Perfect. All right, we'll call this June 10th, 2026 planning commission meeting to order. Uh we'll go look for a roll call. here. >> Here,
>> Michaelitz >> here. >> Perie Ryberg >> here. >> Roasted >> Sailor >> here, >> and chairperson Urbansky >> here. >> All right, I'll look for a motion to adapt the the agenda.
>> Motion. >> Motion made. Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Perfect. Uh on to number four, visitor presentation. So this would be if anybody wants to address the planning
commission for something that's not on the agenda tonight. Don't think we've ever had somebody do that, but anything online or >> Nope. >> Nope. move into uh look for a motion to
approve the previous meeting minutes from the May 13th meeting. >> So move second. >> Motion made seconded. Any discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries.
We have no consent agenda items tonight, which brings us into our one action item um which is a public hearing to recommend approval of the prelim preliminary site and building plan prelim preliminary plat reszoning and
conc comprehensive plan amendment for Bigwoods Business Park BWBP North Phase 1 Skinnel Properties PC number 2026-08 eight. >> Liz, I believe you're presenting this tonight.
>> Yep. I just got to bring it up here. >> All right. I'm assuming you can see that in front of you. Thank you. All right. We have a preliminary site and building plan, preliminary plat reszoning, and a comprehensive plan amendment request this evening for the building one and
Big Woods Business Park. specifically on the north side. Uh this project is being proposed by Scanel Properties. So to give you an understanding of where the site is, it's located on kind of the southwest area of the city um up to its
western boundary that borders with uh the city of Carver and Dogrren Township. Um the area in question this evening is uh outlined in blue on this screen here. Um there were a few uh former Dogrren
Township parcels um on kind of that west edge of the project area um that were recently annexed this year. Um and this again is um a site that's positioned on the north side of Big Woods Boulevard
and immediately east of Jonathan Carver Parkway. So, we're at the second step in our three-step review process. So, we're in more of the technical review, uh, looking at civil drawings
and reports, um, and starting to, uh, identify and satisfy some, uh, concerns that were raised during concept plan and establish additional conditions into the the final the third and final step.
In terms of background and previous approvals, um the concept plan was approved back in February of this year. Um and then we did get those two parcels that are in Dolgrren Township annexed
into the city of Chaza in May. Um we did go through that environmental review stemming back uh from September of last year and then it was formally adopted in April of this year. existing conditions of kind of the
overall area. Um it's over 300 acres total both on the north and south sides of Big Woods Boulevard. It's made up of 16 parcels. Majority on the north side is made up of parcels owned by the Razer
family. Um also owned on the north side is one parcel owned by the Morian family. two part parcels owned by uh traditions and then one parcel that's owned by the city of Chasa. Um Scanel will be kind of the main developer of
those 300 acres. Um however don't have um that land control over traditions or the city of Chaza parcels. Uh today the property mainly consists of agricultural use um as well as some
wooded areas. Um there are a total of 27 wetlands across uh the 300 acres. Um and then you have West Ches Chesa Creek kind of on the north side there. Uh the comprehensive plan guides uh this area
to have two key community entrances. One that's positioned at uh the Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard intersection and then one that's on the south side uh near Chesca Boulevard and Highway 212. So phase one um that's moving forward
with preliminary approval um again is shown in kind of the green outline here on that uh upper image um and is roughly 44 acres uh proposed for the first user which is a distribution center.
