All right, we'll call the meeting to order. On behalf of the planning commission, I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of March 10th, 2026. On tonight's agenda, we have one public hearing. Uh before we open that public hearing, we have a couple housekeeping
items to take care of, and those would be the minutes from our January 13th and our February 10th regular meetings. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? >> Motion. >> We have a motion for approval. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Both minutes are officially approved. Thank you. All right, we'll open up our public hearing. Uh, this is actually a multi-request public hearing uh for three items. Preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development for
the Sawyer Glenn. This is located just south of our high school. Uh the second part is a reszoning of the Sawyer Glenn development property from A1 agricultural to R2 low medium density residential and number three is comp plan amendment for medium density
residential to low medium density and a Musa staging from 2030 2040 to 2020 and the development staging from 2030 to 2040 to 2020 to 2030. Now Tony that's a lot so take one at a time I hope. All
right, >> I will take this. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, commission members. Before you this evening is a request from LAR for the preliminary plat and preliminary plan unit development along with resoning and a comprehensive plan amendment or amendments
uh for the development that will be known as Sawyer Glenn. Uh the subject property consists of four total parcels uh equaling about 73 acres of land and is generally located near the northwest intersection of County Road 50 and
Flagstaff Avenue. And as Cherati had mentioned, the property is directly south of the Farmington High School. The preliminary plat consists of 215 single family lots spread over that 73 acres. Uh the gross density for the development is 2.94 dwelling units per
acre with a net density of 4.6 dwelling units per acre. The plat does include four outlots. They're labeled A through D on the preliminary plat. The outlots consist of a combination of storm water facilities, wetland flood plane, trail corridor, and remnant land.
This is a copy of the preliminary plat. Uh this is included in your memorandum along with uh a whole bunch of construction plans and drawings uh for your Peru for your review. Uh as you can see again this is directly south of the high school and directly west of the
whispering fields and Regita Fields development. The development standards uh that are uh being proposed with the Sawyer Glenn development uh include the minimum lot width of 42 feet, minimum lot depth of
135 ft, a minimum lot area of 5,670 square ft, front yard setback of 25 ft, sideyard setback interior of six, sideyard setback corner of 20 ft, and rear yard setback of 25 ft. Uh the lot
sizes in the plan uh do range from that 5,670 ft up to 23,560 square ft in size with the average uh lot size within the plat being 7,237 square ft.
As far as access and transportation, there are three access points to this development. Uh that includes the extension of both 208th and 209th Street uh from the Whispering Fields development. Uh and then uh the extension of 211 Street West uh which is
currently constructed at least a portion of it on the south side of the Rigita Fields development. Uh that would be extended uh into this development. Uh generally the road right ofway within the development is 60 ft with a road width of 30 ft. Uh the exception is 211
street that provides a 70 foot wide right ofway and a 41 foot uh roadway width. Uh this particular road does quote unquote neck down to a 60- foot ride rightway and 30- foot wide roadway near Fairfield Drive. That's the first
north south drive uh in the preliminary plat parks, sidewalks and trails. Uh the city will take cash in lie of park dedication with this plat. The park that will service this development is the Flagstaff Meadows Park. uh preliminary
plat does identify outlot D as parkland to be dedicated. Um the park and rec commission did review the plat at uh one of their last meetings uh and determined that they do not want to accept uh outlot d for park purposes uh as there
are wetlands on that um outlot um and section 1149 does not allow for park dedication credit for wetlands. Uh sidewalks will be constructed on one side of every road within the development. That's a requirement of our subdivision ordinance. Uh trail will be
excuse me trail will be provided from the end of the culde-sac that would be 209th street west through outlot A and a portion of outlot B. Uh this trail will connect into the existing trail within the Whispering Fields and Regita Fields developments. Trail is also provided on
the south side of 211 Street uh and will extend north to the existing trail located on the west side of the Rigita Fields development. Uh this is being proposed as a planned unit development. So before you tonight is the preliminary planned unit uh or
PUD. Uh it's to allow flexibility uh mainly for bulk standards within what will be zoned R2. Uh the requested changes are reducing the minimum lot area to 5,670 square feet. Typically in the R2 you have a minimum 6,000 square
foot lot. Reducing the minimum lot width to 42 feet versus the typical minimum of 60 ft. Increasing the building coverage percentage for lots to 45% which again a typical maximum is 35%. Uh and then increasing the front yard
setback to 25 ft. typical minimum is 20 ft. Um, these are fairly common uh flexibilities that we've allowed in the past. Uh, they're not very, uh, in our situation, they're not necessarily
uncommon from what we've approved in the past. So, um, also this evening, we are looking to, uh, get, uh, approval of reszoning. Uh the four parcels that currently make up the development are zoned A1, which is our agricultural
district. Uh the developer is requesting the parcels be zoned to R2, low medium density residential. The R2 zone allows for a density range uh between three and a half and six dwelling units per acre. Uh so the 4.6 net dwelling units fall
within that range. So that would be appropriate. Um, also there are a number of uh comprehensive plan amendments that would be required uh for this. Um, included in your packet are are three uh maps from
our comprehensive plan. I've highlighted the area in red um that uh applies to each uh amendment. Uh in this particular instance, we're talking about the future land use. Uh currently the northern two parcels are guided medium density
residential and the southern two parcels are guided lowmedium density residential. The northern two parcels would have to be redesated to low medium density residential on the future land use map. Uh this would put in line with what is being requested with the reszone.
