Good evening. It is Thursday, September 3rd, 2026 at about 6:02 p.m. and I call the city of Maple Plane Planning Commission meeting to order. Please stand and join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thanks everyone. Um well, here we go. First order of business is uh if there are any changes to the agenda, please state them now. Otherwise, I need a motion to adopt the agenda and a second to continue on. [clears throat] >> I'll move to adopt the agenda. >> Adam moves to adopt the agenda. Nick seconds. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose say the same. Eyes have it. Four to zero. All right. Uh so looking back and trying to reflect back June 4th, 2026, we had a planning commission meeting. Um reviewing those meeting notes, is there any call outs you want to make or any points of clarification? >> Well, uh I just like to comment that So, I'd like to I'd just like to comment that I'd like to see them maybe be a little bit more uh elaborate, a little bit more description. They would kind of a brief summary of who motion what. But, you know, I think for the benefit of the council, uh, if they could have more background information about what was discussed, who said what, I think that would be beneficial for the council and probably for the public as well. doesn't need to be novel, but just >> something more detailed. >> Uh, the only two things I noted more grammatical, um, I think Christopher Hansen's statement, um, yeah. Okay, that got corrected I believe because it you I think it used to say we are in favor and it's supposed to be we are not as I remember him saying that. So it looks like it's changed. Um, and then Brian's misstatement. Um, the area that we are in is safe and quiet, but I think that's supposed to be quiet. So, just a misspelling there. I'll move to uh approve the minutes with the corrections noted Stephan's com comments. >> Second. >> Okay. Adam approves to uh add a motions to approve the comments as suggested and as well as Stefan's recommendations and Stefan seconds that all in favor say I. >> I. All oppose say the same. Eyes have it four to zero. Um, okay. [snorts] The agenda has a discussion next. >> Sorry. There is no discussion. >> Okay. Um and so now new business we are working with um Equinox uh taking on Equinox town homes and that whole plan and site plan review and then it also looks like there is a ordinance change that is being offered as well. So what do we need to start with first I guess? >> Yeah, thank you honorable chair and commissioners. I'll go through all of it and then um we can kind of talk through the various pieces that are being asked of the planning commission. Um and then we can kind of uh talk through any of those in more detail or however we want to do that. it. The applications that we're considering tonight came in from uh Equinox Development Partners uh and it is a request for the city to consider allowing the development of an 85 unit town home uh rental community that would be located on the property uh at or adjacent to 5330 Highway 12. There's actually two properties that are being contemplated for this development. The uh current property is approximately 6 acres in overall size uh in the combined condition and it's zoned mixed use B but avenue so MUB it's guided by the city's comprehensive plan as general mixed use and the applicant is asking us to reszone the property to mixeduse Bud Avenue planned uh unit development which essentially is consistent with the MUB or the mixeduse. It's just we would be considering the development as a planned unit development rather than just a uh straight zoning. So with that, the applicant's asking for reszoning from mixed use butt avenue to planned unit development but avenue. Uh they're asking for a planned unit development, site plan review to consider uh the site improvements associated with the development. And then in this particular case, a preliminary and final plat uh being considered at the same time because of the simplicity of the preliminary and final in this particular case. So with that, um I'll just kind of walk through uh a couple of the uh aspects of what's being requested and the proposal. So the applicants uh approached the city about the possibility of redeveloping this property there. As I think a lot of us know, this property was split off recently from the adjacent property uh at 5370 Highway 12, which is the large warehouse building just directly west uh of this property. And when that property was split off, it was noted that that's one of the larger kind of undeveloped pieces of property in the city at this time. and it was uh set up for a mixeduse type development. The city guided this property in its last comprehensive plan mixeduse Bud Avenue which has a wide array of potential uses. Multifamily being one of those uh uses that was contemplated uh both in the comprehensive plan and then also permitted as a part of the MUB or mixeduse Bud Avenue zoning district. So with that, the applicants um are proposing an 85 unit rental town home community on the property. The rental town homes would be um located within 10 residential buildings on the property. There would also be a community amenity building and then a management office, fitness center, uh some gathering spaces, outdoor uh spaces. The applicant noted the buildings would be um broken down into uh different types of units. There would be three-bedroom plus den units, one and twobedroom. There would be some first floor uh units that would not have stairways. Um and so there'd be all single level living. And then there would be some um threebedroom plus den, two-bedroom plus den buildings that they uh show on the plan with the um with the overall proposal that's being considered. 