So, the current request again includes a preliminary site and building plan for that distribution center user uh totaling 218,000 square ft on 44 acres. Uh it also includes a preliminary plat
request, a reszoning um to a planned multi-use district um and a comprehensive plan amendment. Uh the pre-plat includes uh two lots. One lot for the distribution center um and then another lot for the future
water tower uh on the north side here and then seven uh remnant outlots for future development um and storm water ponding and the wooded ravine area. The comprehensive plan guides this uh
first phase uh for business park um open space uh rural residential or green belt um and then the former Dogrren Township growth area which is in that hatched out area. So the comprehensive plan
amendment request uh would include three different components with it. Uh one to allow for cluster development in the green belt area. Uh the second to expand the Musa boundary which is the metropolitan
uh urban service area and established land use guidance on the former Dogrren Township parcels. In terms of the green belt and where that is situated, it's basically on the west edge of the project area shown in
green here. Um, this uh green belt edge is uh established around the city edge to physically and visually separate the city of Chaska from adjacent community communities. Uh the objective of that is the
protection of the rural character at key community entrances. Um with phase one um it includes uh a little under 30 acres of green belt area. Um in terms of uh the impacts uh
or impervious surface uh within that area there's roughly about 9 acres within that. So about 31% of the green belt area uh that would be um proposed with the site plan. Um there is a policy within the comprehensive plan that does
allow for cluster development within the green belt area uh which I'll go over in the the next slide here. So cluster development is allowed uh within the green belt area if it meets the 10 stated objectives uh from the
comprehensive plan. I'm not going to go through all of them. Um those are included in the staff report analysis. Um just a few of them that we'll touch on. Um the area does need to be serviced by Chaza utilities. Um this is proposed
as a part of this project as utilities will be extended to the site. Uh viewsheds at key community entrances are identified, prioritized and protected. Um so the key community entrance in this area is at that
intersection of Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard. Um I'll show in a few subsequent slides here the the proposed ponding burming and landscaping that's proposed in those areas. There are a few refinements that are being
requested for the final submitt um to uh bolster uh the landscaping um in certain areas along that edge uh specifically the northwest edge of building one site and then near that vehicle entrance
proposed on Jonathan Carver Parkway. Um and then the other piece is uh development activity is limited to approximately a third of the site. Um and yes they are meeting that with the development activity limited um to
approximately 31% of that area where 33% would be allowed. Uh this slide includes a couple view sheds uh from Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard. uh showing the
proposed landscaping both at uh kind of that initial installation or five-year growth as well as um what it would look like in 20 years um which I'll show uh the comparison of that through a video uh analysis
um on the next slides here. Uh those two areas needing refinement are identified as one and two on this exhibit. So again on that northwest side um here you can see portions of the building uh at that
five uh year growth period. And then number two uh where that vehicle entrances. Um there's definitely some um ability to fill in there to bolster that viewshed um from a more natural
standpoint um at the beginning stages of installation. Hopefully, this will work. Um, I've got two videos to show you. One is showing the five-year growth. Um, and this would be traveling from Big Woods Boulevard
and then onto Jonathan Carver Parkway. So, we're on Big Woods Boulevard here and we'll start to round the corner to go north here on Jonathan Carver Parkway. And again, this shows the edge of the
property along that green belt area with the proposed burming and landscaping. And that's kind of the area on that northwest side that will need some refinement into the final. >> And the trail stays there also, correct?
>> Yep. And then this is the 20-year growth view shed. Still on Big Woods Boulevard, rounding the corner going on Jonathan Carver Parkway now. um continuing the comprehensive plan
amendment request. So the amendment would include establishing land use over those Stalin Township parcels. Um and the existing is on the left, the proposed is on the right here.
Um, also included is the expansion of the Musa or the area that's serviced by city utilities. And again, uh, because we didn't have that guidance established for those Silent Township, uh, parcels, that expansion would basically continue
into that growth area that has been annexed. Uh, this is the phasing plan just to show kind of what's proposed at phase one here. um and what's uh for subsequent development later on. Uh so
phase one really includes everything in turquoise and then uh the uh pink areas as well. Um so building one uh effectively is that turquoise area on this screen here. Um, and then also a
part of phase one would include public improvements uh to the intersection, the main intersection into the development at Bigwoods Boulevard um and an access onto Jonathan Carver Parkway. Uh, also included would be uh the extension of
that local uh public road, public road A, uh, which would end in a culde-sac on the north side there. Also included would be the um extension of a public trail um that would follow public road A
and uh extend across the wooded ravine up to Chesca um or Creek Road and Chesca Creek Boulevard to the north there. That would basically follow uh where the utility extensions are proposed across the
ravine. Um and then masquerading basically um to the uh extent of kind of where the blue area is shown for the north side um at the beginning here
uh in terms of access and right ofway. So again, a new collector road or local road um is proposed to be kind of that main north south um uh spine road into the development.
