We will call to order the planning commission meeting for Thursday, January 15, 2026. Please stand, remove your hats, and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I aliance 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. >> Please call the role. >> Commissioner Knoblock >> here. >> Commissioner No here. Commissioner Treml
>> here. >> Commissioner Casey >> here. >> Commissioner Smokey >> here. >> Commissioner Ronak >> here. Chair Schwarz >> here. >> Thank you. All right. Our first order of business this evening is to adopt our agenda. >> Motion to adopt.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Motion by Smokey, second by Casey to adopt the agenda. Any corrections or additions? Hearing? None. All in favor? >> I opposed.
>> And the agenda is adopted. All right. First, we have uh going all the way back to September, we have approval of the minutes of our September 18th, 2025 meeting. Only limited number of people that can
vote on this. Is there a motion to approve those minutes? >> I'd make a motion to approve those minutes. Chair Schwarz. >> And is there a second? >> Second. >> Um Ray or
>> I'll second it. >> Thank you. We have a motion by Noah, second by Navlock to approve the minutes of the September 18th, 2025 meeting. Any corrections or additions? Hearing none. All in favor?
>> I >> I >> opposed. Minutes are approved with >> abstain. >> With three abstensions, commissioners Casey, and Tremo. Next we have approval of the minutes of
the December 18th meeting 2025 had motion to approve. Chair >> second motion by no second by Tremo. Any corrections or additions hearing? None. All in favor? I
>> I >> opposed >> abstain >> and that those minutes are approved with commissioners and chair Schwarz abstaining.
All right. Next we have planning cases 25-15 and 25-16. A PUD and preliminary plat for Balcony Farms, 12301 Shannondoa Boulevard Northwest,
Lansspe5 LLC. Mr. Plat, >> thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Um, happy new year everyone. Uh so I have before you tonight a request for a plan unit development or PUD and preliminary plat
for the Balcony Farms property on Main Street and Shannondoa. So the applicant is a U developer who would like to build a residential subdivision on the southern part of the Balfony Farms property. So Balfy Farms are a sod farm. Um a lot of it's used
for sod farming, some of it's currently being used for vegetable farming. Uh spanning both sides of Main Street. um along Shannondoa Boulevard for the most part. The southern part of that um is largely lowlying and wet and the very southern third of that southern section of the balcony farms is where this
development is being proposed. Um it's one parcel right now, the entire southern section. So I have circled in red here on the location map if you can see it the section where the development is being proposed. Um the property is largely low-lying and wet. The northern twothirds of the property are almost
entirely delineated wetland. the southern third of the property um is is lowlying but with grading could potentially be buildable. Um proposed access to the um subdivision would be off of Shannondoa Boulevard. No access would be proposed off of Main Street. So
here's an image of of the property and and uh the delineated wetland on the property. So as you can see the northern two-thirds of the property is generally undevelopable. um whereas the southern third um while being low uh is potentially developable. So this is a
zoom out of the plat being proposed. Um so the the applicant is proposing um outlot A to cover most of the northern two-thirds of the property that's wetland. Outlot B to be a um storm water drainage and retention pond. Um the
development just south of outlot B. And on the very southern end, um what was originally called out C, which would be the section of the property that the developer would be proposing to um remove dirt from in order to build up the developable part of the property in
order to bring it above flood flood hazard level. Um so they would need to move a lot of dirt from the very southern part of the property just to the north of that um in order to make that buildable and that's what they are proposing. Um, so what's being proposed is a 29 unit uh single family
residential culde-sac. I apologize it's very hard to see up on the screen there. Um, they're proposing a 650 foot long culde-sac um street that would be uh a oneway in and out for most traffic um but could be made into a through street for emergency vehicles. Um for that
purpose they're proposing um also a trail connection to the east of the development through the woodlands to Cardinal Woods Park. Um, so that would be a pedestrian and cycle trail connection as well as um a route that emergency vehicles would be able to use to access the eastern part of the
development quickly if they needed to. Um, what's being proposed are 50 foot wide lots um 120 feet deep and 62 or 6,250 square feet minimum. So, these are smaller than the LDR2 standards and they're actually smaller than the LDR3
standards that were approved uh in 2025 as well, which is why they're requesting a plan unit development instead of um requesting to to um stay to he closely to those standards. They're proposing homes that are um generally in the area
of 28t wide. Um, as far as the roadway, uh, they're proposing a 60- foot ride ofway, 60 foot right of way, which is 31 feet from back of curb to back of curb. And utilities would be coming off of Shannondoa. Um, sewer and water both be coming off of Shannondoa, whereas storm
sewer would be going to uh outlot B to the north, the storm water retention pond via a drainage and utility easement between properties or parcels 8 and nine. So, here's a little bit of a zoom in showing the 29 proposed lots. Um, 50-
foot wide lots with outlot A kind of off in the corner here. Outlot B just to the north of the development and what was originally outlot C to the south of the development. Um, city staff did request some revisions um during the staff
review of the project um which they did um the applicant did bring back a revised site plan uh to uh address these requests. So I I have also included an image of the revised site plan here. Um the preliminary plat document itself has
not yet been revised. Um but what they're showing are the southern lot lines extending all the way to the southern boundary of the uh of the site which would eliminate outlot C. Um the pond that would be part of outlot C would remain as part of the development but it would be split among those
residential properties. Um and the purpose of this would be to make it clear that the city would never be um responsible for for maintenance of that pond to the south. So the maintenance of the pond to the south would be the responsibility of the property owners.
Um and staff felt that there could be some confusion if that pond were to remain an outlot that um in the future property owners might think that that pond was a storm water pond or something that needed to be maintained by the city. So in order to clear that up um extending the property lines to the the
southern sight boundary was the proposed solution. The this also includes a change to um the lots themselves. The applicant received uh a comment from the Creek Wershed District that they'd be required to have a 50- foot buffer on the east side of the um development,
which did require them to move all of the home pads a little bit to the west. Um so they the the updated site plan does show those home pads shifted a little bit to the west from what's originally proposed. And this is just a zoom in of the updated site plan.