85 units equates to approximately 12 units per acre of net density, which falls within the eight units to 20 units that's prescribed for this property by the city's comprehensive plan. The property itself um is shown in terms of the the survey would be consolidated. So this the main property which is a larger piece which was broken off from 5370 would be combined with the smaller 5330 which currently houses the used car building and the the small used car lot that's been on that property for some time. So, um, in looking at the, uh, the city's review, we do a more in-depth, uh, review of the site plan, uh, related elements and then how this site overall is laid out. We look at things like access, layout, uh, setbacks, parking, and we went through a more detailed review of this particular uh, site as it related to those aspects. One of the biggest uh pieces that we started with when we first started talking to the applicant in this particular case is how the site would be accessed. And we noted that access to this site from just Highway 12 would place a real burden on the site. And it also um causes the potential for um some traffic conflicts um with the highway 12 being a active roadway with you know 15 to 17,000 trips per day. Uh having a single access out onto Highway 12 at an unsalized intersection um was something we were concerned with that uh with that comment made. the applicant has secured the ability to provide a full access driveway that would connect back to Pioneer Creek Drive, which would allow them to have that second access point. And then it would allow vehicles to uh both enter and exit the site at a controlled intersection at County Road 83. Um, which is a real advantage to this site. Some of you who were around when we subdivided this property off from the 570 5730 property 5370 property uh remember us trying to consider a back entrance to that site and at the time the owner of that property wasn't interested in providing that easement um but they are now uh willing to uh provide that easement and that access point for this site that relieved I think a lot of the concerns that we had related getting to access for 85 units coming in and out on Highway 12. And so with that um from the access point on Highway 12, which would be essentially a consolidated access point between the existing used car uh lot and the schoolhouse building to the east and then the new access proposed onto Pioneer Creek. Uh we feel that this site really sets itself up well for adequate access. In between those two points, the applicant's proposing a private roadway system that would uh provide access um into and around the units that are being proposed. The city reviewed the private access and because of the nature of this, it really feels much like a private uh access development. these roads don't really function or have a a full public connection. And so with that, I think the the private access is an appropriate uh proposal in this particular case for the type of development that's being proposed. We also looked at um parking as related to this um this development. We noted that in this particular case, the applicants proposing the private streets which are 24 feet wide. Um the fire department was comfortable with those widths. Um but there wouldn't be any on street parking then permitted on those streets. And so with that having designated off uh street access is going or off uh the private road uh parking spaces is going to be required. Uh we noted that to the applicant and with the um with some revi revisions to the plans, they've now added um enough spaces to get up to 17 off- streetet parking spaces, which based on the total number of units, u we were comfortable with where they got to on the guest parking spaces. We noted though that each of these units has two garage spaces plus two driveway spaces. Um and so u and and in some cases you actually might have a little bit more than the two driveway spaces depending on the length of those uh driveways in and out. But in any case um the two spaces per unit is what our ordinance is based on. And so they exceed that uh that standard. Um, as it relates to um then the rest of the layout, we did review uh this from a setpack from a buffer planting um and then some of the site amenity aspects as well. The applicant did provide kind of a full uh landscape plan, a full um