Um this is also a state aid road. Uh so it has its own set of standards that need to be met uh from a state review perspective. Um the intersection of where public road A meets uh Big Woods Boulevard uh is
proposed to be a single lane roundabout. Um and then an additional access uh would be at Jonathan Carver Parkway which would be a private access into the uh site for um a right in right out.
um not a part of this project but eventually uh will be constructed in the near term would be another roundabout project at Big Woods Boulevard and Jonathan Carver Parkway uh which was a county project identified for this area.
Um so a couple things uh the applicant will need to work on into final um is there are spacing requirements along a collector road or public road A that need to be met um which is a 600 ft spacing requirement between access
points. Um the two that don't meet that are where the truck loading dock accesses and one of the van lot parking lot access points. Um they're roughly 100 feet from each other. So they'll need to work on a plan that meets the
spacing requirements um into final. Uh additionally, they'll have to continue coordination with Carver County. Uh given that this abuts two of their county roads and they're proposing two access points uh and improvements on
those roadways, um Carver County um will have uh the final say in kind of what those intersection designs need to look like uh since it's their road. Uh so that'll be um a requirement going into finals that we'll need um that certainty
from Carver County that the designs proposed are good to go. Uh from a traffic standpoint, um they did provide um an updated TIA with this preliminary submitt
um and really focused on uh the traffic generation for building one as a distribution center. Um the proposed user or distribution center user would have roughly 3,000 daily trips um from their site. Um, and
this is broken down uh from kind of personal vehicles um the trucks that would use the loading dock area delivering um the goods um and then the delivery vans that would be uh dispatched uh from the distribution
center. Um the uh personal vehicles um would make up a majority of uh the daily trips there. Um the majority of these trips or when these um employees
would come to the site would be during um off- peak hours for the most part. Um a lot of them will work overnight doing um sorting as trucks are dropping off goods. Um they'll be doing sorting activity during the overnight hours into
the early morning hours. um and then have uh other subsequent shift uh employees that um will work within the distribution center uh during the day. Um the trucks uh will be
roughly 88 uh daily trips. Um and these will be mainly overnight uh during the overnight hours and then a sporadic few uh during the daytime hours as well. Um and then vans
um those uh again will uh be dispatched out of the site um kind of after off peak hours in the morning. So they'll have most uh of the van drivers arriving at the site in their personal vehicles
around 9:00 a.m. um and then start to be dispatched out around 10:00 a.m. Um and they have an 8 hour to 9 hour shift. So, they typically come back around 8 or 9:00 p.m. at night after their deliveries are done.