Uh as far as MUSA staging, uh the northern two parcels are currently shown receiving MUSA in 2040. The southern two parcels are currently shown receiving mucus in 2030. Uh the anticipated Musa staging map as shown here and included in your packet
would have to be amended to show all four parcels um within uh MUSA designation of 2020. And then the last amendment would be the development staging. Um the northern two parcels have a development development
time frame or staging of 2030 to 2040 and then the the southern two parcels are currently in the 2020 to 2030. So the uh development staging map would have to be amended to just show the northern two parcels in the 2020 to 2030
development time frame. The southern two are already fine. The action that is requested this evening recommend approval of the Sawyer Glenn preliminary plant preliminary plan unit development the resoning and comprehensive plan amendments contingent
upon the following. One satisfaction of all engineering comments requirements including construction plans for grading storm water and utilities. Two, city council approval of the reszoning of the development site from A1 agriculture to R2 lowmedium density residential. And
three, the city council and metropolitan council approval of the 2040 comprehensive plan amendments to the future land use guidance muses staging and development staging for the development area to be known as Sawyer Glenn. >> All right. Thank you, Tony. That was
well done. Um, with us tonight is a representative from LAR, Mr. Trosky. Steve, you welcome back. >> Always happy to be back in Farmington. Steve Trosky with LAR out of Plymouth, Minnesota. Tony, thank you. Great job. I
I don't have much to add other than at this time, uh, we're anticipating four phases, so four final plats. If we get successful approval of the items that Tony just went through, grading would
probably start in midappril. That would be our hope. and then the first final plat would come in 6 to 8 weeks or so. We've got to grade the site before we do any development work through the final plat. So, uh we're a ways out from seeing anything on
the parcel right now, but uh we're excited to be here and happy to be back and happy to answer any questions you may have. >> All right. Thank you, Steve. If you can stay available, we'd appreciate it. We do have a resident. Did you have any comments at this time? >> No, we do not. >> Okay. We will come back. If you have
anything after you hear some of our comments or questions, certainly feel free. Okay, we'll calling you later. Start with Commissioner Winchtle. >> Well, Steve, you answered one of mine right off the bat, so that answers that. Um, couple other questions.
>> I'm pretty sure I know the reason, but why the reduced lot size? So, we're trying to make single family homes as attainable as possible right now in a challenging environment. And we find that
a lot of buyers are in the position to maybe buy a town home, but they're at a stage in life where they want a single family home. And so we're trying our hardest throughout the metro area to get lot sizes, home sites that will accommodate a a home with a smaller
footprint to make that more affordable and attainable for the families. So we we have some of these homesite sizes down in the Vermilion Commons. Yep. So it's going to be a very similar product to what's down there on the reduced home site sizes.
>> Sure. And and the houses that are being built, are they just going to be on grade or on cement? No basement or variety? >> At this point, we're planning to have slab on grade, but again, market
conditions could always change. So, I I don't want to say that's locked in permanently here, but right now, slab on grade is the plan. >> Sure. And then as far as the trail system out there, I don't see Is there any connection that's going to be to the high school?
>> No, >> nothing. >> Well, the trail in Whispering Fields, there's the trail piece that connects up through there that goes up by the pond. So, these trails will connect into the existing trails and then loop up. >> That's what I want to make sure. Yep. Yep.