lighting plan, and then a more detailed obviously grading drainage and storm water plan. Um all of that was reviewed by the city. Ultimately, it's subject to approval from Pioneer Creek WHED. um as well as kind of final comment um and and any plan revisions that would be required as a part of our engineers review which was um which you can see in the report where those comments um still remain. Uh sanitary sewer and water uh will be uh brought into the site. Um we noted that the utilities, so the mainline sanitary, the mainline water lines in this particular case are public lines and we would have adequate easements um for those service lines that would come in and then the individual lines coming off to the units would be private similar to any other type of development. But it was our recommendation that the utility lines uh the primary main lines coming in and out be made uh public. Um outside of the um outside of those items, one of the other kind of site plan related items that we spent quite a bit of time on related to a potential sidewalk connection and um I can't remember. No, I apologize. I thought it was this slide. Uh but we had talked about a sidewalk connection. it is in your report. Uh going from this development along Highway 12 extending to Bud Street to be able to tie this development into ultimately the Hawk signal and then give a uh better access point to cross over into downtown as well as to just get to other things that are west I'm sorry east of this development. And so the city has uh been working with Mandot. We believe that Mandot's on board with are um did this last time, but there's really might have to follow along in the packet. Um the uh sidewalk connection that we are proposing would run along uh Highway 12 and the developers agreed to work with the city to install that uh sidewalk connection along that Highway 12 frontage. That would get this development connected to uh Bud Avenue and then the sidewalk system that runs from Bud Avenue to the Hawk and then also north uh to Veterans Memorial Park. I also noted that they do have a connection um via the private street and then a sidewalk that could go to Pioneer Creek as well. There's a sidewalk on Pioneer Creek um that also ties into the Veterans uh Memorial Park and then also gets you over to Bud Avenue um as well. Um the city reviewed also um lighting uh full lighting plans for this. they are proposing a uh lighting system that runs throughout uh the development. Uh we looked at it really from an adjacency standpoint to see uh where those fixtures cut off and then also from just a a standard within the development to make sure that there was adequate lighting for public safety and we found that to be the case with what was being proposed. And so with that um our site plan review, I think the majority of the comments that were provided by the city um in our initial review and our secondary review had been satisfied by the applicant um in the revised plans that you all have in the packet. Uh there are still requirements related to uh the storm water that would have to go through Pioneer uh Sarah Creek for their ultimate and final approval. Um, and then I wanted to just show um the applicant did provide uh floor plans and then also the concept elevations of the buildings and what those would look like, kind of the the overall architecture, color scheme, um, and kind of how that neighborhood would lay out uh, within the packet. And, um, so you can see that as well. Outside of the comments that were provided in the report and um in any of the uh previous uh letters that staff made, I'll note a couple of things. One, we're still waiting on mind comments. Um they were uh provided with the packet and um we had have conver we did have conversation with them uh relating to the trail and also the access point, but we don't have uh formal comments. I will note they're well past their review period for our uh application, which unfortunately seems to be the standard, not not uh an exception any longer uh with their reviews. Um and so we would if their comments come back at [snorts] some point, we would continue to try to work with them obviously, but um at this point it's really more up to the city uh on where we are with the access. I will note that when we um the one point I was going to make on the mind access is when we subdivided this property before we had a shared access point that we secured from the adjacent property to the west. Um and that was at the request of the city. Mindot actually was okay with a second access um on that property at the time which actually the city was not okay with. Um, this particular access point would tie two uh access points together and would actually remove um at least one of the access points associated with the used car lot. And so um I think that's a positive. Anytime we can remove some of the access points along Highway 12, it's it's a benefit to uh that corridor. bill. Um, outside of that, um, I noted that we would be looking at the planned unit development, um, adoption of a plan