Uh, utilities. Um, so as I mentioned uh before, utilities will uh cross the ravine. Uh, utilities are currently available at uh that intersection of Creek Road and Chaska Creek Boulevard to the north. So, those will be extended
across the ravine to access uh the project area. um they will need uh easements and agreements from um the abuing property owner traditions as they own the property immediately north. Um they are
um fully uh supportive of the extension of the utilities to the project area as it will also service their area as well in the future. Um for trails and sidewalks, um the project plans to incorporate um a layer
of sidewalks and trails within the development. Uh so off of public road A, uh you have a sidewalk on the west side and then a trail on the east side uh for the public streets. Um the trail uh also
shows to extend across the ravine to connect into the trail system um to the north there. There's also an offshoot that kind of winds its way into the wooded area too to provide um public
access into that wooded ravine system. Um and then also a trail extension um off of that regional trail on uh Jonathan Carver Parkway that would extend on kind of the west side there and into the wooded ravine as well is
proposed um for outdoor gathering spaces. Um the site itself uh will have its own area um for employees there just on the outside of the front entrance. They're showing tables. Um they'll have a ride
shelter for people who will get picked up at the site um from car poolers or family members, friends. Um, and then another outdoor gathering space
uh is shown in a city out lot kind of where that uh trail extends off of the northern culde-sac there. Um just one thing uh for the applicant to work on into their final um is enhancing the outdoor gathering space um
for building one site um to make it a little bit more desirable and shaded uh for uh their employees there. Um so that's one thing they'll have to refine into final
uh for screening landscaping and tree preservation. and we did kind of touch on that in those uh initial slides here. Um there are a few areas that they'll need uh to further refine um uh kind of on
that green belt area side that we mentioned before. Um they'll also need to show boulevard trees along p public road A and again that's the area that's between the curb and the sidewalk within the public right ofway there. So that will need to be shown on the landscape
plan. Um and then also um provide enhancements for Birmingham landscaping on that east edge of building one's property where the van lot um abuts the uh public road A there
to try to screen that area as well as the uh loading dock area from the public road. Uh for building one, um again, this is on a roughly 44 acre site. It's over
200,000 square feet. Um it's 40 foot building. Um the building proposes to use a mix of uh formliner uh glass and concrete panels, smooth um application concrete panels. Um they
meet the city's ordinance in terms of industrial buildings. Um the parking lot or parking provision for this site is well over the city's requirement uh as they'll have to park both employees and deliver delivery
vehicles uh on site. Um, and then there's also an accessory building, uh, which would be a fleet service building for the delivery vans on site, and that also, uh, meets the industrial standards
as it'll be stone and stucco to match the the colors of the primary building. Um, a couple other things to work on for final that I haven't already mentioned. um they'll need to get a fully approved wetland mitigation plan as there's one
um incidental wetland on building one site that will be impacted as a result of the project. Um also need to get an approved comprehensive plan amendment done by Met Council which would follow the city's approval of the comprehensive plan
amendment. Um and then ensuring um through outlots and uh easements uh the green belt implementation strate strategy. So in um
for any areas within the green belt that aren't owned by the city or plan to be owned by the city, they'll need to either be um in an easement or have some type of preservation document over it.
Um so in conclusion we are asking three motions this evening. One of them is to recommend approval of the preliminary site and building plan and preliminary plat for Big Woods Business Park uh specifically Big Woods Business Park North building one based on the
conditions listed in the staff report. Uh, and then a motion to recommend approval of the reszoning from the rural residential RR2 zoning district to the plan multi-use district PMD24. Um, and then a motion to recommend
approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to allow for cluster development in the green belt um to guide the former Dogrren Township parcels um and to expand the Musa. Um, if this uh moves forward this
evening, this would go to council on Monday, which would be this uh upcoming Monday, June 15th. Happy to answer any questions. Otherwise, we have uh representatives in the room uh on the applicant side as well.
>> Perfect. Thank you. Um, so we do have a public hearing tonight, but before we go there, any questions for staff from the commissioner? I have one question. >> So the road improvements on the >> Jonathan carver were and the
intersection right. So would that be completed before the actual building operational or like we it's not yet decided. I'm sorry. The the intersection of Jonathan Carver, >> Big Woods and the Jonathan Carver, the roundabout there.
>> Um it's likely that well that is planned for 2027 construction. So it might be kind of at the same time that um the user will be under construction too >> because we see a lot of vehicles coming
in and if if that is not completed by the time building is operational like that intersection would be a mess. >> I mean you can't even turn left or right or whatever like because all the trucks and delivery things going on and they they just need to stand there. So, right. So, just
>> so it's actually 28. Um, so there will be a bit of a mess. Um, but you know, messes are part of developing areas. Um, the developer is in direct coordination with Carver County. The roundabout that's being programmed at Jonathan Carver Parkway and Big Woods Boulevard
is a county-led project. It's part of their um, you know, highway improvement program. their um their identified CIP um you know timeline and things. So we are working with them to coordinate. They are aware of this project um and you know it'll it'll definitely I think
benefit from the improvements um but the county would have been pursuing this project that timeline regardless of of this project coming forward or not. Yeah, because the if they are not uh completing by that time probably need to consider some mitigation plans like
having four-way stop sign or something otherwise like it would be really messed. >> Yeah, I see that. >> Nothing more residents like and close the road one year to work on part of it and then close the road the next year to do the other parts. >> Uh other questions for staff?