You >> No, that's it. Looks good. I you know I think it'll be good fit out there as what with everything else that's out there for residential already. So >> Commissioner Bird. >> Yeah, I appreciate the information
tonight. Um couple additional questions in in the plan. I is there an outlaw C? I don't see one. >> Is it possible I'm missing it? >> Outlot C is the large outlot on the southern portion of the site. >> Ah, thank you Tony. I missed that
completely. Okay. >> A lot of that's flood plane. >> That's Yep. That's what I was wondering. Okay. And then outlot A. It It seems a little bit of a not strange placement. I'm just curious why that >> it's a trail corridor. >> It is. Okay. >> That's where the trail comes out through
the culde-sac from the culde-sac. >> Gotcha. >> Yep. >> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. And then compared to Whispering Fields, the neighbor location there, lot size mostly comparable. So, it's not going to be a a huge difference between them.
>> Not a huge difference. Um, the average lot size is roughly around the same. Um, but yeah, the generally speaking, these will be just a little bit smaller as far as a width. >> Yeah. And I was just asking, you know, aesthetically, just wanting to make sure
we keep some cons consistency there. What about um street width as well, Tony? Is that consistent as well? >> That is consistent. >> It is. Okay. I thought we kind of talked about it last meeting maybe when we were talking about kind of going to that 30foot standard is what we've been doing
lately. So, okay. And then lastly, and Tony, this is mostly for you, is just around the the reszoning. We had a request last meeting around some reasonzoning, and we said, "Nope, we're going to hold off till we have a larger discussion, >> but we're back asking for resoning tonight." So, just want to talk through
that a little bit. >> Right. Uh the main difference with that um well in this particular instance is that um
the main difference is they've already expended a lot of money on this development. Okay, to get to this point. >> Okay. >> Um doesn't mean that we couldn't go back and review the other development if so if we so choose. Um, but with this one,
they're kind of at a point where we couldn't I wouldn't feel comfortable holding them up. >> Okay. >> With the amount of time and money they've spent on the development. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And that makes sense. I mean, I know that area pretty well. So, I know kind
of this is where it's headed out there. I just for consistency sake with the public to say, "Hey, we're not going to review your resoning request, but we will review this one." >> Yep. Okay. >> Totally understand. >> Okay. Okay. Yeah, that's all my questions.
>> Thank you, Andy. Mr. Ellis, >> can you just walk me through the access points again? >> Sure. >> Can you just like show >> I know where they are, but I just want to understand. Yep. Okay. >> So, you'll have the extension of 208
here. Y will go and 209th, which will >> go through and connect out to >> Flagstaff Avenue. And then we have the extension of 211th here on the south end that will also >> right. So the three access points all going to Flagstaff. I just I have a question about Flagstaff. So Flagstaff
is pretty busy and Mindot only has traffic counts north of 190th from 2024 and that's about 7,500 cars. So with this development and it it it's a dense development when you think about Flag
Staff and coming out from 209th that's an unprotected left turn if you want to go north. I just am asking the question about the traffic and what this is going to generate. Now, I understand from LAR that it's going to be phased and so it's not like all these homes are going to
spring up tomorrow and all these people, but that I'm mentioning that as a concern and we're not requiring the developer to do anything to Flagstaff, right, as part of this development. >> Correct. Um, they did do a traffic study that engineering department has reviewed. >> Okay.
>> Um, and they found it acceptable. >> Okay. >> So, >> well, that's fine. That's just that's just the question I had and I concur with the comments on the reasonzoning since since we've um we've done that and I understand you've spent a lot of money but
we have told other people that we're going to hold off on resoning but those are my comments. So thank you Commissioner Rutherford. >> Uh most of all of my questions have been uh answered so I'm good. Could I ask Could I ask one more?