unit development ordinance. It's very much similar to what we did with the downtown, uh, redevelopment project. And what that plan unit development does is it it allows the city to just capture this development specifically um, in terms of standards associated with uh, this particular development. In this case, all of the underlying standards um don't meet or exceed our thresholds that are in the underlying PUD ordinance, but it it gives us um the ability to just set conditions and standards specific to this development. Uh and then through the adoption of an ordinance and then a uh development agreement um allows us just capture any kind of further restrictions or requirements that we place on the development as a as a part of the overall approval. And so uh this resoning that we're asking for is I I would call it typical of what we've done in the past with other similar developments within our mixeduse districts. Um and then combining the preliminary and final plat into one step in this case um we thought was a reasonable request uh given that we're really just doing a lot combination of two lots. Um all of the easements um that we've requested uh as well as kind of perimeter drainage and utility and then the the primary utility easements have been provided for by the applicant and those would be secured through the uh uh preliminary and final plat. I'll stop there and then we can see how much more or less um we want to get into on any of the other kind of more detailed aspects of the plan. Uh I would note it is a public hearing as well tonight. Um, so are you Oh, good. Yeah, just the overall one like uh that's fine. Okay. So, as mentioned, it does require a public hearing. So, um either we can proceed with discussions and do a public hearing later. Otherwise, we can uh I need a motion to open the public hearing. >> I'll motion to open the public hearing. >> Nick motions to open the public hearing. I need a second. >> I'll second. >> Adam seconds. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All oppose say the same. Eyes have it. Four to zero. The uh public hearing is open as of 6:25 p.m. Um we didn't really take any forms for >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. Is there anyone in the audience that wants to voice their concerns, comments, or has any questions? No. Okay. Then, um, I'll hear a motion to close the public hearing. >> Motion to close the public hearing. >> Make motions to close the public hearing. >> I'll second the motion. >> Adam Seconds the motion. And all in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All oppose say the same. Public hearing is closed as of 6:26 p.m. >> All right, commissioners. >> I have some questions, I guess. >> Sure. Stephan, go ahead. >> Uh, regarding the Let's see where to start here. um the the sidewalk to that would be a city project. Is that right? Or would that be part of this development? >> So, it would be part of the development. We've worked with the devel or we've been talking to the developer um about uh how to fund that sidewalk and the um developer is also seeking tax increment financing on this development which was brought before the EDA and then uh would go before the council at their next meeting um for consideration. As a part of that, we've talked about utilizing some of the tax increment financing to reimburse the developer for the cost of in uh installing that sidewalk. And so it um it's I'm calling it a quasi developer city project. Um the city is the one who did the initial concepts. We're the ones who reached out to Mandot and we may be the ones who help obtain the permit for the sidewalk as well. >> Would likely be part of the construction. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Um is that sidewalk uh did you say five feet wide? >> Uh the sidewalk that we would build on uh Highway 12 would potentially could be wider than that. We had looked at it at the back of curb and then there is some limited limitations on what that would be. Obviously we'd like it to be eight and a half or 10. >> Yeah. Yeah. That that would be my recommendation too is it is this backup curb to have it be at least at least eight if not 10 just to u and even stripe you know kind of a a clear zone along the backup curb just to keep people further from the vast traffic there and a sense of safety as you're walking along the five feet from back along busy highway is not very >> yeah unnerving Uh likewise on the path that goes uh to the northwest um that also is backup curb if that could be seven or eight feet wide as well for the same reasons just a little extra um measure of safety before the curb. >> Yeah, I think it's something we can comment on. I know at that um and the applicants here I mean it's it's really tight. So, I don't know how much more room they could get on that right where that one pinch point is. >> Yeah. But, um, so they're showing it as a five- foot uh, uh, concrete and then it turns into a buminous when it runs along the street going out. Um, so maybe that's something we could ask. >> Possible. I