going on right now um in town um would be uh Four Stars project. Um I can't even think of the name of it. >> Highpoint. >> Highpoint Vistas, yes. Um and there's an access onto County Road 61 uh that's being figured out there. Um and you know, that that development is grading right now. Um you know, they're they're anxious to get their building permits and and move forward with their phase two. Um, but a big part of that is moving through the county's process and making sure that that access is fully understood and the design is finalized. >> Yep. Um, so we're going to look for a motion to recommend approval to the city council uh, preliminary site and building plan only right now uh, for a preliminary plat for Big Woods Business Park, BWBP North Building 1 subject to 10 conditions here. Is there any further discussion on this portion of it? Hearing none, I'll look for a motion. >> I motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded for approval. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? The motion carries. Um, next motion is to recommend approval of the rezoning from rural residential RR2 to planned multi-use district PMD-24 based on the draft ordinance. [snorts] Look for a motion for that also. >> Motion to move. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded to approve. All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Third, motion to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to allow cluster development guide the former Dalton Township parcels to be open space and business park and expand the metropolitan urban service area MUSA MUSA line. I'll look for a motion on that. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. I think that's all we needed for the motions tonight, correct? All right. Moving on then for other business, is there any other business you'd like to discuss this evening? >> One thing I can just mention for the planning commission to know, we are continuing to move forward. I mentioned I think a couple meetings ago with a an update to the downtown master plan. That first task force meeting has been scheduled. So, that's on June 22nd. I believe maybe Commissioner Rydberg is going to be filling in for Commissioner Austin at that one. And that'll be, you know, our first discussion with that group to kick off a process that will go into early next year to take the plan that exists and was approved back in 2012 and think about, you know, what's that next vision for downtown to continue I think the positive momentum that has been built over the last almost 15 years, right? So, just so you're aware. Thank you. >> One thing to mention, with all the talk about the data centers, the city put together a real good question and answer page on the city webpage about it with the facts on the data center that's proposed. So, it'd be nice to refer people to that rather than all the rumors that are out there. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? No? Look for a motion to adjourn then. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded to adjourn. All in favor say aye. >> Aye.