Good evening everyone. If for those of you who are able, please stand and uh follow me in the pledge of allegiance. Please to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. I guess I called the meeting to order before that. Sorry about that, everybody. All right, we have an agenda before us tonight. Is there any changes to the agenda as it stands or do I have a motion to approve? >> Motion to approve the agenda. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second. >> Motion by Taylor, second by far. All those in favor of the agenda, please say I. I. >> Opposed sign. All right. Motion approved. Minutes from the last meeting from um May May 11th. Looks like we had our last meeting. If anybody has any changes to the minutes or I would also look for a motion to approve >> the following planning commission minutes. We have a motion. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. All those in favor by approving the amendments say I. >> I. >> Approve. Same sign. >> All right. Motion approved for the minutes from May 11th. All right. Looks like we have two public hearings before us tonight. We'll start with the Marshall Gardens development. Uh the applicant is requesting approvals necessary to redevelop the property at 9905 Dell Road into 50 single family residential lots with waiverss. We're going to start with our staff report. Then we will ask the applicant and developer to come next and then we will have the public hearing followed by that. So Jeremy, please start with the staff report. >> Thank you chair, commissioners. Um on the screen shortly will be just a a picture of the the preliminary plat which summarizes the project. Um there are a number of uh requests uh on the table tonight. One uh proposing to change the comprehensive plan amendment or have a comp comprehensive plan amendment um to make basically everything north of the bluff line to be low density residential. Low density residential is single family homes with the density of 0.1 to five units an acre. Um there's also a reasonzoning change to change all the property um all the developable property from rural to R1 9.5. Then basically everything south of the bluff line will be um parks and open space. Other um requests are the preliminary plat which would subdivide the property uh into 50 single family homes or home lots and then also um five outlots. The outlots would likely house or proposed to house storm water management ponds and things features of that. One of the outlets, however, will be outlet E, which is south of the bluff line, and that will be deed to the city um for permanent open space preservation. Uh also included in the request is a PUD, uh a PU concept and PUD with waivers. Uh a number of waiverss are requested by the developer. Um, those waiverss include lot area, lot width, front yard setback, and accessory garage or accessory storage area maximums. A bit about those. Um, about 24 of the 25 24 of the 50 lots do not meet the minimum 9,500 square feet. Um, some of them are as small as 8,100 square feet. Uh the average lot size within the development is about um note about 10,000 uh square feet which is greater than the minimum 9500 square feet. Um about 24 of the lots do not meet the minimum lot width requirement of um 70 ft. Some lots in a corner lot situation or in a culde-sac they have a different requirement but not all of the lots meet the the minimum width requirements. So, the applicant is requesting waivers um from our strict R1 9.5 zoning district. Also, the developer is requesting waiverss from the front yard setback. Front yard setback in the R1 9.5 zoning district is 30 ft. They're proposing a 25 ft setback. So, what what this does is it brings the house away from the rear property line. And in this application, the rear property line basically forms the north boundary line of the property and then also forms the bluff line basically. Um, some of you may recall the project a couple years ago, Marshall Gardens. And Marshall Gardens had a kind of a garden um community space in the north west corner, had uh similar ponds along the north property line, but they only had about 15 villa type homes. The rest of the property was a 100 unitit condominium building. All of those approvals with the exception of the comprehensive plan have expired. Uh the developer walked away from that project. Um and so the zoning reverted back to rural. The preliminary plat expired. All the PUD uh amendments and PUDs that we approved have expired. Um so we're kind of starting over. So, it's it's important from a commission standpoint that you're not evaluating this project based on what you liked about the other project, but what is in front of you today because everything reverted back to the original um rural zoning and kind of the the configuration that the property is now. Um so, that's a little background of the Marshall Gardens project. Um, shortly before the packet went out, um, we received, uh, some some comments from the neighborhood, which our public notice process works. Um, we got some comments from the neighborhood and we shared those with the US as part of your pack. And I'd like to kind of spend a little bit of time of addressing some of those comments and some of those concerns and know that we incorporated many of those issues into our our plan review and some things though that we obviously can't address all the time. Um, one of the comments that we heard in that written comment was that much of the donated land is undevelopable. Um, it's a steep slope. If you can see on your on your screens, the preliminary plat shows the 50 single family homes here and then this kind of hatched in area is a portion of the area that will be dedicated to the city as permanent open space. This area is guided currently for parks and open space. It's the same bluff line that was identified during the Marshall Gardens project. Um but everything basically south of that will be parks and open space. Um, this area is steep slopes. There's some bluffs in that area because there's a creek at the bottom. Um, there's some pretty intensive vegetation. Um, and developing of that property would not only be very expensive, but likely be very impactful to the uh to that natural resource. So, generally in these situations, the city looks to acquire properties like this. finding that the ability to maintain and manage these type of features is to the community's long-term benefit. And if you look at u a city map, you'll see a lot of these type of properties are owned by the city. Rarely is a situation where the city pays for them. We look for the developer to give those to us to protect that kind of character that we need prairie appreciate so much. So it is true much of that area is undevelopable. Um not all of it though. There are some flat areas south of the creek near Turnbo that could be developed. In fact, the previous development saw some concepts that included houses, large houses in that area and we wanted that area to be preserved and maintained. Um, so that's why we changed the comp plan and that's why we're not supporting any deviation from that. Um, we do get, as I said before, we do get a benefit for acquiring this property as the developer gets gets a benefit. We see this as an offset with some of the PUDs they're the weavers requested. Um, the lot area, lot width allows the property or the developer to kind of shift the density into the developable area, retaining the kind of more challenging areas for our benefit. So, um, there's an offset there. Um there was some comment about whether or not the density was accurately calculated. Um because only about 13 acres of the area is developable and the rest of it is is either right away or not developable and and that's true. Um but we do calculate on gross density which is one around 1.5 units an acre but even applying the the amount of density to the developable portion we're at about 3.6 units an acre. all or both within the guidelines of our comp plan which talk about low which talks about low density residential at.1 to five units an acre kind of our lowest density. We heard some also comments about the I'll call it the wall effect. If you look in the on the preliminary plat here along the north property line, there's there's a number of lots that are 55 feet in width. And there the the preliminary plat shows a kind of an idea of a of a of a floor plan or a footprint. And you can see there that there's minimal space between the homes um through from the south from the north through the property to the south. And and that's true. Um there are uh a reduced distance. Keep in mind that there's no waiverss requested from a sideyard setback perspective. Um so they do meet the the required um you know 15oot sideyard setbacks for both parcels or both both sides. So um there will be homes visible where there isn't any now. Um, however, what they're asking for isn't out of character for a 9 R1 9.5 zoning district. Um, along with that, there's a concern with privacy loss that residents along the the north property line. Currently, there's a farm in their backyard and suddenly there will be houses and and I can see that's a change. Um, however, the the separation between these houses and the houses on the north side are actually