No, I've got one uh on the utilities that are going to come through the ravine to service this. Would that be stubbed then on the other side of Big Woods Boulevard to service the south side right away? Okay. >> Yep. It would extend all the way to Big Woods Boulevard.
>> Okay. Question from developer. All right. If we have no more questions for staff, we'll call the public hearing to order at 7:32. All right, I think we've got a couple representatives from the from the
developer here. Would you I'm sure we've got a couple questions for them and you might have some presentation you would like to >> Jay Kurt with Properties. Uh all all commissioners and staff, thank you very much here and happy answer any
questions. I think the presentation that Liz put together was pretty thorough. We've obviously been working with them very closely and doing our best to accommodate um not only from the conceptual phase but also what is forthcoming um here in the future. So
>> perfect. Thank you Jake. Questions for Jake. Um Jake curious for this facility, this first building, how many employees do you see when we talk like job creation?
>> Roughly about 300. >> About 300. >> Yep. >> And that's 24 hours a day, 7 days a week type thing or >> Yep. The facility will operate 24/7. Correct. And you know, when I look at this and and I you kind of get an idea of who the who the end user might be,
a lot of truck traffic, a lot of van traffic, a lot of car traffic there. And you guys have studied this and and it it all looks good. And I know being close to a major freeway like that makes a lot of sense, >> right? >> I just it's hard to configure it or kind of kind of hard to picture it right now
with the roads set as they are. Right. And your building is too huge, right? Like uh do you consider adding like a renewable energies like a solar panels or something on top of it that would like definitely help the I mean reduce
the carbon emissions and all. Right. >> Yeah. Solar panels not at this time. No, we're not considering that. >> Um, let me go back to traffic again. And so we've got, you know, the historic downtown down here. And, um,
it looks if if my guess is right on the end user. Anyways, um, they've already got a facility over in Chakapi, so it doesn't look like there'd be a ton of traffic going through the historic downtown portion. Then >> this facility will service the southwest. Okay.
>> Um, obviously the proximity to highway 212 is very attractive to run north and south. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions for Jake or staff? >> No. >> If I may. >> Absolutely.
>> Go for it. >> Yeah. Uh Jason Banglas, owner rep uh for the end user. Um just on the on the job component, uh obviously the the number of vehicles and the number of jobs that we're creating don't totally align. And part of that also is the the vans are uh
directly employed by small businesses that we contract with and then they create the jobs for the actually the the delivery drivers themselves, but they operate that business out of this facility. So it's a direct indirect job creation and that's probably about another three to 300 plus uh jobs or so
from that. Those are full-time as are the um the folks that we working what we call under the roof uh in in the building and they've received those benefits that start on day one. >> Independent contractors basically >> uh the small businesses but the but the folks driving are not independent contractors. They're employees of those
small businesses that we contract with. Yeah. And then just as a as a comment on the sustainability well this building won't be fitted with solar. There's a number of uh sustainability initiatives um that are being run out of this or that will be run out of this facility during construction. They'll track uh
kind of um the the carbon footprint of those materials and that that's then used to uh impact our total global build program or at least here in North America to sort of reduce those. Uh and I have a list because I don't have it committed to memory just yet, but lowcarbon concrete it's about a 20%
reduction in in carbon impact there. um lowcarbon rebar uh will be included in this uh and then certainly the native landscaping which I know is part of the the city's plan anyways but um that's a that's a key part of our build program going forward uh as we kind of look at some of those things. >> And your name again was I'm sorry
>> Jason last name Vangelus. Thanks. >> Thank you Jason. >> Is there anyone else that would like to speak at the public hearing here? >> Hi You >> look familiar. >> Been here once or twice. Uh Travis
Olson, 1439 Sophia Drive. Um for those of you who don't know, the Green Belt is near and dear to my heart. Um and anything that encroaches on it, it it kind of hits me. Um, and for those
that that don't or haven't read it, it's the the three key parts or two of the main ones are to help preserve and strengthen Chesca's sense of community and identity for freestanding community and to preserve and protect the value of open space and
natural resources. So, those are two of the three bullet points for why the green belt was created. So when they're going in and pushing the limits, and yes, they're allowed to.