Um the uh the third update that the applicant included in the in the revised plan is to show the trail itself between lots 17 and 18. So you can kind of see it here on the southeast corner of the site. And this would be the trail that
would connect the culde-sac to Cardinal Woods Park to the southeast. So I did generally explain the purposes of outlot A, B, and C. outlot a um generally considered to be undevelopable or very difficult to develop because of
its low-lying nature. Um so the the applicant is hoping to sell it to a a party in the future to use for wetland banking or wetland banking, I apologize, or some sort of future um use, but there aren't a whole lot of uses that it would
be ideal for. Um so continued farming would be one potential use. Um, outlaw B would be deeded to the city and the city would be responsible for owning and maintaining the storm water pond. And that's something that our public works department prefers to do. We uh when when a pond isn't owned by an HOA, it's
a pond that the city would need to maintain and um public works staff would access the pond from Shannondoa directly on the west side and then through the drainage utility easement between lots eight and nine um on the south side. And then outlot C or what was formerly
called outlot C would be a pond with no storm water drainage um purpose that would generally just be needed um because the dirt is needed in order to build up the site and it would be split between the southern lot owners. Um and
then included here just an image of the proposed topo of the site showing the outlots B and C being excavated. So, the applicant is requesting quite a few um deviations from the LDR2 uh
requirements and um staff did work very closely with the applicant in order to develop the the site plan that they did. Um, city staff have generally seen this lot as a very difficult to develop lot. Um, and understand that it's it's a
constrained lot with not a whole lot of area in order to to to develop and uh it's not very easy to subdivide into LDR2 sized lots. Um, so there was staff report behind the or sorry staff support behind the um choice to request planned
unit development. Um but the the request for plan unit development would be a reduction in garage size in lot area including width and depth an increase in the allowed lot coverage reduction in minimum front yard and sideyard setbacks and an increase in the maximum culde-sac
length allowed from 500 ft to 650 ft. And the culde-sac length requirement um is usually in place uh in order to make it easier for emergency vehicles to access the homes at the end of the culde-sac. the addition of the trail making it a through street for emergency
vehicles um eliminates that need and so the fire department is okay with the extension to 650 feet. Um and then I did just include here the um dimensional staff's review of the dimensional um requirements and highlighting where a
PUD request was made. Um so no PU request was made for um building height or floor area, parking, driveways or um rear yard setback. Um, also went over PUD criteria a little
bit. So, a PUD does need to meet the criteria uh the same criteria that a um conditional use permit uh needs to meet and staff do believe that these criteria are met by the proposal. Then I also included here um two of the proposed home layouts. Um so there there are four
that are that are being shown. This doesn't necessarily mean that the builder would need to um use one of these for, but this is kind of what they're proposing to fit on the site. So, you have generally um something around a 2,00 to 2,600 square foot um structure with about 1,600 to 2100
square ft uh of living area and a garage that's between um 390 and 440 square ft. And these would mostly be three or four bedroomedroom homes. um two and a half to three bathroom. So with that um city staff are
recommending approval of the proposed PUD with a long list of conditions. Um some of these conditions were uh addressed by the updated site plan including um extending the southern lot lines all the way to the south end of the site. Um
storm water pond being uh conveyed to the city, things like that. A lot of these will also be addressed in the development agreement. Um, I think one of the main conditions that I want to bring to your attention is the requirement that an instrument be established to ensure perpetual maintenance of and liability associated
with the southern pond. So, that's condition number 13 being proposed. Um, so city staff are still working with the developer to determine exactly what instrument would be um appropriate for this site, but just to make sure that um homeowners understand that the maintenance of that southern pond is uh
up to them and that the pond is not um essentially isn't left unmaintained simply because the city isn't maintaining it. Um staff are also proposing uh recommend or are also sorry recommending approval of the uh preliminary plat with several conditions
as well and most of these were addressed in the updated site plan and will be addressed in an updated preliminary plat in the future. So that's all I have for you. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Mr. Platzner. Commissioner, any questions for Mr. Platzner? >> Chair Schwarz.
>> Commissioner Naval. Uh let me just ask you a question planner Patzner. Uh the outlaw sea which is at the southern basin of this proposed lot there is a body of water just south of that and
then just on the south side is that city operated and controlled or is that in a who maintains that body of water? Commissioner Abbalock, that is also owned by the property owners um to on the development to the south of that. So that body of water is also split up
between the um the lots themselves. It is a storm water drainage pond rather than just a a pond itself. So the city does have some um this the city uh participates in maintaining the pond. I don't know exactly to what extent, but
it's not entirely maintained only by the homeowners because it does have that drainage purpose. >> Okay. And then um you was mentioned in outlot C which is just north of this pond of I know the B is where the future
drain off will be but the dirt that's going to be used to increase where the homes are going to be built. Is that correct that it's coming from that outlaw sea which is between the proposed homes and that southern body of water? >> Commissioner Knoblock that's correct.
>> That is correct. Okay. Is there an estimate or um a foreseen amount of how much soil is anticipated to be brought from there? Because I go by that area. I know the area very well every single
day. And I'd like to know how much is how much dirt or gradient is required for the building of these homes if it's coming from outlaw se. Commissioner Nblock, the applicant is here tonight and I may have them address that because I don't have that number off hand. They
may not either, but >> Thank you. It's just been bothering me in the back of my head because I I know the area quite well and I'm just Anyway, uh the third item I have is on the northwest quadrant
which is outside the lot lines which is at the intersection of Main Street and Shannondoa. There is a small pond right there and it says that it's controlled by the city on the handout on the on the map. It's
not controlled by the applicant. So, I'm I'm curious because on the east side of Shannidoa, there's a sidewalk for pedestrians and that kind of leads me right into 123rd Lane Northwest. That is an
extremely it's uncontrolled. It has a stop sign, but it's a very hightraic area and that street as proposed on the map is supposed to be extended as the entrance into the development. Are there any
traffic studies or any proposals to put an like a light or intersection in there? cuz um the sidewalk infrastructure and the lighting, the traffic, I don't think is anticipated for the amount of volume, even if it's a
small amount because it's already uh an extremely high-risk area or intersection. >> Commissioner Navlock, um staff did not think that a 29 unit single family subdivision uh would require a a a traffic study. that's usually done for
higher volume developments than that. Um especially since it would be one way in and out cold sac. >> Um so >> um engineering and public works staff did review this and did determine that a traffic study um or or that level of u detail on on traffic would not be
required for this. Um so so none was done. >> Okay. Thank you. >> That's it. >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Smokey. >> Mr. Pastor, can you just for um comparison p purposes, can you remind me what the width is of the um development, the homes that are I I forget the area
of the across from Lily Putt off of Co Rapids Boulevard. >> Yeah, the Port Riverwalk development. >> Yes, thank you, >> Commissioner Smokey. I believe those are 50 foot wide lots. I don't have the number exactly off hand, but um those are also smaller than the LDR3
um zoning standards. Uh, and I believe that 50 foot is the standard for those lots as well. And I think the the overall area is similar too. >> Visual comparison. That's a good comparison. >> Correct. >> Great. Thank you. >> I have a question. Uh, piggyback on
gentleman's uh in regards to the outlaw sea where you're going to be digging and using that fill for the site. What's the quality of that fill? >> Commissioner Ronak. um definitely out of my area of expertise. So, the applicant
might be able to speak to that a little bit better. Um but uh I'm told that this is a relatively sandy um section of the city. Um and so >> it's the type dirt that is for for building up an area for development. >> The reason I bring this up is that when
I was developing, the first thing we did on site and we would scrape the installer site of top soil. So, we got down to building material that's stable for the units. Uh, you're going to be putting down footings here. I assume these are going to be slab on grade.