think that would be, but it's especially important to think along Highway 12. If um if you can't get a boulevard out of space there, that'd be even better. And again, you've got >> Yeah, concerns. >> And they they might be able to speak. I think when we looked at it, there's um you know there's a pinch point um right at the corner as it So I think if you were able to get more than five feet it would only be for a portion of the Yeah, that's that's the drawing right there. >> Yeah. On bud you mean or >> are you talking about this sidewalk that goes up to Pioneer Creek? >> Talking about both. So I'm I was confusing you. >> Okay. So the one on 12. Yes. We're trying to get wider. That one I think has more potential to get it to the full. This one that goes up to Pioneer Creek. Um there's a pinch point, right? >> Yeah. It looks like as I'm looking on sheet 119, you know, there's some space there, but it looks like it's it's it's slope. So, you'd have to increase the slope in order to get that to work. >> Yeah. >> Um uh anyway, >> yeah, I think they're good comments. You look at that. >> What's the current width of the sidewalk along 12 at the signal? There's a >> Yeah, there's the existing one. That's a good question. >> Pretty wide. >> Did you think it's eight and a half or you think Yeah, >> yeah, it's been there, but feels like a good eight and not 10. >> At the minimum maintaining that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. wider a little separation from the back of the curb would be nice. >> One of the things we're looking at with that corridor, um so if you look at that stretch on uh highway 12 going down from Bud to the Hawk, um I don't know if anybody's studied it, but we've it's kind of our city like streetscape section, right? It's sidewalk. It's lights. It's our ornamental decorative lights. Um and it's kind of a nice section. We are proposing that with lights all the way down to kind of carry that >> aesthetic which I think it would be I mean it's what our vision was for the 12 corridor was to try to have walks and lights and >> so um that is part of what we've looked at and estimated >> to try to match that >> to carry that >> carry that through would be ideal >> that would make that whole kind of corner of redevelopment more >> attractive to >> just to remind people too that you know long range planning as for a regional trail um coming up 19 from the south crossing at the Hawk and then going along Main Street over to Baker Park. That Hawk signal will be part of a Hawk on east to Baker Park would be part of a regional trail. >> Okay. Um, regarding parking, you I'm happy to hear that you got 17 spaces off street for guests. Uh, because 24 feet wide with a lot of cars parked on it could be pretty congested. Uh, is there going to be no parking signs on on on that stretch? Yeah, internal roads >> on the private streets. It's going to have to be signed no parking. Yeah, the the um you're back in. Can you zoom in like along this main stretch there? So, we had worked with the applicant and asked them to create some bumpout parking on that main drive that comes in. Um yeah, basically on the left hand side of that blue box along those four buildings there, um the applicant is now showing um parking uh parallel spaces on the on the left of that street coming in. Um so that add that added some parking back in. And then there's some parking um that would be associated with the office community center right at the entrance uh drive coming in. >> And so I think I think that we were comfortable that that then kind of at least provided some relief for you know some some type of event that would could occur within that. Um, and then my last comment for now anyway is uh trees along the far western edge were recently planted with the warehouse next door. Um, I'm happy with the landscape plan that they're showing here, but is there opportunity to salvage those trees? Is there a year old? >> Yeah, I mentioned it. I mentioned it to the to the developer. Um I mean there's no way to save them in place. Could we Yeah. pull them. Yeah. I think that's up ultimately to the contractor. I think you guys are interested in that if you can do it. Um I went and looked just to see again. I mean they they actually look really good. [laughter] >> Wouldn't you know? [clears throat] >> Yeah. So um that's not always the case, but yeah, they they do look good and they're doing well right there. So um hopefully we can salvage some of those trees and replant them on that site. So, we replace some of the ones that they were going to purchase. >> Yeah. [clears throat] Overall, I I'm pretty impressed with the aesthetics of the the buildings and the landscaping and the layout. I think it's going to be a good good uh project and a nice amenity for the city if it approved. >> I agree. I think for the architectural design, I think it it's a nice aesthetic. It's clean. It's got nice articulation of the facade without being too busy. Um, and also appreciate the completeness of the package. We don't see this thorough of a