Yes, it's a great project. I'm not saying not do it, but they're pushing the limits on what they can do. Now, it's the this is where you guys can say too much. Push it back. Push it away from this the road.
It doesn't have to be that close because they are pushing the limits. You saw from the video the burm is right there. It's not open space. That burm is right there. It's not natural. And then back to the bullet points which is bullet
point seven talking about what is allowed per the policy. The development activity is limited to approximately one-third of the site. The remainder of the site remains undeveloped with permanent protection
measures. Undeveloped. The burm is actually development. The retention ponds are development. So, I don't get how they can get away with saying that that's
undeveloped. So keep that in mind as you're going through the the decision-m policy. Okay. So this is the part where obviously they're they're a business. They're trying to make the most out of what's available.
You guys have the ability to push back. Not saying stop because like I said, it's a great opportunity. I I love I love that they're coming, but don't allow them push the boundaries.
The other one is the access road onto um on County Road 11. I don't know why they need that. I don't know why they need a ride in ride out. It's ju it's for one, it's not needed. And if it is, it's just
going to create confusion because now you have people coming up. They're going to drive in there. they're going to get stuck and now they're going to have to come out. It's as you saw in the video or saw in the presentation, you've got now two
crosswalks going across that driveway, which is kind of odd. So, they really need to take care of that. So, if you do allow them to keep that drive, you do need to have them fix the bike path or the paths they have because they have
one that's going up onto the burm and hopefully the bike path is still staying along the highway or so by whatever you do, they've got to fix that because right now they have two which is silly.
Um, so that's why I've got so I do thank you. Please keep that in consideration when you guys are making your decision. >> Thanks, Travis. >> Is there anybody else that would like to speak on on this project? >> No. Going once, going twice.
Any other questions for the developers based off of Travis's comments? >> I am curious about the right in right out. Just what is the purpose of that? Why is that part needed? >> I don't know if it'd be helpful to pull up the site plan at all when we talk about this.
>> Sure. >> Um while that's uh taking place, our goal primarily is to maintain safety on the site. uh there's obviously a a fair amount of uh activity uh and so the the primary driver for the ride in ride out
is really is really safety. So um the the blue uh is where all of the the van fleet will be um the way that the the vans kind of operate. Um and I don't have I don't think an ops clock has been set for this facility yet, but typically between the hours of 9 to noon there's a
two-hour block in that window where the vans will dispatch. And so drivers will come in typically starting at 9:00 a.m. They'll park in that blue lot. Um so that allows for an extra more efficient flow of traffic for the number of um
entrances that are there. Uh and then they'll pull into they'll pull into an empty spot. They'll get into the van and then they'll go and they'll queue. And I don't think you can see the queuing lanes, but that's kind of the just to the left page left of the building there. Um there's kind of like a I think a green greenish color. They'll kind of
pull their vehicle there. Um and and then they'll disengage the ignition. There'll be a a sizable number of uh electric vehicles that will launch at this facility. Uh and then um once it's time to queue, they'll they'll enter a canopy. They'll disengage their ignition again. They'll load up. That process
takes about 20 minutes start to finish. Uh and then they um go out in waves. And that process takes about 5 minutes. So the total dispatch process is about 25 minutes per wave. And they do that over the course of a 2-hour block of time. And so, um, they'll, you can imagine, they'll service different areas and
different routes. And so, this makes sure that some, some will go, uh, uh, onto the right and right out with intersection A, others will go into the public feeder road and then exit that way depending on where their route is servicing. >> Is this kind of a norm for the
facilities that you build, is this kind of a normal layout for them or is each one somewhat different? Uh we try to template it as much as we can obviously based on the parcel of land that we have and kind of where we're at. Um I would say that that what you typically find uh
is on either side you typically have a van lot. Uh and then in this in this particular design component um you don't see that. Um but this is fairly standard. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um, have you been in contact yet with I know