pretty typical for our R1 zoning districts. Um, even the neighborhoods to the north, the sideyard or the rear yard setbacks, some of them get as short as 75 ft. Most of them though are in the 90 to more than 120 ft, which is similar to what you're seeing here. Keep in mind too that a lot of these homes they'll back up to a pond or existing wetland or another pond, but there is five or six that are right in a row that will be a difference in terms of what you can see um from from those properties to the north. Um I can point out too that the developer tried to address this concern through our working with uh with the developer through our process. They've um reduced that front yard setback to bring the houses away from the north property line. They've added trees along the north property line, and I'll get to that in a moment. Um actually, I'll get to that now. Um there is no landscaping requirement for single family residential developments. Uh there's a tree replacement in some situations when trees are removed. Uh but there's not a specific landscaping requirement or screening requirement that we have for single family residential. You may see that in some of our multif family projects in our commercial zoning districts where they but a commercial or a residential area. But single family to single family we generally do not require um screening. The developer though is is using some of their their tree replacement requirements and putting trees along the north property line here and then also along the west property line. The trees do not go all the way across because there is proposed some storm water infrastructure in along that north property line. Pipes in the ground to convey storm water. We generally don't see it a good idea to put trees and and vegetation on top of that type of infrastructure because it's always at risk of being removed if we ever have to get in there and maintain that area. So, there has been some added, it just doesn't go all the way across. Um, one of the concerns early raised or raised in the comments was there's a missing landscaping plan. Um, there is a landscaping plan. we have received it. It does meet and exceed the requirements from a tree replacement perspective. It just maybe when the neighborhood meeting was held, it may not have been fully fleshed out at that time, but we do have a landscaping plan. It's included in your packet. And then lastly, there was a comment about the property value and market impacts and and frankly, we get that comment a lot. There's always that concern um and certainly city hears that concern about um any potential development. will negatively impact an existing thriving neighborhood and we certainly don't want to hurt that type of scenario. Um, however, we haven't seen the evidence. Um, the city of Scissor tells me there's really no evidence to support um a new development and infill type situation negatively impacting um property values. Now, obviously, house sales have a number of criteria, number of kind of variables that that impact the house selling price, not all of which are under the control of the city or this development. But this there's been development on this property talked about for really last three years in some level publicly since 2024. Um and the assessor provided some data in terms of sales in the neighborhood to the north. Um of the last eight sales, six of them were greater than the assessed value of the property. And then the two that weren't, one of which was a sale in late spring or early early winter um that had some other kind of issues associated with that project. Again, there's multiple variables associated with with property values, but by and large throughout the city, um development adjacent to um excuse me, property values adjacent to infill developments don't see a negative impact on property values in a direct one to one correlation as maybe suggested by some. Um just wanted to kind of touch on those those comments that we heard. be happy to answer any questions on that. But generally, I I'll turn it over to the developer u for his or their their presentation. Um I have some more information on the product that they're being offered, the price points, um kind of their their evolution of the project. Um and I'd be happy to answer any questions at any time really. >> Thank you, Jeremy. Are there any questions for Jeremy from the commissioners at this point? Otherwise, I will turn it over to the developer. All right. Having none or sorry, chair, may I sorry, just a few clarifications. Jeremy, I think I heard you write on a couple points, but I just want to make sure. Um, comprehensive guide plan changed. Our land use plan, at least in 2040, has this whole property uh guided as low density residential, right? >> It did. Yes. Okay, chair. Um, it originally was low density residential. We changed it for the Marshall Gardens project. >> Understood. And when the Met Council reviews a comp plan amendment, they do not approve it with conditions. So they approved the change to medium density residential, >> right? >> Um and so that's what it is guided now. But this does, to your point, revert it back to what we originally had it in 2040. >> And before our 2040 guide plan, historically has it always been uh guided? >> I believe it's always been low density residential or egg. >> Okay. All right. All right. So there's no surprise that it's has been forecast that it's residential development. No, as far as I know, it's been low density residential up until >> Okay. >> two years ago when we changed it for Marshall Gardens. >> All right. Great. And then going back to your comment about the wall, the perceived wall from the north property owners looking in to the south here. If I understood your comment right, that there's no sideyard setback variance requested. So, those are standard sideyard setbacks between the homes. Right. >> That's correct for the R1 9.5 zoning. But there's a lot width variance for a little bit tighter width lots. >> Yes. >> So I counted 18 lots across that north property line. So that means that there's 18 regularlysized sideyard setbacks on both sides of the home. If we didn't grant the waiver for the narrower lot size, there would be fewer lots along that north property line. Instead of 18, there might be 12 or something like that if they were larger lots. So then there would only be 12 normalsized sideyard setbacks. Is my is my thinking right? >> Yeah. If you reduced um or did I support the waiver from the lot width, >> right? >> In theory, yes. The loss would be um wider and less of >> Okay. So, it may have been accidental, but it it appears to me as though we're offering those neighbors more visibility between homes, having more lots with standard sideyard setbacks than fewer lots with standard sideyard setbacks. Accum we're accumulating more open space by having more lots. >> That's a hard question for me to answer. I I would imagine that the lots were bigger, you'd have bigger houses. >> Yeah. Um and therefore you may have less openings between >> I mean the house the mass of the the house would be bigger. Yeah. And and therefore would maybe be negatively impactful from a visibility standpoint. >> Right. I understand your point. Yeah. From negative space standpoint though between the houses sounds like we're getting more negative space. We're mandating more negative space because there's >> true there's more sideyard setbacks. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. I I just wanted to make sure I understood that math. Okay. Um, thank you. Appreciate it, Chair. >> Thank you, Commissioner Far. Um, any other questions for Jeremy? Otherwise, I'll turn it over to the developer. >> All right. Will the applicant and the developer please come forward? State your name and address for the record. >> Good evening. I'm Steve Schweers, uh, owner of Wooddale Builders. Um and uh good evening to all commission members and thank you Jeremy for the presentation. Um Wooddale's been around for 40 51 years first of all but we've done a lot of stuff here in Eaten Prairie. uh not just of late, but um this is probably going to be close to our last project in this development or this area with and we're calling it uh Marshall Farms. So, we're excited about it. I think that um we had a great neighborhood meeting too with the neighbors and I am meeting with them in a week or so on a Sunday afternoon to talk about tree removal and screening and so forth and so on. So I've dealt with issues like this in the past and we will definitely address this in this particular case. Um the um we are doing 50 units there. There's a multi- uh uh there's a combination of products. We're doing single family. Uh we're doing a villa style product which I think is hugely important to eat and prairie. Uh I've done several others of late and they've been hugely successful. I think affordability is also um also always a question. So to make lots bigger and addressing Ed's comments, you know, just to be bigger, we did um uh stable path, you know, we had certain setbacks and stuff and I don't think it looked congested by any means, but it was affordable and they sold quickly. uh we did Highland oaks which was way higherend you know product line and we were able