>> Sorry, I apologize. >> Andy, not a problem. >> Um, >> with the high school being directly on the north side of this with the development, are there plans to use any access off that road that comes south of the high school to get in to do grading or construction or is all of that
construction equipment coming off Flagstaff as well? >> It would likely all come off of Flag Staff. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks, Tony. >> Steve, do you agree with that? Yes. >> Okay. You're looking at them like, you know,
you know, and actually I I say that because you have existing residents that you're going to be going through and by and I know it's it's a having lived in an area where there's development beyond me on the main road. It it's it's messy. It's dirty. It's you know, so you're
going to take care of the roads, >> of course. >> Yeah. Just in general, part of what we do when we go through these plats and construction processes is as part of the development agreement, we talk about work schedules, we talk about routes for
trucks, we talk about work hours. That's a little premature at this point, but all of those things will be handled. Of course, it is, you know, we do want to be good neighbors. We understand bringing traffic in there and hearing hammers, you know, all day, you know,
it's a change. It's a change and we want to be mindful of that and respect the neighbors. So, there's some communities where to control dust, we spray water down if there's going to be dirt or anything like that and to to keep it down. So, it will be a change for the residents next door, but we're aware of
that and we do want to be good neighbors and we do work through the technical details with the city staff. >> I appreciate that. be good neighbors. If not, our city staff and our city council seems to get the complaints. So, thank you very much. And on to my comments and
and I bring this up and I'll bring it up for uh Lisa and Gary's. When you go to the PUD, uh Tony uses a nice word. He calls it flexibility to the standards. In my mind, they're deviations. Um and really the as Tony mentioned, they're
really to the lot width, the size of the lot, and then uh coverage a lot. Those are the three big ones. We see them. Um we see a lot of PUDS in this community um from various developers and that goes back I think to to Phil's question on
lot size and and we've just seen a bunch of PUDS and um so I just want to mention that for the deviations I they are just deviations to the standards of the ordinance. That's he calls them flexibility. That's great for him but I say they're deviations.
um >> deviations. >> I do give credit to the park and wreck. Um you know, for standing firm and not accepting a wetland, we're not going to do that. Um I think LAR knows that. So I I don't think that's a surprise to them. >> We're happy to pay.
>> Okay. >> Be in L of >> um you mentioned the timing um staging of it. I'm fine with that. you in the the south of the development, and this is going to lead into both Andes and Lisa's comment on on zoning. Um, you and I
talked before the meeting, is some some to me it looks like FE FEMA holding areas. Um, and so there's nothing you can really do with that parcel there other than to leave it blank. What What are you going to do with that land? What what's it going to look like?
>> So, there's a number of complexities on the south half. That's a great question. Thank you for asking it. It is a flood plane and we do need to put that flood storage somewhere. So, it's not up on this exhibit, but there's a number of
holding basins. I think there's three >> triangular in shape. So, when it does flood, it goes into there. And then there's some wetland work that we're doing. There's some a drainage channel through there. So, uh, we've
done a lot of work and due diligence with the environmental and watershed, uh, aspects of the development. So, there's really nothing we can do south of the road. In fact, you'll notice on
the southern road, Fenway Lane, there's no homes on the south side of that, >> right? We would love to put homes there, but we do need that space for flood storage and wetland or excuse me, uh, drain storm water drainage. So,
>> so will it be native or what? I guess I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you What do you think it'll look like or don't you know yet? >> I I can't say now. >> We'll see it in in final then. >> Yep. >> You'll have more a better idea then. Okay. Um, and getting back to the
timing, when I first saw this, I I um thought of a similar thing and I go, well, you know, the roads are set up. You know, we knew what was coming here when the first two were developed. I mean, the the roads were stubbed there and all that. Um, but yes, this
commission will have a great opportunity late next week to sit down with our city council staff and consultants to talk about some of the concerns, not not really concerns, but opportunities that have come before the commission the last few months. And I
think that's a great time to bring it up again. At least I plan to. >> Um, and I know, you know, staff will will be right there with us. Um, but that so I had the similar thing on timing. Um, I really don't have um, you know, I go
back to Phil's question on on type of houses. You think they're all going to be slab on because the ones to the to the east, aren't they kind of aren't they lookout? >> There will be a variety. >> There might be a variety or they all going to be Are you all planning or don't know yet?
>> Well, there will be a variety. You know, we don't want to go in and offer 215 of the same exact home product. We want to vary it within the community. Uh the slab on grade versus basement decision is based on two things. What's the
market that we're trying to hit for that home buyer? And then what are the grading challenges? Water table, bedrock, things like that. So there's >> must have done borings. That was my next question. Where's the water table at? >> You know, >> below the houses.
>> I sure hope so. >> Yeah. >> I'm not sure what the elevation is. >> Okay. In serious. >> All right. We'll wait for final on that, but expect that question on final because that's when we always ask and timing you went through um the residents to the east of you. Can you just reexlain that so they're listening or
happen to hear about it when they can expect some traffic running through their roads at whatever time in the morning, 7 in the morning till whatever time in the afternoon, what are your work hours, things like that. >> Sure. Well, again, the work hour conversation is a bit premature at this point. We do have to go through that
with the final plat. You know, we'll be back before this body and before the council again with that first final plat and I will have specific answers for work time, hours, things like that at the next meeting. Um but for right now, we do have council
tentatively scheduled for next week. Um after that, it would be approved. And then the first step that we do after the closing of on the property is we stage the site for grading and we anticipate that to be midappril in a perfect world.