you've been in contact with Carver County, but specifically for that right in right out there, would there be um like an acceleration lane going would that be north there? Um or a major turn lane coming from the south then
also. >> So you're talking in relationship going north on Jonathan Carver where? >> Yeah. So, we're in direct coordination right now with the county and the design uh and meeting all the design standards. So,
>> um we see you got you got a lot of vans that are going to be coming in and out of there short periods of time and and um that that road gets kind of busy in the in the mornings and well 24 hours a day now it seems like. >> Yeah, we've again the county has been
out on site. We've looked at uh site distances uh making sure the proximity to the proposed roundabout as well and also the right in right out also lining up with the city carver on the west side of the road. So we've been able to talk and and and work through um not only
with with staff but also the county on top. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. Any other questions for >> No. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Great question for you, Jake. Where does that
line up with my property as far as any other comments for the commissioner. Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and bring it back to the commission here for discussion. So, we got four four pieces here that we
have to look at tonight. Um, we've heard the comments from the developer, the builder, and from Travis. So based on uh uh the comments uh from public hearing so the 31% of the
development like uh total land usage is it considering the bmss and the and like retention ponds and all those things or is it like excluding those things? The impact area includes all of the
parking area, the building area. Um, so the impervious surfaces essentially are in that impact area. >> Okay. So you consider that that also as part of that 31. >> Correct. Yep. >> There we go.
the precedent that we have for development within the green belt under the green belt policy um the cluster development policy would be the shioal neighborhood um and so that that neighborhood implemented the policy obviously that's
residential this is industrial different uses um but there's in that calculation that occurred at the time um the way that that worked there's there's a lot of uh storm water ponding. There's a lot of burming the way that a
lot of the screening uh you know creating that vegetated natural edge relative to the county roads that surround that site. Um so county road 11 going east on the the west boundary. That's not a county road on the north
boundary. It's uh is that 82nd 70 >> 86 >> 86th Street? >> Mhm. >> Uh to the north. Um the way that that screening occurred, uh if you drive out there, you'll see there's there's Birming. Um it's vegetated. Um and that's how that was that was achieved to
create the uh the edge um relative to that boundary of the city there. Um the 1/3 and 2/3 is not all dedicated to the edge uh in the Shioval neighborhood. Um the preservation areas are woven throughout the whole neighborhood.
um and you know the ponding and things were were counted towards that preservation um you know native uh natural area um in that scenario. So what we're attempting to do is take the precedent that was set uh with the
Shioval neighborhood apply those principles um to this to this site um to you know come up with uh you know an outcome that preserves that edge in a way that um is you know consistent to the extent that we can do that in a very
different context. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. Anyone else? >> Is is there lighting ordinances uh for this with some of the overhead lights and a 24/7 operation?
>> Yep. So, our lighting ordinance um doesn't necessarily limit uh when they can have lights on um but it does limit uh the amount of foot candle or glare that can spread out to other properties. Okay.
>> Question. Anyone else? No. Um I'd just like it noted that we'd like to see that our green belt um preserved as much as possible. If there's any way we can work
with that to to strengthen that. I'm I'm sure the answer is no, but I'm going to ask it anyways. Would there be any way of of eliminating that exit on County Road 11 and just having that have the bands run along the north side of the building and and work off of the uh
the new road that's going in there. That's a lot of traffic there. All right, >> I will that does remind me the crosswalk question that was brought up. Is there any additional clarity on like is there
is there a crosswalk coming up a burm and then down a burm across a road or like what will that look like I guess is my question >> on Jonathan Carver Parkway. Uh that would likely be outside of the where the burm is. So it wouldn't be going over a burm. >> Okay.