to get high numbers where I think in this case we're concerned about the flatness non-wout affordability so we're trying to keep um a lid on the price points too I Dan from Ser Burquist is here this evening he's gonna going to talk about the development and then I've got two of the builders McDonald and Johnson Ryland are here this evening to talk about their product lines. Um so I think that's very important and I'll talk about numbers and stuff a little bit cost. Um other than that thank you for everything and we'll go from there. >> Thank you. Good evening. My name is uh Dan Schmidt. I'm the civil engineer on the project and um we've been working with city staff for four to six months on this project and uh everything has um gone pretty well. City staff has been super supportive and helpful. Um as far as the engineering portion of the project, um sanitary sewer is pretty straightforward. There's access on Dell Road and on Canopy. uh water the same bell road and canopy. So, it's served well. Uh our storm water design um meets four of the four main criteria for this uh rate control, volume control, suspended solids, and uh phosphorus removal. So, we meet all those um requirements. Uh, as far as the watershed goes, we've submitted to them six weeks ago and been through two reviews and we're down to three or three or four comments and working through those right now. Um, um, comparing this project to the Marshall Gardens project, um, they had 115 total units. Uh, we're at 50 total units, 22 of which are we're calling the single family. Um, and they're the bigger, wider lots. And the 28 villas, we've been calling them villas, but they're technically single family, I believe, too. But they're uh 55 feet wide. Um, the the tricks the trips per day from the site are going to be cut by 45% or 45% fewer. Um, um, yeah, the EV ready garages are pretty similar to what was on the original pro. um Marshall Farm or Marshall Gardens project. Um we also do pretty much the same thing with conductivity with the trails to the park to the east and the neighborhoods to the west and north. Um and as far as the density on the project goes, we're a lot closer to the original pro original uh guidance for the property after it was regguided for the higher density. Um, as you can see here, we got the two different product types. The the kind of the orangish color on top is the what we're calling the villas, the 55 foot wide lots. Um, the lots on the south side of the road and west side of the road there are both um single family homes, some to be built by McDonald and some to be built by Johnson Ryland. Um Jeremy described the waivers that we're looking for to to most the most of the va the waivers are to uh make it allowable to the do the villa projects uh the lot the villa lot width and area um yeah it's down to approximately 68 feet. We're also seeking a front yard setback waiver that um goes from 30 to 25 ft, which allows for enough parking without being in the rightway or over the sidewalk and increasing some uh backyard space. Um garage flexibility, Paul Ryland will discuss that when he's up here after me. Um, and the single family lot areas. There's just a couple lots that are under the minimum lot area of 95,000 square feet. And that has to do with um the city requested a strip of land uh 10 or 20 feet between the bluff and the bluff setback. And uh uh we did that. Okay, here's a the landscape plan. You can see on here that um we're we plan to have a a nice entrance monument to uh greet the people coming home. And uh the sidewalks, you can see on every road has a sidewalk. So, it creates conductivity to the park area. And here's a copy of the landscape plan. Um you can see that we've have uh one tree in the front yard of every home and we've also after meeting with the neighbors to the north they requested more screening and we increased the screening by 50% after that meeting. So, as you can see, there's that's well screened to the property to the north. And uh from here out uh Paul Ryland from Ryland Johnson Homes will do the neighborhood meeting recap. >> Thank you. My name is Paul Ryland with Johnson Ryland Builders. This is David Remick with McDonald Construction. Um, so we are both uh running companies that have been around for quite a long time. Maybe you familiar with our products. Um, so I'm going to jump into the Villa products. So we'll, as we shared, we'll be building the villas and half the single family. Um, perfect. Thank you. Um, on this one, I'm showing a threecar garage on the top left. The bottom right is the more uh I think there's only five of the lots where we can do threecar due to the width and that sort of thing. Most of them will be twocar. Uh Dan mentioned the garage. So, we've asked for a waiver to go to 9% on the garages. Um, our target, these are not age restricted, but our target market for the villas are empty nesters, um, or uh, people that are fully retired or even older, um, 70s, 80s. That's who we're selling. Mostly these homes are slab on grade. Everything is wheelchair friendly on one level. And then we do have optional second story space. It'll be interesting to see how many people choose that. Um, in most of our neighbors neighborhoods, we don't see people doing second story square footage. Um but we felt that would be important for this um this product. Um with the second story square footage, we can go up to five bedrooms, we can go over 3,000 square ft. Um we will have optional elevators if we do have uh customers that want the seconds story space and have some disability. Um and then I will point out just on the slide it was mentioned but the um it this particular point um the um the the lot depth there's a lot about lot width. The lot depth in most of these lots are 150 ft. Um and that's actually quite a bit deeper than uh most neighborhoods that we're going into today um are maybe 130 140. Um, so even though the lots may be narrow, they are actually quite deep and we're it gives us a lot of flexibility, backyards and things like that. So, um, Dave, why don't you jump up? All right. Thank you, Paul. Um, yes, we're going to be involved with the, um, single family homes, the non um the non-slab on grade part of the neighborhood. And uh McDonald has a couple of other neighborhoods in Eden Prairie where we built new construction. Uh similarly sized lots to this. One is Johnson Ridge and the other is Purgatory Creek. Both of those have u seem you know strong response positively uh just based on you know a lot of people who are buying them are actually in prairie residents relocating. Uh similar Paul's comments we expect to do a mix of Rambler and twotory. Um, so the our rams will have a basement, but that is uh that's a floor plan and a design that a lot of uh clients are looking for these days because a lot of them are those young empty nesters and maybe they've been in their existing home for quite a period of time and they're looking for something that allows either main level living, lower maintenance, newer construction, you know, modern mechanicals and all of those things. Um, but we also do see a mix of um growing families that uh need the two-story space. Uh, and Eden Prairie is a very attractive community for a number of reasons of why they would look here. So, what we expect is, you know, floor plans that'll be probably starting out at around high 3,000 4,000 ft. Some could get quite a bit bigger depending upon um the spaces that are built on the second level. Uh, and we expect, you know, that extra space in the back uh would probably be purposed as just space to enjoy, whether it's, you know, patios, pools, um, what have you. talk about that. >> This example of uh one of our single family home models and as you can see uh we're able to fit three cars uh garage because again most of these homeowners uh they may have uh teenage or adult children and have the need for the third vehicle or just additional storage that the third stall provides. And even though there's no second story here, we do try to make um you try to make sure that there's some visual interest on the side of the house where there's the garage that is located. Um, again, these this is a typical 4,000 foot plan. Um, and we have, you know, the open spaces that, um, you know, people are looking to build these days with, uh, lots of opportunities to take advantage of what the backyard represents, whether that's porches, sun rooms, uh, patios, you know, fire pits, all of those things. Um so with the single family homes we will um you know our products on the 500t level look fairly similar um um but we try to vary the architecture and so right now our plan is to um his he's looking at building a one-story home on the single family lots. I'm looking to build a two-story home. This happens to be our fall parade house in Chaza um that we um sold back in December. Um, and then this is actually the plan that we're currently working on for the model home. Um, and as David said, a growing family. Um, this home is over 6,000 square ft. And the idea is a large family. Um, and what we're seeing in many other communities uh nearby on the on the west side and the northwest side, um, you're seeing a lot of neighborhoods that are seeing homes like this. And they also have um amenities such as sport courts and um you know this one happens to show a fourc car garage. Um and that's probably something we might see uh in you know 50% or less of the homes in the neighborhood. Um I would guess 25% of the homes, but we'll just see how demand you know works with that. Um and then David, you're the expert on green path. >> Uh sure. So we will uh we're a green path builder and um first of all codes in Minnesota are generally very energy efficient. So what we build to as the standard uh produces a very energyefficient home. Uh we will have EV charger capability already where you just have a separate um board so you just be able to whatever charger you need put in there. Um everybody can upgrade if they want from an insulation standpoint or triple pane windows. We offer all of those. Um but generally our base starts at a very energyefficient home where we have a very high hurd score that's above average for the area. Uh I think Pauler Johnson Ryland uh very similar. So these will be uh at the base very efficient homes. David won a Reggie award for green path. Um so that concludes our presentation. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you for that. Are there any questions from the commissioners for the applicant? All right. Hearing none, um we will then uh thank you for your comments. We will then open the public hearing. So, we have a public hearing before us for this project. It looks like I do have some people who have signed in, but I only have one person who has indicated they wish to speak. Uh, Richard Copy, if you could come to the podium, please uh say and spell your name and your address for the record, please. >> Thank you. Thank you. My name is Richard Copy. I live at 9872 Crestwood Terrace, uh, literally across the street from the project about a block over. Uh my wife and I moved here from Minnotonka to Eden Prairie about six, seven years ago. We love the community. We picked the right place. There's no question that Eden Prairie is got one of the just great communities to live in. We hope to live here many, many more years. Um, this neighborhood we live in, this seems to be the last major part I think as I see it of the neighborhood to complete. Uh, we went through the public hearing a few of the hearings and meetings last year with the previous project that was presented. I don't know quite quite what happened, why it fell apart, but the one that we have on the table tonight, I think I'm real happy with it. Most of the neighbors I talk with are real happy with it. It seems to me to be more fitting of the of the beautiful land that they're developing. So, I'm not here to complain about the project. I'm here to embrace it. But I am here to say this and that is uh the city of Eden Prairie I think needs to use this impetus as a way to finish out this neighborhood and I don't see that happening. I see this project as one small part of this neighborhood. And it's sort of like the little bit of uh development that happened a couple of years ago on the north end of of uh Crestwood Park right by Stable for uh Stable Pathway or whatever that street is called. You had 17 homes that were built up there and that's all they did. They put those homes in. Nothing else happened. Um, I think we could embrace this whole neighborhood, Dell Road being the biggest part of it, and try to as a city try to finish out our neighborhood with landscaping, uh, new trailways and sidewalks, um, better street system. Dell Road from Highway 212 to Flying Cloud Drive is pretty much unobstructed. It's got one signal light as you know at Pioneer Road and my wife and I walk our dogs all the time on Dell Road. We see people going down Del Road 35 40 45 miles per hour. Occasionally you have a speed sign out there show showing people what they're doing, but it doesn't stop anybody. And so I think now is a time to look at that. What should we be doing? And one of the things that I think we could look at is maybe a roundabout at maybe by Crestwood Park someplace, maybe right here with this project we're looking at. Roundabouts are used all over the metro by many, many cities. And they are not necessarily stopping traffic. They're not stop sign situations, but they are controlling speeds to a better degree. And so I think something like that could be used along Dell Road between Pioneer Road and Flying Claw Drive. When you put that gravel roadway that's in place right now into pavement and put curb and gutter all the way down the Flying Claw Drive, you're going to have a lot more people taking that shortcut and using that. So, I think it's going to be I I read the traffic study that the city did and I respect the numbers that were in the study, but I think it might even be bigger than you might expect because right now um the detour that exists because of Pioneer Road, as you know, the bridge is out and there's a lot of cars going down road to go to Flying Claw Drive and over towards 101. one just to get around that bridge that's out and that's with the gravel roadway in place. What's going to happen when you pave that and you now have added 50 or more homes in this neighborhood uh with no stop signs, no speed control, nothing on Dell Road. So, I'd like to see that looked at by the city to a higher degree. Um a landscape plan for Dell Road. If you look at Del Road from 212 all the way down to this development, it's a varied landscape plan. You on the west side, you have almost nothing. If you look at the the Delro um facility on the east side, you have a huge amount of evergreen uh type product and it looks really really nice. And then as you get down into the Crestwood Park area by this development, you have nothing. Again, now I know in this development they have a landscape plan. I think it could go even further. I think the city could almost make this into a parkway like you do up by Bear Bear Bear Path. So I think that can be that could certainly be part of a of a bigger picture here. And then my my last comment is about this trail system. I when we moved into our house, we had the city come in one day four or five years ago now and put stakes in our backyard by the creek by by Riley Creek showing the rightway that they had acquired. And so I asked the person, "Why are you doing this?" And he said, "Well, someday they'll build a trail back here." Well, that's been five years and here you've got more land. You've acquired a whole bunch of land that you're showing on the screen tonight. as part of this project that of course will someday I'm I'm assuming be part of a park system or a trail system all the way over to for example Lake Riley but I don't hear any talk about that. I don't know why that can't be also brought up as part of what's going on here because this is more in my mind than just a 50 lot subdivision project. You're developing the last major part of this neighborhood. Let's put it all together and make it into one major package that could be could be brought forward at the same time at least planned so we have an idea how many years down the road will it be before a trail system is done along Riley Creek to tie our parks together. Right now there's nothing there. It's a beautiful piece of land. You have a lot of rightway but nothing's been developed. I think that's generally my comments. I'm I like the project. I'm just adding I'm asking the city people here to look further than this project and think about the whole neighborhood area. What could we be doing better? And I hope that my comments um can be embraced in some way and we can have more public meetings talking about trail systems and about landscaping plans and more than what we what we're seeing tonight. So, thank you for giving me the opportunity. >> Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that's wishing to speak? All right. I'll ask you, Mr. in the white shirt, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. >> Uh my name is Larry Ericson. I live at 9752 Laferte kind of in the northeast corner there close to that small pond up there. Um I think the developer is doing a great job. I don't really have any negative comments from that respect. Uh, I guess my comment would be there's a lot of dead trees along that tree line there on our property. Uh, it's kind of a screwy lot line. And, uh, if you look at the the tree line, it looks like it's on our property, but it's actually on the city's property. The way the, uh, property line runs, it's kind of an outlot there for that pond. So, I don't know if the um city can do some horse trading with the developer, take some of those trees out. Uh they're dead. They're very unsightly. In fact, from a developer standpoint, I mean, it'd be hard to sell those lots of those dead trees there. So, I don't know. I guess that's my only comment. >> Thank you for your comments. >> All right, sir. Please come forward in the blue shirt. We'll have staff address any questions after we conclude the public hearing. >> Hi, I'm Daniel Mcnet, MCNITT. Uh, address is 9719 Gesler Road. I have three points. The first one is from the reduction of property value and house sales. Jeremy, when you said that you didn't have uh data that represents a reduction of price, 9724, a house just directly across from mine, and then 9748, two