You know if it snows again for 3 weeks it that'll change but midappril for grading and then that should take a number of months and then once the site is graded we come in there and we start to do some of the utility work. So, we won't be constructing any homes for a while, but the neighbors will probably
see some equipment starting to roll in, you know, spring. >> Yeah. Spring, four to eight weeks. All right. I mentioned to you earlier you'd have a a second opportunity. Did do you have any questions at this time for the commission? >> No.
>> All right. Well, thank you for attending. All right. Was there anything else from the commission? No, I just looking at this like I know we Andy brought it up, but having the comparable
development what you're proposing versus what's there. These houses that you're proposing, these lot sizes look relatively a lot smaller than what's currently there to the east.
I guess I'm just looking, you know, you look these houses on the west and on the north, those are tiny lots and I guess it doesn't to me it doesn't look comparable to what's already existing >> and it's not and it's not going to
necessarily be comparable. They they are smaller. >> Yeah. you know, you got to take into consideration the people that are already living there and all of a sudden you're adding in, you know, I can just count here and you're adding in six to seven more houses on a street
for property value and everything else of the existing people living there, I guess, is a concern of mine. >> And that would be with the uh designation of R2 PUD, >> right? Um, is that a a showstopper for
anybody else on the commission? >> Is Whispering Fields R2 as well, Tony? Do we know? >> It's Whispering Fields actually R3 PUD. It's done as a PUD as well. >> Okay.
>> Which would indicate a higher density. >> Yep. >> Right. >> But they did not go with as small a lot. >> Right. They went with smaller but not as small. Right. Yeah. >> Anybody else got comments on that other
than Phil? >> No, I'm kind of the same mindset of Phil. I, >> you know, I'm not opposed to it. I just I'm concerned, you know, looking the people that are living there currently to the east and then all of a sudden you're these lot sizes are tiny.
What we've done in the past, Phil, and you you're familiar with this, is we've done what's transitions so that it isn't an abrupt, >> you know, um, this size versus the next, you know, the the smaller size. There's been some kind of transition of of
housing. Is that what you're looking at? Looking for, I should say. >> Yeah. I guess I just feel like we're we're continually reducing the lot size. to fit the developers
more or less to put more money in the developer's pocket. >> Well, part of the issue that we run into is yes, it is a money issue for the developer, but a lot of it also has to deal with the amount of flood plane, wetland, gas pipelines that we have to deal with. Um, we tend to have to deal
with those with almost all of our developments. Um so in order to essentially cash flow a development um in a lot of instances to do that they need the density or the reduced lot
sizes. >> So that that's that's not I mean that's a part of the issue. It's not the only issue. >> Sure. And I understand that. I just, you know, again, we've seen developments where we reduce these lot sizes and then they're back in another part of a
different phase or the first phase, second phase saying, "Hey, I need another 20 ft on each lot." Like, >> you know, we've we've seen it and I and I'm concerned that this certainly could happen here. But
>> yeah, you know, I guess if there's no other heartburn about the lot sizes here, I'm >> I'll ask Commissioner Ellis, Commissioner Rutherford, your comments on that, if any. >> I hear you and I I know where you're coming from because just when you look at it, it looks so tight and >> um the developer says we we want to be
able to get people who don't want to be in town homes. That looks like a town home development, you know, when you look at it. But I understand the issues and especially going with no basements, you're going to squeeze a little tighter. And then to your point about the transition, when you think about
some other developments where we've got multif family and then we transition into single family, but that's not the case here. So I'm kind of rambling, but I hear where you're coming from. But >> well, even just the number of cars that you're going to have. >> Absolutely. >> That's like my question about Flagstaff.
And I know they did the they did the study and all that other good stuff. But I I think it's it's also going to be phased, which is that will be helpful. I think phasing it. And then are these all just a question for Lenar, are these all
um build to suits or you sell the lot and you're not building anything on spec is my question. Or are you? We generally do not build on spec. >> So I thought >> Yeah. These are all for sale. >> Yep. People buy the lot and then you'll build. >> Correct. >> Got it.