>> Commissioner Rak, the southern homes, um, there are, um, lookout basement. Uh, >> yeah, I have full basement as well. >> Okay. Uh, but going back to the, uh, type of material, you're going to be bringing this stuff and then you're going to be putting a building on top of
it. Now, if you the city doesn't have any uh codes as to the type of soil you can use to put a structure on, uh one might want to look at the quality of what you're bringing up because the people that purchase these things down
the road may end up with some issues. >> Chair Schwarz, if I may. >> Okay. I know it's not your area. >> No, it's it's under Commissioner Ranek. Um this is something that the um public works and engineering staff do um follow state building code requirements and do need to make sure that any development
that occurs uh meets the soil and drainage and and everything like that standards for uh single family development. Generally, it's a little bit too uh detailed and a little bit too um outside of my expertise to really address in a planning commission meeting since these are generally statewide
standards. Um but city staff do always review these and um would never approve something that does not meet these standards. >> Okay. Question two. What's the ownership of this of this entire site going to be? The reason I'm asking that is you have
outlot C you have outlot uh A. Right now somebody's paying taxes on those. Now if this the development is only the part that where the buildings are on somebody's going to end up with ownership of the existing outlet C and A
unless this becomes an association or they end up with the entire site and paying taxes on that through the association fees. >> Commissioner Riaak the way that it's currently proposed outlot B would be owned by the city. Outlot C is being
removed and would be owned by each of those individual property owners. They would each own a slice of that pond. Um and there would need to be and there would be a um cross access easement over the pond as well as a cross drainage and utility easement to account for water
moving in between those lots um as it is a pond. And that's standard for this outlot. A is um the the the applicant is would would be looking to to sell that to another user um either for another development or to continue farming.
Realistically, there wouldn't be no way to put another development on outlot A. Um so I'm not sure exactly how that will end up and the um applicant might be able to speak to that a little bit better than I can. Um but I do know that outlaw B and outlaw C are accounted for. >> Okay, question three.
Um you the original plan here you varied uh they granted some variances. One of was setbacks. There was a 25% reduction in
setbacks from 20 ft to 15 ft. Uh I would assume that when you the city created codes that they did it for a reason and one of the thing was to not jam as many units into the smallest site
that you can get commission. Uh and that leads me to the other thing is previously on the uh when we did some work on the tower you had uh asked for a reduction in the LDRs two and three
for a reduced lot sizes. >> You you're talking about the WCCCO tower site. >> Okay. But you're also reduce these lot sizes in some places here to generate be able to build another unit or two.
Commissioner Ronak, if I may clarify a few things. No variances are being requested and nothing has been granted by city staff. This is a request for a plan unit development that the planning commission does have the ability to recommend denial on if they wish. Um and the council does have the ability to deny if they wish. Um the standards for
the LDR2 district were developed for a reason. Um, a lot of that is to give the homes that are built in the LDR2 district more space, larger yards. Um, that's often considered to be desirable for a home. People do tend to want space. Um, also for aesthetic reasons and to keep the city relatively
consistent. However, the PUD process was included in our code to allow for um, variations in those standards in situations where there are very constrained lots. Um and staff do think that this is an example of a constrained lot. Um being as it's almost entirely
wet and the only building that can be done is on fill taken from elsewhere on the lot, which is why staff um did um give the uh the developer encouragement to go ahead and and request the the plan unit development. However, that's it's still completely up to the planning commission and council whether or not to
approve that. >> Yeah, I realize that. It's just that when you look at this site here, these things are getting a little tight. And we do live in a suburbs where people come out here, they have room and yet you get a development that comes in like
this and it's like, yeah, this really maybe doesn't fit into us out here. I squeeze in as many units as we can into whatever size. Uh I think some point we've got to say, hey, no, this is the size you build accordingly. Um
but anyways, that's all I have. Fair enough. >> Any other questions? M commissioner or excuse me, Mr. Passner? >> Petitioner have anything they'd like to add? >> Petitioners have anything they'd like to
add to the pre presentation? Excuse me. Please give your name and address for the record. Good evening. I'm Joe Ratic with Contour Development, uh 8195 Vernon Street, Rockford, Minnesota. Um, thanks Max for
the presentation. Uh, we did meet with city staff several times as we work through the, uh, development of the plan and, uh, Max is right. This site is very constrained. It's 26 acres, I think, and really only about 8 acres of it is
usable. So, in order to make the project financially viable, we had to get creative with the lot sizes and that's why we requested the lot sizes that we have. Um, we're partnering with LAR Development to uh build the homes and
these lots are sized to fit their homes that they want to build. Um, they believe there's a market for it. It is very similar to the Port Riverwalk project and we think it's going to be a great addition to the neighborhood. Thank you.
All right. We do need to have a public hearing on this matter. So at this time I will open a public hearing for both the preliminary plat and the PUD for planning cases 25-15 and 25-16
preliminary PUD and preliminary plat for Belfany Farms 12301 Shannidoa Boulevard Northwest. Anyone here wish to speak to the public hearing? Please come to the microphone. Give your name and address for the record. Limit
your comments to three minutes, please. >> Hi, I'm I'm Ruth Berg. I live at 1989 122nd Avenue Northwest. And what I just need is it's not clear in my mind when you say pond or we're saying pond. I'm picturing because we I'm right on the
corner of the B of the west side of the pond and when you say the the other another like ponding is pond is going to be next to the sea. I'm picturing two ponds together. It just confusing to me.