houses down. Uh they should have sold the house should have sold for $875,000. The final price was $797,000. So a reduction of $78,000. asking why that was. Half of that was because uh the increased in in homes, the density, the reduction in d or the reduction of landscaping. That's not why they moved here. All of these things. And um the people that were buying the houses didn't want to come into a neighborhood that's already going to be overpop populated. So those two houses would be a good examples of houses that reduced value directly correlating to this project. The second point that I would like to bring out is if we brought up the map again there was as Jeremy said there's several different points that we created a letter and we brought in there was there were six points in the letter. They include uh the majority of the points that Jeremy brought up were would be covered in that letter. And if we looked at that and um besides going into the minutiae or into the detail, the one of the things that could actually fix that northern property line easily would be shift the pond on the left hand side to the north or shift that pond that's in the middle more towards the north. And what that'll do is uh m Mr. far when you mentioned the the uh if the waiver is approved the reduction of lot size versus the higher density 22 houses versus 12 houses the negative space is absolutely that that is a point that's a valid point but when you reduce the houses to a 12 count what that's going to do is actually open up a feel uh the feeling of more space it's going to have the feeling the neighborhood's going to have um a feeling of a a a wider space to go through than it would be a thick house right next to each other. Uh less room to maneuver through, more traffic, more people, all of those type of things. So, when we did talk about a lot size uh waiver and and you mentioned the the negative space, I think if we shifted that around, that will still allow the waiver to be approved for a smaller lot size, but then that'll also open that northern wall of houses up that Jeremy mentioned and still give everybody the amount the builders the the count of houses, the look and feel uh of of the suburban size placement and and uh kind of uh appease the the houses that are on that northern side. And then the third point that I was going to bring up um when we talk about and the other gentleman uh mentioned traffic uh he mentioned uh speeds, he mentioned an overpopulation or over density on the Dell road. And I think that kind of goes back to that second point. If if that waiver is approved and 22 houses are allowed to go in there and the additional houses are allowed to go through, that's going to increase that traffic. So if the waiver is not approved, the houses are reduced. That's going to appease traffic going down Dell Road. That's going to appease that open value or the open field looking uh look and feel to the the homes. And it's going to give that a broader sense of community as opposed to a dense overpop populated size. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that's wishing to speak? >> All right, >> there's one person in the back. >> Oh, yes. Please come forward. I'm sorry I could not see your hand. >> You state your name and address for the record, please. >> Sure. Uh, Barb Hamilton Susted. I'm at 9711 Geesler Road. Um, I want to agree with pretty much everything that Daniel was talking about, so I won't go through that again. I do want to reiterate though the issue of the wall effect. Uh, if you look out um where I live, um, it is right on that northern end and it was as it was mentioned, there's like six or seven homes that are directly impacted and unfortunately I'm one of them. So, as you look out, it is just a wall of buildings that's being planned. And I understand that length versus depth kind of um gets past the minimum quantity, but is this really a neighborhood where we're looking for the minimum viable product here? Um, and it just allows us to allows the builder put in more condensed homes, kind of that shotgun style. I don't I don't think it's a good look. It's not a It's not good for our home values and it's certainly not good from a privacy perspective. Um the home values that we were talking about, I bought my home two years ago at 185. The average for even Eden Prairie right now is 202. The house right across just sold for 158 a square foot and the one two doors down was 170. it is dropping and that's something that's a precedent that will be used for future sales that we will not recover from very quickly. The other the last point is uh the affordability was mentioned is this affordable housing now or what price points were not mentioned. So I would really like to understand because especially from a pricing perspective I think we have a real risk especially when you're looking at 158 versus 185 just two years ago and 202 which is the current average in Eden Prairie and I' having been a resident for all of two years I'd like to preserve my value and my aesthetic if I can. Thank you. >> Thank you for your comments. All right. Anyone else wishing to speak, please raise your hand or come to the podium. All right, I don't think I see any. With that, I will look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> Move to close the public hearing. >> Right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Public hearing is now closed. Thank you everyone for your comments. Um, there were a few things that I think we should address. Um before I ask the commissioners if they have any comments or questions um Jeremy I don't know if you want to take some of these but I look at the um the comments from Mr. CPPY uh generally I think those could be addressed in the comprehensive planning process. Um the question about dead trees from Mr. Ericson. Uh Jeremy, is that something you would be willing to address if that's being addressed in the development? Any of the dead trees? >> Excuse me. Yes. Um certainly share that comment with our parks and public works departments. Um because there there's a kind of a wetland storm water pond to the north of the site that the city does own. So we can share that information with them. It may already be on their on their radar. Um Matt probably answer that. Madam chair, members of the commission, we are currently working with the developer. Um, as Jeremy mentioned with that wetland, we can't access it from the north. >> So, really the only way to access those is from the Marshall Farms property. So, as they're going through doing kind of their grading tree removal that our crew will be out there removing those dead trees on the on that lot. >> Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I'm think I'm going to leave the lot with discussion for last. Um, affordability was a question that came up just recently and I know it was also in the presentation. Um, I think that it would be fair to ask the applicant and the developer to just talk about what are your price points. I know I've seen some of that in the presentation, but if you could come up forward and address the the price points for the project from a um a dollar perspective, that would be appreciative. Thank you. Um, so it was on the slides. Um, but I I realize from the back of the room it's probably not legible. Um, so the villas, first of all, these are very these are custom homes. So if we have a basic floor plan, um, we have our lot values. So we're we're saying the villas would start in the 900 range. Um, and that would be a single level. the second story would add several hundred,000 to add to the second level. Um, and then the single family homes, uh, the lot values are much higher. Um, so those would start from the middle million range. Um, and I would expect some of those to break 2 million. So >> if I could clarify just from my perspective, does that include the lot as well as the structure? >> So this would be turnkey lot, house, landscape. >> Very good. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is that it? >> I think so for now. Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. Now, I'll turn it over to the commissioners uh for comments, questions, discussion. >> Madam Commissioner, just a quick question for Gohead >> Jeremy. Um the waiver for the front yard setback is that going to be for only the houses that are on the north or is that waiver for all of the units >> as part of the project? >> Madame chair, commissioners, it is currently for all uh the properties within the subdivision. It has the biggest impact um from the properties to the north and those to the south. Um but in reality, it adds more private space for all of the parcels. Anyone else? >> Madam Chair. Oh, sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Go ahead, Commissioner. >> Sure. >> Okay. Um, as we should always judge this project on its own merits, I can't help but to compare it to the prior application that we had approved. Um, regarding the street system configuration, am I right to recall that off of Dell Road, whether they had the name Crestwood Terrace or not, coming off of Dell leading to the east, that was pretty much a a through route without an intersection all the way curving up to that canopy trail stub leading to Laere. Is that right? >> Yeah. Crestwood was originally uh looping or connecting between its intersection at Dell and Laferet or Canopy on the northeast corner. Um that was the only private p excuse me public street in the proposed subdivision at the time. The rest of it were private drives. >> So I thought this was an improvement in that Crestwood Trail then comes and it it intersects with streets. you have to make a left and a right onto Canopy Trail um before proceeding northbound back into the neighborhood where these neighbors are right here. So um that little frustrated traffic pattern I think is a benefit to the neighbors to the north and I don't know if staff has a comment about that being beneficial in terms of traffic flows or counts or anything like that. Not that there's a lot of people there but I thought that was a benefit that was comparable. Um, and I just want to just personally go back to this wall comment. And it's it's debatable different ways based on your perspective, I know, but there was kind of a wall comment on the last development uh opportunity that came in front of us. Uh, but the wall was actually on the south side along the bluff with this larger they were almost three stories of of construction there. Uh whereas now um if one was to turn the villas into uh single family lots like what the developer is proposing on the south part of this application um there would be more opportunities for like Jeremy said larger homes and more twostory homes. So, I think the volume of the house and the additional height of the house and the roof up against the neighbors to the north would be visually more impactful massively than the singlestory onslab villas that they have proposed. While some villas could go two stories, I think I think that your opportunity for visual impact is less with the villa concept than having this development be the entire larger lot, larger two-story home with larger roof design um uh solutions. Uh so that's my perspective on it by that or not, but I just wanted to throw that out there. Um that's all for now, chair. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Go ahead, Commissioner Kirk. >> Um, yeah, two two points. One is I'm going to I'm going to put our city engineer on the spot a little bit. There were several comments about Dell Road, and I drive Del Road relatively frequently and and understand there's some issues. So, could you just give us a very quick um overview on on the city's perspective on Dell and what may or may not need to be done or what's in the plans for for to be done in the future? >> Sure. Uh chair and commissioner. So, we do have a future uh city roadway project that will improve the gravel section of Del Road. Um it'll happen in conjunction with this development. Um, so to speak to the the distance at which Dell Road goes that doesn't have a stop sign or stop light, it's this section to the south, south of Pioneer Trail is about the same distance as it is from Pioneer Trail north to 212 where you also run into stop signs. The difference being that this has a little more curves. It's going to be a little um more natural as you get down towards Flying Cloud Drive. We did we do have to design Del Road to be a 30 mph state aid street. And I will just point out too that it is a state aid. The functional class of Dell Road is different than the the city streets that are that are being proposed tonight. So that means it carries more traffic uh more volume. This is where people collect to go north and south in different spaces. So it it it requires a different design, but that is in our plan to do that. Um connect that from basically Crestwood Terrace down to Flying Cloud Drive. um in a manner that won't really promote higher speeds uh just because of the nature of how that Dell Road, if you've ever driven the gravel road, obviously you don't go very fast through that section. Um but uh so we're keeping the intent of our project is really to keep the same uh look and design and feel of how you go down that bluff section as safely as you can. Um so in order to to not promote, you know, a straight shot where people can gain speed. So, um, but yeah, the the, uh, the idea of adding some traffic control or something in the middle of Del Road was not something we were in favor of as far as this intersection goes or adding another roundabout somewhere in the middle of Del Road. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Madam Madam Chair, Commissioner Taylor. >> So, it it sound like there was a meeting held with the neighbors in reference to the wall effect on the north end. and the decision was made that there was going to be some additional trees or screening um planted. Do we have any idea what percentage of the trees would be evergreen species for kind of a year round screening? I believe that would be mentioned in the landscaping plan. Um but otherwise I would ask the applicant to come forward and answer that question if staff is not able to find that quickly. >> Yes, it is in the landscape plan and I uh might need a second if you'd like me to um >> Oh, there it is. It's on the landscape plan there. Um uh we summarize these by the entire site. It doesn't break it down just to that north line, but um 19 Black Hill spruce, 13 Norway spruce, um a lot of maples. Um yeah, but it's in the in the landscape plan and it appears if I look at the symbols one, two, three, four, five, six, probably eight uh evergreen trees. >> Okay, thank you. Y >> thank you. >> The other question I have is if possible, would there be could there be plans to plant more evergreens versus what is recommended or what you're recommending just to help with that private uh fencing aspect. >> Um I'm not the landscape architect and um the direction we gave the landscape architect was to provide as much screening as possible >> and this is what we came up with. If you want to apply direction for more spruce or pine trees, we can go with that. Okay, >> thank you for your comments. >> Be a good discussion, I guess, at another neighborhood meeting that's planned. >> It sound like >> a comment. >> So, yes, we will address those issues. It's as import as important for those people to have screening to us as we to have screening to them. So, in this meeting we're going to happen in a week or so, going to talk about all the trees that are going to get removed. We'll work with the neighbors so they have access. So, they're going to have to pay for their dead trees, but we'll take them down and it's going to be way more coste effective. And if people want to add some more trees, you know, we'll add I'm not opposed to adding more trees and we'll work that out with our builders as well. But till I get out there and see some things, this is going to be a big thing, which it has been in other developments as well. But yes, thank you. Thank you. >> And yes, we're going to do a lot of evergreens. Are the screening trees, you know, staggered in there so that there is screening during the winter months, which we have too much six months out of year. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Taylor. If my just may comment to that, my opinion is that as staff has mentioned already, you're you're generally screening like for like um zoning um which is typically not always necessary if you're if you're screening the same type of zoning from each other, single family to single family. Um, in my in my opinion, I don't know that all of that screening is personally necessary, and I know that they have already increased the amount of screening to create a barrier from essentially the same type of zoning. Personal opinion of mine. I'm not sure how the other commissioners feel about that. >> Other Madam Chair, I would underscore that comment. I was going to make that point myself that we are typically talking about transitions on a lot of our projects between different zones that merit buffering andor screening and this is single family to single family and it's not a requirement of the city code. This this is a neighborhood you're going to be you're going to be friends with these people in your backyard. You're going to be playing games with them, borrowing a cup of sugar, and and uh we're not trying to build uh uh neighborhood walls with with fences and and tree thicket to separate you folks from them. It's all us. >> Appreciate that. Anyone else have any other comments? >> Yeah, I'd just state an overall opinion on the project. this th this has been I mean any major development's a big deal and it's it's particularly a big deal to people who live close to it and I think you know we've actually gone through two iterations on on this project in a sense and so we've visited a lot of these issues twice now over a couple of years and personally having gone through all of that I I think the the outcome here is a pretty good one. Um I I I think the thing that we talked about earlier that maybe needs to be brought up a little bit more is we've dropped the density significantly in this area. What what was the number? 