So, hypothetically, if one were interested in that concept of flipping the buffer with road, cuz I I I get it on the where the curb cut is, it changes it, right? Like, that's not an easy situation. But, for for the other 95% of that stretch, I'm trying to think of what type of amendment would be applicable to look into or it shall be switched. Like, cuz we can't say here, "Yes, it's totally feasible. Do it.

I think if the buffering is done appropriately, it will provide the protection that people are looking for. I know it's going to be it's going to be tricky and maybe you know, the buffer has to be wider to get greater height um to make it workable and block the the headlights so we're not having the headlights shining across the street into people's yards and homes at night and I think that's one of the primary concerns.

The city's screening ordinance is 6 ft in height, could be up to 8 ft in height and 90% opaque year-round, typically achieved between landscaping combination of landscaping and either a berm or fence or a wall. Um so those that would come when the tenants come in. Um the city doesn't typically recognize a road as a land use that requires that level of screening.

Mr. Mayor and council members, that makes this very difficult of a project to make happen. The actual land available for the residential portion is small. It's about 8 acres, which to make public streets and a detached product work on it is not something that I think the site would necessarily be efficient for. Additionally, we're adjacent to the commercial uses and major highway or major roadways, which tend to lead to a more dense product, which is why we're showing our rear-loaded attached townhome product.

I don't know. That's what concerns me is the we went through this present presentation on development, those of us who were on the council at the time, and they came in and showed us this, and we all shook our heads yes, and kind of agreed in concept, and now they're coming in to actually do it, and I think we did change it to, you know, max 25%, but at that time you're proposing a bank commercial and the residential development, and we went along with the concept. I think to close the door now would be kind of saying, 'Well, you tricked us.'

I fully agree on the concern with number one, but I also being here for those conversations about the ghost plat, I think it'd be very wrong of us to it's not an intentional bait and switch, but it would have the outcome of being a bait and switch, and I don't I I think that's right. Um not to do as as a city it's not fair to do to any business entity.

So, we asked if we had to come back every time a development exceeds the population and do an adjustment. And they kind of we don't want to do that, right? We don't want to have to sign off and everything. What they're guaranteeing though is the population capacity. So, if it stays at 189 and we hit that number and their planning side is probably going to be okay with increasing it, but their sewer side needs to now invest and that's off a couple years. That's really the problem.

Can they Cuz this isn't a memo. This is a an official policy position {slash} procedure using whatever It has a regulatory effect. Did this get approved by their council?

I am very concerned the fact that Met Council was able to put forth something like this without it being officially voted upon by their governing body. If I as a civil servant did that for my state agency, there would be serious legal repercussions. And the same statutes apply to them. So, I have serious concerns about that. And I I don't consider this memo to be legally binding whatsoever.

If they're on every street corner, um they will no longer be as effective as they are where they, um, matter most. Their advantages, they obviously increase driver awareness and have been shown, um, with nationwide research to to increase driver yield compliance for people trying to cross the roadway by walking or biking.

What difference does the speed limit make in terms of if it has enough use and if RR FPs have a benefit of increasing in by drivers, Whether they're going 40 or 30, what difference does that make for me as a pedestrian? I just want cuz this is going to be a question someone's going to ask and I'm going to have to be able to answer. Well, they're driving too fast for you to for it to qualify for this. That doesn't make sense to a person watching. So, help me understand that.

The speed factor um I would say here it's less in my professional opinion the speed factor and more the number of lanes. And that creates what is termed as a multi-lane threat. So, if a car was stopped in that left turn lane for someone crossing, but the the car coming through did not see them, that's where the number of lanes become the biggest concern.