Or or or will they come together to be one big pond? I mean, this is outside of the addresses that you said on the letter. >> Commissioner Schwarz, if I may. Um, the the ponds would be separate. They would be separated by a strip of land about 10
to 15 feet wide, I believe, between the ponds. >> So, so actually then some trees will still will still be there. >> Yes, I believe so. >> Okay. That's a little more clear. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. Anyone else wants to speak to public hearing? >> Come to the microphone to name and address for the record. Comments to three minutes, please. >> Hello, Mary Proise, 12380 J Street, 30-year resident. Um, our property backs
up right to Balf Fanny. I would like to know how long this project, if it is approved, will be going on, and what is the price point of the homes. >> All right. Uh we'll see if we can have the petitioners answer that later.
>> Uh Kevin Hansen, uh 2033 123rd Lane Northwest. Um, so I appreciated Commissioner Nlock's uh comments about the traffic study. I have four young children and we enjoy walking around the neighborhood and I am concerned because that um 123rd Lane Northwest is the
primary access point for basically the entire neighborhood uh west of of this. And so adding another cross traffic um would would add um like it was is pointed out earlier, it
does feel very risky. I I'm often nervous with my kids, you know, crossing the streets or even myself crossing the street there walking or on bikes. Um so I I I would personally actually be very in favor of a traffic study. It's not that I'm opposed to development, but um I I think it it seems prudent,
especially given sort of the Sbend that appears on Shannondoa. Um reduces sort of visibility and and um a lot of traffic does come by there pretty quickly. So um I I just would would mention my support for doing a traffic
study even if it's nec not necessarily warranted for uh typically for development this size. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Uh hello, Carrie Hodes. I live in 1933 122nd Avenue. Uh so we have uh six homes
there that landlocked that pond that's just south of the farm. And I guess I have a couple questions. I'm sorry I'm late. I just got off of work. Uh there's a 10-ft strip of land, I believe, that runs east to west that the city owns that's like just north of our property.
Um, I have a question like what's going to happen with that strip. I thought there was supposed to be like bike path put in there if I not that's what I heard many years ago. And another question would be are any of the trees that are north of the
pond um on the property that's going to be developed and will any of those be removed? >> Uh, they're not questions that we can answer necessarily right at this time. Okay. Is um this presentation available
like in handouts or online or something? I'm sorry since I missed it. >> It'll be uh on cable TV. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Yep. Anyone else?
I'm Terry Byer at 1764 123rd Avenue Northwest. I live right next to Cardinal uh Cardinal Heights Park there. Um when will the final plan as far as where that trail is going to come through? Where in the park and is that ever going to be
lit up or anything? I know it's for emergency vehicles only and for bike path or walking path, but I'm concerned sometimes people at night park their cars there and do whatever at the park. So I I'm curious to when it'll be determined when that path is going to be
coming through and where in the park if it's going to be adjacent to the ball field or where the basketball court is or where that path is going to be and when if that's not known now, when will that be determined? So that keep an eye on that.
Mr. Padner, >> Commissioner Schwarz, if I may, um I I can speak to some of these questions uh quickly. The um exact location of the path will be determined. So, the the city forester um is going to be involved in the process of determining the location of the path because they do
want to preserve any significant trees possible. So, the path would be coming through the easement between lot 16 and 17 at after that point. It has not been set in stone yet. And so the the forester would be helping determine exactly what route that path will take. That said, it will go directly from the
development to Cardinal Woods Park through that woodland and it would there would be a covert over the the stream there that would be needed as part of that. Um so I can speak to that. And then as well for the strip of land between the southern pond and the the site, um there are a couple trees that
are on the site. However, the majority of them are on the city- owned strip of land. I'm not aware of um the the proposal for a bike path along that strip. I don't know if that's still in play or if that's um no longer being proposed. That's something I would have to speak to our parks department about
in order to to know exactly what's going on with that. Um so I that's what I have. Thank you. >> So stay tuned then. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else for public hearing? >> Hi. Uh Sean Nelson 2040 123rd Avenue
Northwest. Um I would also like to encourage a traffic study just due to the actual intersection where this is going to be proposed. There are accidents there every summer. There's a lot of traffic, a lot of families, a lot of bikes. Um and just for me coming out
of my culdeac just south of that area is hard to see coming around that curve as well. And uh I would like to encourage a traffic study be made just for safety of um like you said, I'm not opposed to the actual homes there, but uh the increased
traffic and people seem to have issues with that curve alone and then adding people coming from the other side where they're not looking for it, it's going to be kind of iffy. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else for a public
hearing? Last call for the public hearing. We'll close the public hearing. Limit comments to the commission. >> Yeah, I've got to go back on the >> Commissioner Ryak. >> Uh are you the develop part of the
developer or are you the architectural company? >> Um I'm working on behalf of the uh land owners as the civil engineer. developer, >> correct? For the land owner. >> Um, this site here, you purchased the
entire site. Now, the unit, the buildings you're going to use, is it going to turn into a homeowners association or is it going to be individual lots? No association. >> We are proposing no association. No homeowners association, individually owned lots.
>> I know, but for the entire project here, >> no, no association. It could be strictly uh individual lots. >> Correct. >> Okay. What about uh outlet C and D? You still own those? >> Outlot C is the large pond lake to the
south. >> That those lots are getting extended to the south. So that'll be under ownership. Max had that uh Max, do you still have that revised site plan you could share because I think there's some confusion. This outlot's no longer going
to be here. What about outlot A? >> Outlot A is going to be retained by the current owners and they're working on a a wetland mitigation plan for that project or for the the remainder of the land. >> So lot A will be owned by the homeowners.
>> No, it'll be owned by the current owner. >> Oh, okay. >> The the people who own it today. They're going to retain that outlot A parcel. and they're working uh we met with the Army Corps of Engineers and Creek Wershed District on a wetland enhancement project there. So basically
turning it into more of like a wetland preserve project. >> Okay. And then the street will be turned into a city street. >> Correct. That'll be city rightway, city owned, maintained. >> Thank you. >> Mhm. >> Mr. Sure. >> Commission.