45% uh less traffic in this area. That's you know that's good. I mean that that is is good. Um, one of the things that we need to do here on the planning commission is to me is listen to three major or or represent three major groups inside the city. Um, one are are, you know, the individual citizens, the people who live in an area and are speaking like you're speaking at this public hearing. Uh the the second one is you know the city has regulations, ordinances, guidelines, all those things that that we have to guide developers to build in a way that the city would like to see Eden Prairie build. So we need to represent that. And then lastly, there is somebody who owns this property and and and the property owners have rights as well. So, we need to balance all of those things. And actually, I'm pretty comfortable that this is a a reasonably good balance and moving in the right direction for the city. So, I'm supportive of of uh moving forward on this. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Any other comments before I add mine? I think that um as both commissioners have indicated, I think this does look like a fairly good development. I appreciate all of the work that's gone into this, especially the from the development that we have looked at a couple of years back. I do think this is a very good improvement. I will say I'm not the biggest fan about the lot width waiverss um that is essentially crowding a lot of those homes on that north side just from the environmental standpoint of the area that this is in. I think the the the properties and the lots that are in the the south side um look to be more um favorable for this type of development. Having said that, that's not going to hinder me from voting against this project because I do think it is very well done. Um but I will say that the lot with requ. Other than that, I would look for a motion for um action on this development. >> Madame Chair, move to recommend approval to amend the city code chap. >> Sorry, wrong one. >> Thank you. Uh move to recommend approval for the guide plan change, PUD concept review, PUD district review, zone change, and preliminary plat as recommended by the staff and represented in the June 8th, 2026 staff report. >> All right, I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Who was that? Thank you. Um I have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. opposed. All right, motion carries. Thank you. >> Good luck to you at the council meeting. >> Thank you. >> All right, moving on. We have a another item on our agenda tonight, which is a city code amendment for data centers. Cities requesting approval amending our chapter 11 city code relative to the definition and regulation of data centers. Um, before I turn it over to Jeremy for an overview on this, I just I would just like to say considering my place of employment being Excel Energy, which is a big advocate in data center, I'm going to abstain from voting. However, I would stay involved in this discussion. Turning that over to uh Jeremy for staff report. >> Thank you, chair. Uh commissioners, the the next item is as is described is a code amendment um that would regulate uh data centers here in town. Um you may have heard in the news recently uh a lot of cities are are getting some feedback from their neighbors or their residents about um the desire to put data centers. >> One moment. C can we have someone close the door, please? >> Thank you, Carter. other cities are getting feedback from their residents about uh data centers and the potential impacts to those and Eden Prairie is no different. Um so um trying to get ahead of the issue um trying to establish some reasonable um regulations that would protect the city and its residents from this potentially harmful use. Um the city put together an ordinance that defines data centers and puts uh reasonable reg um restrictions and regulations on them. Um so that they're we can't prohibit data centers. They're allowed in town um based on our ordinance. Um we're recommending that they be located in in our gen zoning district. There's about 21 properties here in town that are zoned currently. Uh obviously any property owner can elect to reszone property to any different zoning district as we saw just earlier today. But the ordinance that we put in place tries to um identify reasonable regulations for for data centers. So what we do we've done is define what a data center is. A data center is a standalone business basically that um serves um serves the management and and maintenance of of of information. This is not your server room in every office building in town. This is a standalone business separate from those kind of ancillary uses. As you know, we have a data center here downtown or downstairs just our server rooms. So we identify those uh we allow those um in the gen zoning district and then we put um some specific standards associated with data centers in the ien zoning district to help protect the public interest. Um some of those standards include a minimum proximity to residential zoning or residentially used property of 700 ft. We also propose a minimum proximity to residential for the mechanical kind of aspect of the business. As you know, sometimes data centers may um generate quite a bit of noise from the generators being run or the cooling um software or cooling mechanics um because they generate often a lot of heat. Um they also use in some instances a lot of electricity and a lot of water. And so we put some parameters in place to help mitigate those issues, those concerns. Um so um as I said before, a lot of cities are getting some feedback from their residents and and Indian Prairie is no different. A lot of that feedback is based on um maybe perception or not necessarily based on that particular application. And so how we framed it is we're looking for information. So, if you meet the the zoning district requirement, if you meet the proximity requirement and you choose to submit for a building permit or more than likely a site plan approval, um we're asking for some basic submittal information. How's your water being used? Are you connected to city water? Um is it a closed loop cooling system? How is your electric uh how does the electric infrastructure impact this use? um a number of criteria that we've that we've put into place that help us understand the use and then make sure that we can mitigate those negative impacts um rather than just automatically just requiring certain requirements uh or certain standards. We take the approach of we want to learn and uh uh basically mitigate those impacts. So like I said before the m major issues we hear from a government standpoint are the noise uh the water impact and the electrical grid impacts. Um we propose locating in specific zoning districts the IGN and look for separation from residential uses that kind of addresses the noise issue. Uh the water impact we're looking for recycled or closed loop cooling. Um, often data centers we've seen use a lot of water and and may um impact our aquifer uh which impacts the whole city and every other city that uses the same aquifer. So we look to recycle that water um without depleting that resource. Same thing with electrical grid. We want to see um that you're using our renewable opportunities, solar, wind, other kind of um opportunities for electric because obviously they use quite a bit electricity. Um and as I said before, we're looking for some specific information as as a part of that application. again taking the approach that help us learn about the project so we can inform um better plans and reactions to that potential use. Um as I said before there's 21 IG parcels generally those are located in areas that support outdoor storage. Um they're usually are often larger sites and um they may have more in intensive impacts which kind of speaks a bit to the data centers. Um, so as I said before, 21 zoning districts, um, excuse me, 21 properties that are zoned are scattered kind of throughout town. There is, uh, one south of the airport, um, off of Flying Cloud Drive. There's about five near Fuller and Venture Lane area. That's one more closely in town. Um, on your screen here, you can see that area. There's a um transmission um kind of facility here off of Venture Lane. There's a a smaller remnant here. And then there's three lots off of Fuller in West 79th. Those are areas that could conceivably have a um outdoor or excuse me, a data center. Um although some of them may kind of touch that um residential um threshold. So, uh, and then also we have on the north side of town, we have industrial drive, which is kind of our older industrial area. Um, and some of those may be feasible for for residential use or maybe feasible because they are away outside of the 700 ft. So, we're allowing um data centers. We're not prohibiting them. Um, but we're putting reasonable restrictions in place that help mitigate some concerns that uh the city has. With that, I'd be happy to answer questions, but we're recommending approval of the ordinance as drafted. >> Thank you, Jeremy, for that staff overview. Are there any questions for staff? Otherwise, I'd open it up to the public hearing. >> Madam Chair, I got a >> Go ahead, Commissioner Taylor. >> Um, listening to the data center conversation, I'm going to also have to abstain. Um, because of the current employer I'm with, which is Mortensson, I'm going to have to abstain from voting as well. >> Thank you. Commissioner