package all the time, >> right? >> Small city. So, I don't have any major concerns. also feel like it fits our 2040 comprehensive plan goals pretty well. The city as well. You looking for something? >> Yeah, I was looking for the lighting plan because I thought I saw um between buildings B1 and B3. There were some spots where I thought maybe lighting could be added that have been added in other places. Maybe it's just me looking at the plan incorrectly. >> Yeah, go ahead. Tell me where we can definitely look at it. >> Um, let's see. Lighting plan buildings B1 and B3. It looks like there's no lighting on the east side. >> What page is it? >> Um, this is 77, but I opened up um >> Okay. >> I used the hyperlinks to open them up, so >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. So along that east side there's it looks like there's one uh light post on the southern corner. >> Yeah. >> But then the rest of them don't have any light. >> No. So there's um there's lights over the garages. >> Oh, okay. >> That are providing a level of light all the way along there. >> Okay. So there's the one corner light that you're seeing that kind of lights up that intersection of the road. >> Okay. >> And then as you go behind those units, you know, all the units have overhead lighting or garage door lighting. And so when I was looking at I mean I look at a couple things. I look at kind of intensity of the foot candles, but then I also look at like a min max. So it's not like >> bright uh dark bright dark bright dark. But I think right behind those garages, you're looking at um you know what would be considered like a nice residential light. But >> okay, >> the streets themselves um >> yeah, I mean you could you could make the argument that there might need to be one more right at the corner >> um right at the corner when you come into the development and then you you would go to turn right. Maybe it could maybe you could get one more light. >> The northeast corner is what you're talking about. Yeah, I'm talking about um talking about I'm gonna go up there because >> Yeah. >> So, there there's a light here. >> Yep. >> I'm thinking, you know, maybe if anything, this gets a little bit dark. >> Okay. >> Might be something those poles could be >> just right at that main intersection. you go from like threes and twos in foot candles down to like a 0.5 which is like you'd have to like you couldn't read a book really well underneath that. Okay. Um >> but yeah, so maybe that's good that that's a comment we can ask the developer to look at maybe see if there's a way to modify that a little bit. I don't know if anybody else has thoughts on the >> lighting. Um, one of the things I was looking at is that it kind of cuts off by the time we get to the, you know, edges, but we are also only up against really one other residential development which is in that um northeast corner. Um, there's another town home development. I I don't know if anybody knows it kind of backs up. So, >> I guess I'm not overly concerned about that. I think if anything, everything's always too bright. >> So, you like you're okay. >> You would Okay. Yeah. Okay. >> Living next to like the Haven Homes property in the parking lot. Way too bright in my opinion. >> Okay. >> Is it? >> Yeah. Well, maybe not on the ground, but still like >> Yeah. >> Lights are to go look >> like they're quite a bit brighter than the street lights. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I didn't I didn't think about the um any garage lighting that might be there, too. So, >> looking at handle on the site plan, it looks I think it looks like it's lit adequately. Okay. Okay. And you already talked about architecture, so that's good. Um, any other comments or questions? Are there plans to uh continue the street east west uh further east into a potential future development? Is it designed to be optional? Yeah, we we did talk about that quite a bit. Um, it's not it's there. We did purposefully, I think, leave that, but then when this project developed more, it's private streets. So, the question would be, would we extend private streets into a public street and then at what point would that create or cause for a bigger public street? Um, [clears throat] so I, you know, right now the way that it's set up, it doesn't totally lend itself to a easterly connection. Um, you know, we've talked to, this came up when we were looking at the property at 1741 Bud, which is one of those properties to the east. And with that property, we've been talking to that developer again. And when we looked at trying to create the coordination between those two developments and then, you know, we we had said it'd be great if we could get a road all the way out, it it puts a lot of pressure on this kind of private road access that this 5370 building to the west was willing to give this development. But that wasn't a that wasn't an open like, hey, we'll just give a public city street. So, we're trying to balance that. I think if 1741 comes in, I think there's an opportunity to connect that to Pioneer