>> Um, if there's no plan for an HOA and the city's not going to own that pond, where's the maintenance gum there? Then >> m Mr. Chair, if I might here, >> Mr. Bakonei, >> um, m Mr. Patzner did mention in his
presentation the part about um accounting for the maintenance and liability of the pond and part of the legal discussion and what we've talked to the applicant about through through um our friends in the development department is that one of the mechanisms
available to help manage that is in fact an HOA. And so, um, I don't think anybody can definitively say that an HOA is off the table. The final approval of this project is of the the council and G4.
>> So, there are concerns from the legal department that have been raised about the maintenance and liability associated with the pond and that's why we added that condition and figure figuring out an effective legal mechanism to make that work.
Thank you. >> Somebody else has taken over the meeting. >> If I may, um, we did provide a declaration and, um, uh, disclosure to Max, and I don't know if we've had a chance, if you guys have had a chance to look at that, but we were hopeful that
that would allay the city's concerns. >> If I may, may I add an extra while we have you up at the mic? I have the question uh and it might include uh planner Patner but on the materials
um the lake south of Alta C and I don't want to belabor this because I've already asked this but it's confusing me the amount there's a b there's a lake south of the proposed site
>> and then you're talking about outlet C which is part of the site. I'd like to know what is the in yards if it's available because I have the topographic >> of the altitude of the outlet C, but I'd
like to know what is the width and length of this outlet C. And I still would like even if it meets the requirements, I'd like to know if there's not enough soil to come from outlet C for the foundation of the
building, will that be brought in and backfilled? >> Yeah, >> because that I think is critical that it well it will meet the requirements, but that's going to add additional cost headache if it doesn't. So, I'm really
concerned that once you start digging a hole in a in a a piece of land that's ex right on the borderline of being very low and you're beside another body of water
which has a water in it and you're that close to it, there is groundwater. There will be seepage in my opinion that that's going to become a very big problem in a very big lake. And I don't think there I I don't
foresee any management or control of digging a big hole to get soil right beside a existing pond and not expect there to be uh impact between the two. So it so uh
thank you for answering it. So x qual a different soil that will be if there's not enough it will be brought in >> to bring the housing grading up. Correct. >> Okay. And then the rest is just me ranting. So
>> I'm done. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner. >> Uh so you know what? I wanted to just uh just say a few words. First of all, I think this is a this is a really complex I mean there's a lot of information here and I think uh staff has done a great job um highlighting everything and
addressing all the the matters in the in the pack. So, um, again, great job working with the applicant and, uh, summarizing and putting this together for us. I I like that. Um, even comparisons, too. Thank you for, um, you know, that information to say there is
other areas within the city where we have some similar lot sizes. Um, I am particularly because I I was glad that you brought up the the traffic. That's usually one of my things that I'm pretty um, adamant about as well. And I don't know how we can address that here today.
I don't necessarily think we need to add that as a condition. Um, but we do want to make sure that we're addressing the public's um concern about the fact that it is going to add more traffic to that area where they already perceive it to be uh very busy and um you know
potential for um for some issues. So I don't know if if staff can comment to what the next steps might be for the traffic concern. >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. In light of um the concern raised by the
public and just in general, I know that our city engineer will looks at the traffic and whether this is a project which implicates a traffic study as required by statute. I don't think that's the situation here, but we can relay the
comments from the public here today at the meeting and I'm sure he can take a look and double check and make sure it isn't something that implicates a requirement for a traffic study statutoily. And then also if the proposed layout makes sense for traffic. >> Perfect.
>> And and I'm sorry, one more one more question or a thought I had too is in terms of landscaping, are we going to see that at a later time too since there are questions about trees and so forth. I just wanted to address that as well. >> Um Chair Schwarz, um the uh requirement
for landscaping for single family homes in general is one street tree per home and that will be required in this situation. Um in terms of landscaping for the rest of the development, um the uh storm water pond uh will generally be
kept um relatively natural around that. There's usually a buffer between the storm water pond and the rest of the site um and which helps for the filtration of storm water. Um in terms of the pond to the south, since that will be individual lots, there won't be requirements for those individual homeowners to landscape that. Um tree
removal on the site as it stands uh would be minimal. Um most of the trees are around the edge of the site and a lot of them are not on the property. So as as far as landscaping is concerned um it really would just be the same requirements as as any other single family development which is just the the singular street tree per lot.
>> Wonderful. Thanks for addressing that. That would be it for me. Mr. Chair, >> Mr. I have um just an addition to speak to the traffic because I live in that area and I come off of heading east on 123rd
lane and make the stop at the stop sign. Shannondoa comes both comes at you both ways and it it is a look left, right, left, right again um double time to make sure traffic is cleared. So, when concerns
are relayed to engineering or even if it this doesn't warrant a traffic study, um maybe monitoring could be a part of that just to have the police department aware of it because people come south on
Shannondoa from Main Street. They're booking it and so I'm watching that avenue the most. And then you can see down Shannondoa further south you have a little better visibility, but then we're going to have this um west flowing
traffic out of the new development. So, I'm I'm always grateful that we have sidewalks on both sides of Shannondoa that takes pedestrians and dog walkers out of the traffic mix um for the most part, but there aren't sidewalks on
123rd Lane. And so, there will be some added traffic there. And I don't think there's going to be sidewalks within the new development um in the culde-sac. That isn't a practice in the city.
Um so anyway, I would I think it's a place where traffic could be monitored, you know, and certainly as the development proceeds um to re-educate all of us Shannondoa drivers that hey, you got another
uh another um avenue there. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Commissioner, >> is there a way since this is part of the minutes for this meeting, is there a way that there can be a followup um to uh the inquiry regarding the traffic uh
addressing the traffic with engineering just so that for our purposes and for the purposes of anybody um you know who raised it tonight, they can look back and see or they'll see it in the future kind of what their response is. >> Yeah. May we have May we have one
moment? Sure, >> Chair Schwarz, while I'll be the fill in music while there's a discussion. >> They're already done. >> Chair Schwarz, >> um I think the best way to do that and and uh assistant city attorney Buchi brought this up uh would be to add that
into the engineering comments. So, I would have a conversation with our city engineer and um whatever change would be made would be added to the engineering comments which would then be memorialized at the council meeting is part of the council packet. That seems like the best way to do it to me. >> Excellent. Thank you very much.