Grody, >> I was just curious, chair, have we had any inquiries from anybody who wanted to build a data center? >> Uh, chair, commissioners, no, we have not had any inquiries. We have not had any applications. We're really just trying to get ahead of that question so we know what to tell people. >> Madam Chair, my only question, Jeremy, and I'm glad you wrote this ordinance. I think it's it's great. U addresses an issue before it becomes an issue. So, I'm supportive of this. Uh, my only uh question was um it looks like we're trying to control noise from this uh by incorporating a a metric of distance 700 ft. Um I just want to make sure it's not contradictory with something we may have in our nuisance ordinance about noise uh with the metric of decibb instead. So, I don't want something really really loud 700 feet away that satisfies the 700 feet but all of a sudden uh potentially would have a conflict with the nuisance ordinance. >> Sure. Chair, commissioners, that's a good question, a good point. Um there's a number of nuisance kind of criteria in our code. This does not supersede those. It doesn't give you the ability or a data center user to just ignore that uh nuisance requirement because they meet the 700 ft. This is kind of in addition to those other requirements for there's a noise level um at the receiving zoning district max there is a vibration issues there's smoke um not that I know of a lot of data centers that generally allow smoke but um there's those other kind of criteria already in place so this is in addition to that >> okay thank you >> any other comments otherwise I will open the public hearing All right, anyone that wants to speak, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. >> Uh, again, Daniel McNet. Uh, sorry, and I wanted to catch that, but this is also, uh, I built data centers for seven years, uh, within the military and then post-military. The only concerns that I would have, Jeremy, and I, and I love that you guys are getting ahead of this. This is amazing. Um, and and I heard when you said that that you're getting ahead of the problem. Uh um I'm very excited about this. Now uh the questions that I was going to ask is the total cost of ownership when you look at a data center and the scalability, right? So it's not just while it's being occupied, what happens to that space when it's emptied after the fact. Uh the other things that uh um you may or may not have taken into consideration is uh if there's a flash flood or fire, what is that going to do? the impact. I saw there was one slide that you mentioned the the scalability of the city support around it. I think it was one of the slides, right? Um is is is there going to be the the the the fire department, the um if there's an emergency, if there's uh a situation there and police have to come on site, is does the city have the infrastructure to scale and support a a large data center within within the city limits? And so it's it's not the noise, the water, the electricity, right? Those those are standard things to take into consideration when you have a data center. But it's that it's that ripple effect. It's that external pieces that that really uh impact uh the city when you're looking at the ecosystem uh of of how the city is is is set up. And so that was going to be my only point of I love what you uh how you're getting ahead of it. I love that we're we're you are having that conversation now. Uh, and it would just be I if you could extend that purview that that view to encapsulate those um not very high impact items, but they're definitely in in that in that sphere of influence. >> Thank you for your comments. All right, seeing no one or no other person in the audience, I would make uh ask for a motion to close the public hearing, please. >> So move. >> All right, we have a motion. And do we have a second? >> Second. Second. Uh, all those in favor to close the public hearing say I. >> I. >> Opposed. All right. Public hearing is closed. Other comments from the commissioners or Jeremy, go ahead. >> If in my if I may comment on on the residents comments and I appreciate him bringing them up because I kind of glossed over it, but when I spoke about requiring additional information. Um, that's exactly what we're trying to achieve. Um, we're asking for information in that potential users impact on the adjacent land uses, um, noise, the community impacts which include emergency services, solid waste management, um, impacts to schools if there is any. Um, we're looking for that type of information at the time of application so we can make an informed decision on appropriate conditions on a potential permit or use. So, uh, I appreciate that comment. That's exactly why we're asking for additional information rather than just try to anticipate what they are. We want to be specific to what that potential user is. So, >> I appreciate that. I think relative to is the size of data centers that would could potentially locate here in Eden Prairie versus other communities that are having concerns, I'll say, around the the size of them and the property that's out there. >> Any other comments? >> Yeah, Madam Chair. So question Jeremy just uh I know other communities nearby are dealing with some of these same issues. Um is there anything that additional you're learning from those communities andor I assume the process will continue to expand as far as u other restrictions or things that might change uh in the future. So what what are the next steps uh after we we vote on this particular plan? So, um, assuming you make a positive recommendation and the council approves an ordinance, we'd have this in place. We'd have an ordinance on the books and a potential data center user um would inquire about what our regulations are. We would have information to share with them. Uh, and then we can work if they meet those criteria, you know, location and and zoning district, we can work with them on meeting the other kind of the performance goals and standards associated with this ordinance. So, we have information that's been vetted by the community and we can share that with potential users. Um, but like I said, we haven't got any applications yet. And most of what you're hearing in the news to um the the chair's comment is most of them are the much bigger ones. We just don't have that type of land available. Um so, you're likely not to see the huge one, but I think you can see mediumsiz or some small ones based on the lots that are available. >> Thank you. Any other comments? All right. I would look for a motion action on this. >> I'll move to recommend approval to amend the city code chapter 11 relative to definition and regulation of data centers as recommended by staff and represented in the June 8, 2026 staff report. >> Thank you, Commissioner Grody. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you by Commissioner Palmyano. Uh any discussion before we take a vote? All right. Those in favor of the motion signify by saying I. >> I. >> Those opposed, same sign. Uh abained. >> Thank you. Motion carries. Thank you commissioners for that. Uh all right. Planning report. Anything from staff uh comprehensive plan update? >> Yes, just a a quick verbal update. Um, we have started our 2050 comprehensive planning process. Just two weeks ago, it seems like we finished the 2040 comprehensive plan or frankly you did. I wasn't here yet. Um, so we've started that process. Our goal is to submit it to the Met Council in December of 2027. U, this update is not a complete rewrite of our comp plan like it was last time. Some of you maybe remember multiple meetings and a lot of outreach um to rewrite the comp plan. We are not looking to do that. More of an update to reflect changes in market changes in community goals and expectations and then also to reflect changes imposed by the state and met counsel. So not a complete rewrite just adjusting based on changes or needs. Um I I say that we're we're rewriting it in house. There will be we've hired a consultant to do the housing study uh to do a housing study. They'll help us inform the housing chapter and there's also um some of the other departments have engaged with consultants transportation for example to help with with that work. Um in terms of uh outreach or interaction with the planning commission, the next likely interaction will be in October where um there will be a council workshop where we invite um the planning commission to the council workshop to kind of give an update of where we're at. Um what we're what we're doing now is staff is kind of reviewing each chapter from the 2040 plan and then identifying areas that we need to make adjustments to to reflect my council requirements or some things just don't make sense anymore uh to make some adjustments. So that's where we're at now and you'll see some um kind of input and um or information on that in October. So kind of keep that on your calendars October 6th. Um that's all I have. I just want to kind of give you an update on that. >> Wonderful. Thank you for that update. Anything else from the commissioners? All right. I'd look for a motion to adjurnn this meeting. So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor say I. I. >> Opposed. Uh meeting adjourned. Thank you everyone.