Creek through their own property to the north. I really think then because of the nature of this being town homes, I think if we look at the schoolhouse and then the properties to the west developing, I think um we we'd really want to know are they commercial, are they residential before we decide is a is a street connection appropriate or necessary? And in my at least my gut tells me yes, I' I'd love connections. I just don't know how we make that and then keep it private versus a public. So, so we looked at it, we talked about it. I think the developer was open to talking to us more about it. But I think once we looked at the product, the type of neighborhood and community that they're proposing, and then when we got that north access, we kind of said this this makes sense for this development. I think if we look at that 1741, we're going to have to have the same conversation with that. But then there's a bunch of little properties in that souththeast corner of this mixeduse bud right up all the way to to Bud Street and then Independence Road. I think we really have to probably look at how those all go together differently than this. >> Would those private properties want this town home traffic through their private development? >> Yeah, depending on what it is, right? >> Might be a very attractive option as opposed to you know, northwest to so there's a lot of >> Yeah, it we tried to figure out could we future proof it and our our at least staff level was we just didn't know like we didn't know where we could get it that made sense and then if you have the wrong leave >> would you ever consider taking the private road making the public road >> I mean it's possible 24 is not our preferred standard Now, this wouldn't be the first time the city has been asked for turning private into public. Um, we had that happen with the Oak Street, right? But yeah, I think it's something we could always talk about. >> Just curious. Yeah, >> I I really think that that other property just with the way it's broken up, you'd have to really assemble a bunch of properties to get something of this mass. So, I just see that that, you know, that that southwest corn or southeast corner of our mixuse bud all the way up to Bud is going to develop a little bit more sporadically than this. Um, and we're going to have to look at access in and out of those developments. The other the other piece of that is um we have Independence Road, which kind of like a quasi frontage road right there that I think will help us kind of alleviate some of the access issues with the rest of that development. But I think in an ideal world if we could, you know, just look at like ghost platting the entire corner, it would be ideal. But I don't I just didn't see a great opportunity here. >> But >> so many small parcels there. >> Yeah, >> it's a good comment. >> We have one more question to the connection to the north to the industrial park. Is that going to also have access for property ement with the kind of the warehouse building there? Are they gonna have trucks trying to navigate that road? >> Maybe we can ask if you guys know if there's something. Yeah, I don't know the answer. I don't I'm not aware that um you know, they did provide us with the fire access so the turning movement and the auto the auto turn to show that the uh fire apparatus could get through the development as we requested. But um I don't know if you could make a truck turn. Yeah, I say it looks I just >> um >> like a truck driver might see that as like, oh, I'm going to cut out the back way instead of 12. >> Is that going to create issues there? >> Yeah, honestly, it'd be better, but I the problem is it's a private driveway, so I don't know if your agreement covers that or I if you want we could ask the applicant >> address if that's a concern that they have. >> Yeah. Have there been any uh comments or concerns from the schoolhouse property [clears throat] store? >> No. >> Well, I'll say that I like it as well. I like the sidewalks. Like the landscaping. Okay. So, um we need to motion on a couple of things here, right? >> Yeah. So, um honorable chair, the if we could pick them off, um in the order that I had them in the report. Um uh just >> and that report is I believe the staff report. >> Correct. >> And it's also on page 11. >> There you go. >> A through I correct. >> There you go. Yep. Okay, just to read those out. Um, staff recommends that planning commission open the public hearing, take testimony, and review the requested resoning to planned unit development, planned unit development, site plan, and preliminary and final plat. The applicant has submitted written responses and a revised plan set addressing the planning and engineering comments above. Two items remain open as noted in the site plan review section. Staff recommends the commission's recommendation to the city council be conditioned upon satisfactory resolution of those open items. Should the planning commission recommend approval of the requested actions to the city council? Staff recommends the