>> Perfect. >> I actually chair Schwarz >> Commissioner Nlood >> I actually have something worthwhile to say instead of ranting. um just north of 123rd Lane Northwest. I
know there's I know people who live in that area and I travel Shannondoa. I live off Shannidoa further north, but I have a I know a lot of people who live in the area like uh Commissioner Casey in that area as well. And
I know the area of Shannidoa even I still find issues and I've lived 30 years in this area. Even when the speed limit was reduced to 30 mph, there's still an issue. It's not just the speed, it's the design of the roads and the
curves and it's considered a back way too quick to circumvent Main Street. Shannon. Um, the other Hansen, thank you. Um, but there's a gully just north of 123rd Lane
Northwest and I know some people who live there in that entire area and I seem as well. There's constant deer running across. It's like a transfer route. It's a gully for all these deer.
And there's a lot of them, more than people may realize or see. and they go from the gully through that bend in the road on Shannondoa north of 123rd north lane northwest and
I'm just I would at least like to see a couple deer crossing signs there if that helps at all for somebody because I'm constantly avoiding or trying to avoid deer and I and I only travel maybe once or twice a
day down that down that road. So, um just for concern for people in attendance and just for discussion purposes, uh I just don't care. I do care about pedestrians and people and the traffic and that, but that is
another risk that I think that needs to be at least cognitive in people's minds because uh I've known of people who've died on that road and that intersection over the last 35 years. not close
friends, but I've known of people who've had issues with that. And I it hasn't gotten better since then. There's only more people, more traffic. So, I I I have to say something in conscience because I'm concerned about if it's not
said, I won't be able to sleep at night. So, that's it. No more ranting. >> Mr. Sheriff, >> for now, >> for now, >> Commissioner No. >> Just had one more question for petitioner. Um, if I may, on the south side of the development, you mentioned
lookout lots. I guess I understood they're all going to be slab on grade. Are there going to be lookout lots of basements or what am I >> No, these are all slab on grade homes. >> Okay. >> I think we were me and Max maybe got mixed up there, but they are all slab on grade. >> They're all slab on grades. And so we're
reducing the garage size. We've got a half bath that kind of takes up some of that storage space under the stairs. And our utilities are up in the laundry room. >> Where do people put stuff? It's kind of my my concern with this and um being there's slabs I know you can't
really drop the garage and have some more storage room in the garage. So, >> right. I mean, this is a product that LAR believes in. I think it's very similar to the Port Riverwalk product, you know, and people are, you know, apartments and smaller homes and less
stuff. That seems to be the way of the future maybe. So, at least for certain people, not me and my wife, but Well, that that leads me to the question I have. And
can you or do you have someone here with you that can address the floor plans of the of the uh plans? >> Uh Lar's not here, but I do have the floor plans in front of me, and I can speak to as much as I can, and I'll
defer if I have to. As as Commissioner No mentioned, uh reduced garage sizes. Uh normally we require uh minimum of 484 square ft which is
roughly 22 by 22. The PUD standard proposed is uh stating the minimum to be 390 square feet
and on two of the plans for I don't know if it's two different houses or what is the width of the garage stall
>> on the 390 square foot. It is 19T4 3 in. So, it's got a 16T door, 19T wide garage, and it's just a little north of 20 ft deep. >> Because on plan A0-1 or 0.1,
I don't know which uh slab that is, but it uh it shows 19.3. Then on uh a-1.1 it shows a garage width of 18 11 and 1/2 in.
And both of those numbers are well under the 390 minimum square feet. I myself have a very small garage and I swore that I would always do my best to
try to have minimumsiz garages so people adequate storage space. As was previously mentioned without basement, garage space is about the only place we have left for for storage. And at least
on these two plans that that uh I've pointed out, floor plans are under the 390 square ft minimum for the PUB garage size. >> Um well, the the garage size was taken
from the square foot tables on the front page. I guess I haven't run the numbers, but I'm just assuming that those are correct. Um, but sounds like you're seeing a discrepancy. So, um, what's
193 by 20? It seems like that's close to 390. >> 193 by 19 or 20 by 19.5 is 380. So, even that doesn't hit 390.
>> Let's see. There's a little uh bump out in the front the bottom left of the garage. and that might add that extra little square footage. I'm just presuming the the numbers are correct, but um we can double check them.
But there's a little a little jog over in the front of the garage there that might make up that little extra difference. >> Okay, there's a jog out on A1.1, but there's no jog on a 0.1.
>> It's there. I think it's just hard to see. Well, I'm just concerned that the garages are are under the PUD minimum of 390 that's being set here even for this plan.
We can double check that, but um I think I'm comfortable saying that the the plan area listed is what it is. And if it's not, we'll have to adjust. If it's 388 or 380, you know, we can
tweak the plan to make it 390. So, I'm comfortable with the 390, man. If if you are >> my other thought is I feel that on this small lot that is available you folks are just trying to shoehorn too many
lots in requiring the sizes of the homes to be shrunken to require these sizes. So I I'm I'm having great great difficulty in uh supporting this plan at least as as
presented. I mean with with this constrained property, this is really the only financially viable way to develop it. We can't meet the LSF2 or whatever the uh underlying
designations are and make a project. That's just the reality. So >> if if the city wants to see development here, and that's for you guys to decide, but it has to be a reduced lot with development. Otherwise, there's just
>> I I I would have to think that even by just reducing one lot on the on the on the north side and one lot on the south side of the culde-sac would allow enough space to increase the
widths of the lots sufficiently to allow for sufficient uh buildings. Well, the lots are 50 ft wide and the setbacks are 7 and 1/2 and 7 and 1/2. So, that would allow up to a 35 ft wide
home. Most of these homes that are here are 30 ft wide. So, um you know, we can certainly talk to LAR and see if they'd have interest in building, you know, using that extra 5T to get bigger
garages. I can't make that decision for them right now, but you know, it'd be a discussion. >> Yeah, >> we we have to either approve or or deny the plan here tonight over and above what you might be able to
negotiate with them. >> Mhm. >> We >> we basically therefore have no control, >> Mr. Chair. Commissioner Casey. >> Um I I will note going back just a couple years when we did the um
um the other project on >> Port Riverwalk. Thank you, Mary. Um we faced some of these these same issues that they the lots were 50. They were narrow and it it they looked like row
houses almost. Um, and they only had a a five- foot separation, which was appalling to me when you think that there's just 10 feet between you and your neighbor. Um, but these these homes
meet a need and um I'm just saying if we go back, we face some of the same constraints and have to look at how that history worked out. >> Mr. Chair
>> Commissioner Casey smoking outside >> since that does seem to be the one development most recently, right, that um is probably closest in comparison. Um do we have any numbers on garage sizes or anything like that that would just
help us really quick for because I mean it is it it numbers can be deceiving, right? And it may seem very small um but if in comparison they're um you know very close to or the same as um the
development off of Kun Rapids Boulevard uh maybe that would help to ease the minds or answer some questions at least to have something to compare to. >> Chair Schwarz if I may. Um it it'll take me a couple minutes but I can pull up the garage sizes from Port Riverwalk. >> Go ahead. Thank you. And in the
meantime, uh, some of the residents had had questions of what the timeline is for the building and price price ranges. >> Yeah. So, we would plan on starting construction this spring. Um, we're partnering with Jesse Newman, Designing
Earth Contracting. Um, he's here with me tonight. It's probably a two-month uh grading project and then we'd go right to streets and utilities and we'd be looking at foundations starting, you know, August, September of this year.