>> Necessarily >> be similar to the grade it's at today, >> right? Yep. So there's a regional trail on the west side there. Um, so that basically will kind of stay where it's at and then modifications made um if the
access uh uh proceeds there and then a crosswalk um up to county design standards would have to be made >> there. And then is it Carver County then that has oversight over
how that crosswalk would operate through the new right in right out to the new development? >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Would would we have a final um road map I guess or like literally what the road
would look like at that entrance exit before the the third stage here from the county? Can I ask you a question? >> We can certainly ask for one and see how far we can get the design. Um, but usually it's it's kind of an ongoing
iterate it iterative process with the county until it's uh constructed, but we can certainly get as far as we can. >> Does the builder I mean what are you guys asking for, I guess, or do you have a design at this point? >> So, I can speak to that a little bit to
give a little more context. Um, ultimately it's a county road and so the access on the county road is a is an access permit with the county. Um, and it ends up being the county's responsibility to ensure that their specifications for, you know, safety and circulation and and all of that with the access relative to their road are being
met. Um, so it ends up being, you know, a process that is happening in parallel uh with the city's review process. Um, you know, I think what we can do is, you know, aim to to share, um, you know, what's what's relevant and sharable,
right, at the time that, uh, uh, the final comes through. Um, but also recognizing that, you know, it doesn't really be, you know, we can comment on it. We can share our feedback to the county, we can share our preferences. Um, but my experience is that the county often does what what their policy says
um, should be done. Um, and that will be what drives that. Um but yeah, I think we can, you know, as we get into that next process, share information as we know it. At that point, um it will be um in, you know, in order for the
development to proceed right into building, they'll need to have the permit from the county squared away. Um they need to ensure that they have the appropriate access and everything at that time. And that's consistent with how you know a project that's going on right now
um in town um would be Four Stars project um why can't I think the name of it? >> High Point >> High Point Vistas. Yes. Um and there's an access on to County Road 61 uh that's being figured out there. Um and you know
that that development is grading right now. um you know, they're they're anxious to get their building permits and and move forward with their phase two. Um but a big part of that is moving through the county's process and making sure that that access is fully understood and the design is finalized.
>> Yep. Um so we're going to look for a motion to recommend approval to the city council uh preliminary site and building plan only right now um for and preliminary plat for big woods business park BWBP
North building one subject to 10 conditions here. Is there any further discussion on this portion of it hearing? None. I'll look for a motion. A motion. >> Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Motion made and seconded for approval. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. That motion carries. Um, next motion is to recommend approval of the reszoning from rural residential RR2
to plan multi-use district PMD-24 based on the draft ordinance. Look for a motion for that also. >> Motion to move. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion made and seconded to approve. All
in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Third motion to recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment to allow cluster development guide the former Dogrin Township parcels to be
open space and business park and expand the metro politan urban service area uh musa musel line. I'll look for a motion on that. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion made seconded. All in favor say
I. >> I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. I think that's all we needed for the motions tonight. Correct. >> Mhm. Yeah. >> All right. Moving on then for other business. Is
there any other business you'd like to discuss this evening? One thing I can just mention um for the planning commission to know, we are continuing to move forward. I mentioned I think a couple meetings ago um with a an update to the downtown master plan.
Um that first task force meeting has been scheduled. So that's on uh June 22nd. Um I believe maybe Commissioner Ryberg is going to be filling in for Commissioner Austin at that one. Um and that'll be you know our first discussion with that group um to kick off a process
that will go into early next year um to take the plan that exists and was approved back in 2012 um and think about you know what's that next vision for downtown to continue uh I think the positive momentum that has been built over the last almost 15 years. Right. So
>> excellent. Just so you're aware. >> Thank you. >> I have one thing and that's >> with all the talk about the data centers, >> the city put together a real good question and answer page on the city web page about it.
>> Okay. >> With the facts on the data center that's proposed. So, it'd be nice to refer people to that rather than all the rumors that are out there. Thank you, sir.
>> Anyone else? >> No. Look for a motion to adjourn then. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Motion made and second into a journ. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I.