following findings and conditions be included. Letter A. The PR pros reasonzoning planning planned unit development site plan and preliminary and final plat are consistent with the generally mixed use designation of the city's comprehensive plan including the guided density range of 5 to 20 units per developable developable acre. B. Prior to the city council consideration of applications, the applicant shall revise the plans to address all planning and engineering comments identified in this report, including the outstanding items in the applicant response slashproposed solution columns above. C. The applicant shall obtain all applicable approvals from outside agencies with authority over the site, including MINDOT, the Pioneer Sarah Creek WHED Management Committee, PSCWMC, the Minnesota Department of Health, the MPDES Construction Storm Water Program, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. D. The applicant shall execute a PUD agreement memorializing all approved project specific standards and any deviations from MUB MUB zoning requirements for review and approval by city council. The e the applicant shall execute a development agreement memorializing all aspects of the development proposed improvements and details relating to the construction of the development for review and approval by the city council. F. The applicant shall record a storm water maintenance agreement including right of entry provisions for city and watershed personnel concurrently with the final plat. G. The applicant shall dedicate all easements identified by the city engineer, including utility easements for city-owned water mane and sanitary sewer, access utility easements across P24-118-24-34-0084 and any temporary construction easements needed for retaining wall construction. H approval of the de development shall be in accordance with the approved plans. Any subsequent changes, expansions or alterations to the building, site or signage shall require city review and approval. I applicants shall pay all costs associated with the city's review of the resoning planned unit development site plan and plat applications. And I think what we would add as suggestion is to consider making the sidewalk 8 and 1/2 ft to 10 ft along Highway 12. Right. Um a recommendation to consider that as part of the plan. And then um >> I would add to that noting to follow the like the city's standard that's already established. >> Yep. [sighs] And I wasn't sure if that was already being included as part of the city. >> I think just like that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And to >> really to match the layout and design that's already been started on the sidewalk near the hawk. Yeah. So, the sidewalk proposal along Highway 12 is to match the already um developed sidewalk along Highway 12 and the Hawk intersection. [sighs] >> So, I need a motion to either approve or reject or um >> you add uh the other sidewalk northwest widening that as well. >> Oh, yeah. if wasn't sure if that was >> if feasible. >> Okay. If feasible. So then the other recommendation recommendation is if feasible um widening the sidewalk or pathway heading to the northwest along Pioneer or along the private drive connecting to Pioneer. Um, any other recommendations that we had? I think that was it. >> That was a good summary. I'd like to make a motion to approve all that. [laughter] make a motion to approve items A through I um along with the planning commission recommendations as already noted. How's that sound? There we go. >> So, I need a motion for that. >> Stephan made the motion. >> I'll second the motion. >> Um Adam seconds the motion. All in favor say I. >> I. All oppose say the same. Eyes have it four to zero. Uh, re recommendation is approved. >> That's great. This will go to the city council on >> This will go to the city council on September 28th. >> Feel like I should have a hat to throw. Yay. [laughter] All right. Um, any other business that we want to discuss or bring up or talk about? Just I guess welcome Nathan to the city council that we've got another person on the council now. >> Maybe you want to make a formal uh motion to welcome >> Okay. >> Nathan into our [laughter] >> motion to welcome Nathan city council. Adam makes a formal uh motion to welcome Nathan to the city uh the planning commission. >> City council city. >> Well, he's on the city council. He's liaison between planning commission. We're we're not the city council. >> Yeah. >> So, >> that's official. I'll I'll second it. >> All right. Stephan second. All in favor say I. I. >> I. All oppose say the same. >> Eyes have it. Four to zero. >> Nathan, welcome to Planning Commission. That is our leaison. you're in. >> Um otherwise I'll take a motion for adjournment and um >> we can conclude the meeting. >> Yep. I'll motion to adjurnn. >> Nick motions to adjurnn. >> I'll second that motion. >> Adam seconds the motion. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All oppose say the same. Eyes have it. Four to zero. meeting is adjourned as of 6:55 p.m. >> Thanks everyone.