And if it's anything like other LAR projects, these houses will all be built and it'll be full, you know, by the end of 27th would be my anticipation. and price range. >> I don't have the price range, but um I would say it would I would expect it to
be similar to that Port Riverwalk. I don't know if they're four hundredsish somewhere somewhere in there. >> Thank you, Commissioner Ryard. >> Yeah, you could see that we're in a pattern here of everything is
being downsized. You've seen it on the when they came to the uh over the the LR2s and threes over at the tower. The first thing was we wanted to reduce the lots. Uh here again, I
realize as a developer in this that you would like to build more houses on a given spot, but then again, the city's got a position that this is what we are. This is what we want. and either you have to fit into it or whatever. And I'm
sure they could have removed one or two buildings here and and stretched the lots, but economically it's better if they asked for permission to reduce it. And in this case, they already did before we even got this what a week ago.
Uh they had already v agreed the variances. They reduced the setbacks. Um it's I think it's just what's happening now. You got this idea we need more housing and contractors and developers are able to you utilize that to produce
one or two more units, make a few more dollars. Uh I guess at some point the cities are going to have to step up and say, "Okay, we've reached the point where we want to be and this is it." down. I've dealt with LAR in Florida at
the development I'm in. Uh they're a national builder. They do this all the time. This is not a big operation here. And it's you can see just this small 29 units. What of the occurrence that problems it has the traffic this and
that. I mean it one thing after another. Uh for them this is a minus I would assume a minuscule job. This isn't a real big one. There's land here. We don't have a lot of land. So, and what's left people are condensing trying to get
as much onto it. Uh the city like to get a tax base. So, I I think the future is going to be smaller lots, smaller houses, more density, heavier traffic. Uh and either we're
going to live with it or we're going to have to make a choice sometime. My guess is this this thing's going to go through the way it is. It's going to go to the council. It's pretty much set. Uh what we're doing today is I think we're just talking and uh come a week from today,
it'll probably be done and gone and these guys will be building. I yield. >> Any luck, Mr. Plasma? >> Chair Schwarz, I apologize. I'm finding lots of development plans. None that are showing me the garage size. Um, so still
looking. It's going to take me a couple minutes here. Sorry about that. Mr. Chair, Commissioner, >> um just like to acknowledge um Commissioner Ronak's comments. I you know, I've always been a little bit um
reluctant on the lot sizes getting smaller and smaller, too. And it is one of the things that we're being asked to consider. You know, is this okay? I I came in this evening, you know, that was one of the things that I was probably most concerned about is again, here we are looking at um putting in a
development where there's um you know, uh small lots, but the lot size isn't my issue as much as it does create a smaller footprint for a home, right? Um and we can say that, you know, this is the direction housing is going, but I don't know that I necessarily believe that. Um I don't have anything data wise
to support that. It's just kind of a feeling I think that some people have that that this is okay. And I do agree with uh Commissioner Ronak in that um you know we do as a city need to decide is this is this the direction we're going. Why do we have you know our LDR2
and three uh requirements if we're going to go even below those um even for this? I guess what I what I weighed uh what I weighed in is that this is a difficult plot of land. um there is not much that can be done with it. And um you know I'm
I'm torn because I I don't like the idea of small homes going in here um you know to to cram so many in. Um because I think it it's not I I don't know that the need is there. That's not the issue. I'm kind of thinking again, it's like
for our city, what do we want as people are coming through to say that we've got all these homes that are just, you know, these neighborhoods where they're just all so tight and and uh, you know, scarce in terms of trees and brushes and, you know, and all that kind of stuff. So, um, I'm I'm torn myself in
terms of the the direction I want to go. I think that it's a great use of the um the land because there's really not much else that we're going to that the owner can can do with that. And um I think it makes it profitable for them and it is something that does benefit the
community. Um but I'm not excited about the fact that it is you know 29 homes crammed into um such a small area. Pref my preference would be that it you know decrease the number of houses and increase those sizes a bit so that you
can increase the floor plan um because I do think that that is uh would be a lot more attractive to people coming in. Um, but I I don't run the numbers, you know, and I totally understand that. Um, from building my own house, we had to bring in a lot of dirt um to fill in just our
lot to put our home on it um just eight years ago. Um, and I know that to um, uh, Commissioner Nlock's question, you know, you may have a you may hope that the the plan A is what's going to work um, for where you going to get the dirt
from, but we thought the same thing and ended up having to bring in a lot of dirt, you know. Um, it was probably the most expensive part of building our home that we just didn't expect. Um, but it's good that we're raising these questions. Um, everybody has to vote to their, you know, to how they u view the importance
of this plan and um, but I do appreciate all the commissioners comments on it. >> Thank you. >> And I was trying to buy you more time. >> You know, we can't blame Max for all this. >> No. >> Reduce his pay and
>> Ouch. I to be perfectly honest, I don't know if I'm going to get it. It's not where I would expect it to be. The uh staff reports and and attachments for the original Port Riverwalk call in the two-car garage, but nowhere am I able to find the uh actual square footage. So,
>> Mr. Passner, is it possible to What is the square footage of the homes in general there compared to what's being built here? >> Mr. Smokey, just one second. Now he's got a whole list of criteria to look for. >> Yeah. Sorry. >> It's okay.
>> Um should be reciting these numbers in your sleep. >> Yeah. Roughly >> struggling to find the numbers. I apologize. Um, and in my defense, we have all the the building permit applications that should
have all that information that I'm looking for, but we changed over to a different software. >> Sure. >> And that's no longer easy to find the way it used to be. I apologize. I'm frustrated. Doing my best. Thank you for your patience. >> Well, thank you for for your attempt.