>> No rental communities, nothing like that. All standard owner occupied homes. >> Thank you. >> Gary, any thoughts on it? >> Yeah, I understand the the concern about the the lot size and the transition. I
would say that looking at the uh the graphic that's on the screen, if uh if that's at least close to scale, um there's a little bit of a transition there. The the lots that appear to run north south along Fairfield, they're a little bit larger than the ones further
to the west on say Fenway. So, it starts to blend. So, it's not a super abrupt change. So, I'm I'm comfortable with it. You see, you see you see where Gary was referring to? Yeah. Is that done on purpose? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And then Yeah, I see those. Um, you got a few other houses that you're butt up against that kind of to the south and maybe that one to the north that isn't quite as
the same, but I I see where Gary's coming from there on the those four houses, >> right? Anything can be done with those you think? >> Are you talking block two? >> I don't know. >> I don't very far north lot and then uh
you got those four that are spaced a little more and then you got >> Yep. >> you got one lot that's got two or three on there to the south. And I mean they're going to have three yards in their excuse me in their backyard. >> Correct. That's, you know, that's kind of the one that lot that I'm I don't and
I have no idea who lives there if anybody does, but I just, you know, if I were that guy, I'd say, well, now I got three backyards button up against mine. >> And I think that's where Phil and Gary were coming from on on the sides, and that's why we talked a little bit about transition here on the on the
commission. And >> those would be the ones I'd be concerned with. If you could modify that might relieve a little bit of the heartburn of the commission that the saying it doesn't it looks a little different. >> Sure. We can certainly take a look. >> All right.
>> Take a look at that >> for now. Would that be enough for commission members of a transition that doesn't isn't so >> abrupt to some of the existing homeowners? >> Yeah, I think that's good. >> I do have a question for Commissioner
Rutherford though. citing your previous uh employment, knowing what Flag Staff looks like between the hours of 7 and 9 in the morning and say 3 to 4:30 in the
afternoon with this additional amount of potential traffic any more concern than you normally have on that road at those hours, right? because we've got a lot of high school kids and staff and everybody using that
road and >> sure >> it already gets a little hairy in the morning and afternoon. >> Yeah, I hear where you're coming from. I unless something has changed um in the nine months or so that I've been retired. Um the bigger concern that we
had or the bigger traffic problem that we had were high school students that were using the neighborhood as a place to turn around. It wasn't so much traffic, you know, indigenous traffic coming out of the neighborhood on the flag staff. It was the high school students using that as a way to >> circumvent
>> skip the line. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Um, so I I I looked at that when when this when the packet came out uh last late last week and I I just I don't I don't see that as an issue. >> Okay. >> Personally, but >> I trust your opinion as a professional.
That's why I wanted to ask you. >> Yeah. And I think as this and and this is a Gary, that's a great thing to discuss um with our city council next week because as you know that the past requests have been on this road and I think we got to look at this road as the
the next I'll call it pilot now but it's not pilot now but similar with traffic and and make sure and and if if other people out of not this commission but other people that are um doing their job need feels there needs to be some kind of different or change traffic
mitigation measures, then then they'll have to do that. And I that's not this commission, but somebody else that does that. So, all right. I think we're at a point now where Tony, do you have anything else from your end? >> No, sir. >> Anything else from the commission before I ask for a motion to close the public
hearing? Is there a motion then to close the public hearing? >> Motion to close. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion and second. Call the role, please. Yes. >> Windshadow. >> Yes. >> Rody. >> Yes. >> Ellis. >> Yes. >> Rutherford.
>> Yes. >> All right. In front of the commission then's a recommendation to our city council and it's it's a pretty lengthy one. Um but it's the uh approval of Sawyer Glenn Plumary Planned Unit development or PUD development reszoning
and comp plan amendments as we tried to discuss before. Um Steve, there's some contingencies. Three of them that Tony read off. Do you agree to those contingencies at this time? >> You do. Okay. With that, then I'd look for a motion as a recommendation to our
city council. >> Motion for the recommendation. >> Motion for a favorable recommendation to our city council. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Motion and second. Is there any more discussion? If not, call the role, please. >> Windshidle, >> yes.
>> Yes. >> Ellis >> Rutherford, >> yes. >> Berg, >> yes. >> All right. Tony, was there anything else from staff? >> Nothing, sir. >> Anything else from the commission? >> No. >> If not, I'll remind the commission and our viewers and residents that our next
regular meeting is April 14th. And with that, I'd look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> This commission is officially adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Heat. Heat.