Commission, any other thoughts, concerns, comments? Why are you looking at me? >> Mr. Chair, >> Commissioner, >> there is one down that Port Riverwalk that has 2168 above grade square feet
that I see. Um, looking for the garage size on that one. Garage is 21 by 21 for a 441 square footage on that. And I know there's some different sizes in there, but >> Commissioner No, did you did you look on Zillow? >> MLS.
>> Very smart. >> MLS much better. smart realtor >> realtor. >> So, um that does that does um >> mean that it's not an immediate comparison. So, >> it's a little tighter than
>> it is >> proposed is a little tighter than what's at the Riverwalk if I'm some example. >> Correct. Correct. If that seems to be about the standard which can't say for sure but it's gives a little and this is 2,000 square feet. Is that correct? the
beauty in front of us. Is that >> Yes. >> The homes are 2,000 square feet compared to 2100 square feet that you saw. >> There's a there's a a range. Um so both above and below that. Um see if we do
have that here. Pull that up. Um >> here in front of us we have a range from 1,600 to 2400 square feet >> for those four home styles. >> Correct. >> Okay. That's >> for for the living space. >> Yeah. Right.
That's that's pretty broad depending on the style. Okay. Thank you. >> And it needs to just be above a 1,600. >> It needs to be above our minimum is actually 960. So it's much smaller.
>> Oh, square feet. >> Mhm. >> Oh, and propose. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Commission, anyone uh wish to attempt a motion one way or another?
>> Chair Schwarz, you're looking at me before, so I have to say something. >> Oh, I'm I'm never looking at you. >> Go ahead. Um now, >> just one last comment. I I love the proposal. I just don't like the I'm torn
between both because I don't like the platin layout of it. I think there's more. I I I struggle with it because I love the effort and the the pursuit of this. I just think it could be refined so much
better. So, in general, I have to dis personally I have to disagree with this plat. That's just my viewpoint and I'm 50/50 torn on it. Um I like the project, but I I just can't see myself voting for
this. So, that's it. Well, you you're seeing a lot of you get a lot of square footage out of the house because it's it's stacked. You got a 400 ft square garage, which is normal. Uh you build over the garage, so you picked
up space over the garage. Uh you're able to generate a lot of square footage even though the site it's this house itself is not a real big house. You're only about 1,000 square feet on the bottom area. A little maybe a little more than 1,000 square feet on the surface.
>> They vary, but um yeah, 800, 650, 730, 960. >> Yeah. So, you're getting a lot of square footage in a house. You're not getting a very big house. I mean, it's just they're utilizing the space w with
height, which in a way is better than putting a little dicky house there, 1,000 foot house. Um, you can get bigger families in here. The garage is going to hold two cars. Not big cars, but it's going to hold two cars. No more space
than that. Um, but I I think it's the time of the times. This is what people are building. Uh, I've seen Lar build stuff in Florida that is very good. Uh, some of them so, but
the thing is that he's a national builder. If it was the local guy, you'd probably get something different. >> Chair Schwarz, >> I agree well with Commissioner Ronuk. He has very
excellent insight and experience in the field in the area. Um, I'd like to take it one step a little further and that's with uh it's a sign of the times with smaller homes. Uh, I I that might be a
design feature, but I live in this community and I'd like to see families and generations potentially developments going rather than with the aging population. A lot of people want smaller homes, less
maintenance upkeep. I understand that. But uh for the benefit of the community and the tax base, I think um where need be, developments such like this are very suitable. But large
developments like this I think are counterproductive to the community. And that's why I'm torn on this because I'm very pro business, pro-development. But I'm I have to side on the 5050 side that I don't think this plat plan as it is at
this moment doesn't suit I think the benefit of the community. So, I think one thing we think about are big yards space and you know you with that you get a bigger house but we're sacrificing
outside space for for the structure and you know that's I think we're kind of stuck with it because that's probably the future. No, I wouldn't build this type of house. But then again,
maybe I would if it was economically >> I hope to live with my kids, >> Mr. Chair. >> Maybe we should pick on him a little more, though. >> Yeah, I know. >> Mr. Smokey. >> Well, we're probably going to see them again over on a tower project.
>> I wouldn't be surprised to see Lunar get in that one. >> Mr. Smokey. >> Hi. So, um, first question, are we making two different, um, motions, two separate motions? >> I think that's probably wise. >> Okay. Then I would like to make a motion
in planning case 25-15 uh, that the planning commission recommend approval of the proposed planned unit development subject to the conditions as laid out in our packet. >> I'd second that. In plank case 25-15,
we have a motion by Smokey, second by null. Any further discussion? >> Hearing none. All in favor? I >> I >> opposed. Nay. >> Nay. >> Motion. uh passes with commissioners
Nablak and Chair Schwarz opposed. >> Chair Schwarz. >> Uh Commissioner Smokey. >> In planning case 25-16, I'll make a motion that the planning commission recommend approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the
conditions as laid out in the packet. >> I'll second it. Motion by Smokeoki, second by Casey to approve planning case 25-16. Any further discussion?
>> Hearing none. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. >> Nay. >> Nay. Motion carries with commissioners Nablak and Chair Schwarz opposed. These are recommendations by the
planning commission at tonight's meeting with the decision by the city council at the February 2nd meeting. Hey, I thank all the uh citizens for
coming and giving uh testimony. Thank you. Moving on to other business. Mr. Pasner. Thank you, Chair Schwarz, commissioners. Um, I don't have very much else for you. That was the only item on the agenda
tonight. I just wanted to touch on what is going to be on the agenda for the February meeting. Um, so we will have the uh planning commission work plan and policies that I'm going to uh put on the agenda for the February meeting um for the planning commission to approve for the 2026 year. um as well as a request
for a PUB amendment for the C Crescent Ponds development which is an existing development. Um it's a request by the Fountains Homeowners Association and they are requesting a few changes to the existing PUB um to allow for a little more space in the backyards of those um
uh lots in order to build um covered decks if if the homeowners should should so choose. So that's the item that's on the agenda for the February meeting right now. Um and I have nothing else for you. Thank you. Thank you
>> commission. Anybody have anything under other business? >> I would move to adjourn. >> Second. >> Motion by Casey, second by Ryak. All in favor? >> I.
>> Meetings adjourned.