Hey, hey, hey. 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 April 14th, 2026. On tonight's agenda, we have one discussion item. Uh before we get into that
discussion item, we have one housekeeping item, and that would be the minutes from our March 10th, 2026 regular meeting. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? >> If not, is there a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> We have a motion. Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Minutes are approved. With that then we'll move into our discussion item. Again, this is on the final plats Farmington Technology Park first edition and Farming Technology Park second edition. Tony, you're going to take this?
>> I am. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, commission members. Yes. Before you this evening are the final plats for the Farmington Technology Park first edition and the Farmington Technology Park second edition. Um want to um
say one quick thing is that uh with this final or these final plats um we are here not to necessarily talk about the project itself over there but the actual subdivision of the property. So just that's the intent of what we are here
this evening for. uh the requests before you um Kimley Horn on behalf of uh MNLCO Farmington and LLC and MNLCO Farmington 2 LLC along with Independent School
District 192 are requesting uh review of the final plats for the uh technology park first edition and Farmington technology park second edition. Some background um before we get started into the actual plat. Uh the Farmington
Technology Park final plat was originally approved by the city council on November 18th of 2024. Uh this included the subdivision and platting of the Fountain Valley Golf Course and the ISD 192 properties into
three lots um within one final plat. Uh the approved final or the approved uh Farmington Technology Park final plat, the original one was never recorded uh due in large part to ongoing litigation. Um an extension for the recording of the
proof farmington technology park final plat was granted by the city council. Uh the way code is written is that they have six months upon approval of a final plat. uh they can uh request an extension to the city council and the city council can either grant or not grant an
extension. In this case, an extension was granted and that uh extension ends May 18th of this year. So, a little over a month. The current request is to uh what's called bifurcate or divide the original
uh technology park final plat into a first and second edition. The first edition includes the former Fountain Valley Golf Course property and the second edition include uh includes the uh ISD 192 property. The first and second edition final plat
are identical to the plat that was approved in 2024 with the change of being dividing uh the parcels into two phases and would be recorded separately due to current ownership status. Uh the lots and right ofway that will be dedicated and platted as part of this uh
will remain the same as originally approved with the final plat in 2024. Uh the first edition uh and second edition final plat are consistent with approved preliminary plat that was approved in 2024. Um
a lot of subdivisions are phased developments. This ultimately would be a phased development. Um, we see a lot of subdivisions that come in as multiple phases, first, second, third, multiple additions. This is very
similar to what would be re done with a lot of other subdivisions that we see as the the plane commission and city council. Uh, description of the proposed lots are as follows. Lot one, block one, Farmington Industrial Park, First
Edition, is 150 uh acres. Uh it's the northern portion of the data center campus. Lot two block one uh of the first edition is 2.07 acres. This uh property would be deed to the city for utility purposes. And then lot one block one of the second
edition. Uh this is 185.54 acres and consists of the southern portion of the data center campus. There is also a flood plane uh that runs through this particular lot uh and that will be contained within a conservation easement.
Uh the bifurcation of the plat into two additions will allow for the recording of the first edition plat along with a development contract and will allow for some preliminary site work to commence. Some of that site work would include uh some initial grading um some burming uh
for privacy for the res next door residents as well as the demolition of some of the buildings on on site. Uh this is the original uh this is the first edition. Um, again shows the
Fountain Valley Golf Course property along with the uh very northwestern corner that's at 2.07 acre parcel that uh would be deed to the city along with the dedication of uh Biscane Avenue to
the uh east. Uh and then this just depicts the second edition uh plat. Uh again, this is the ISD 192 property. uh it does provide for that conservation easement for the flood plane as well.
The action that's requested this evening is to recommend approval of the Farmington Technology Park first edition and Farmington Technology Park second edition final plat for that recommendation on to the city council and we do have Mr. Jakestein here uh as
a representative of the applicant. >> All right. Thank you Tony. Mr. Stein, do you have anything to add to the staff report? Yeah, thank you chair and commissioners. I'll make it brief as uh Tony did a good job of summarizing the request. Uh as Tony noted, this is a very straightforward request. Uh we're simply
asking to bifurcate the final plat uh from into a first and second edition. Uh with that exception, this final plat is identical to the final plat that was previously before the planning commission and the city council. uh but more importantly it's identical to the preliminary plat which uh is important
because that's the legal standard by which a final plat is reviewed consistency with the preliminary plat. So in all uh ways this is a code compliant plat. Uh normally this is a very preuncter uh process as I'm sure you're aware. Um I do want to note that
uh as you may recall or if if uh for those of you who are new this was always intended to be a multi-phase project in terms of the development. uh we talked about two, three or even four phases. Uh and this is consistent with that intent.
Uh and by allowing us to record the development agreement against the northern piece, uh which we intend to do as quickly as as we can, uh we do think that there are some very real material benefits that will uh come to the city. Uh, as Tony noted, there will be some
dedication of land, uh, approximately 11 acres of rightway, uh, more than 2 acres of, uh, utility space for a future water tower, about 7 acres of conservation easement along the north property line, and then, uh, approximately $315,000
uh, of park dedication fees that will be paid to the city for use immediately. So, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. uh and uh we appreciate uh your consideration and ask for your support. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Steen. Procedurally, um just what the
commission is going to look at tonight is this is not a public hearing. Um this is a a recommendation only to our city council. Um but if there are some questions, I I'll start with the commission. We'll see how much time um
we acrew there and we'll go from there. Was there anything else from staff that you wanted to comment on before I go to the commission? Nothing. Commissioner Berg. >> Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Roddy. Um, so Tony, I guess I have a big question
around why this needs to be done. What does it change that wasn't included originally? Does it allow them to start work and that's the only reason why? >> Well, it allows them to record the plat.
um and record the development contract more importantly. And with the recording of that, it does allow them to do some again some of those preliminary things such as some not full-fledged grading, but some grading. They want to do the BMS um get
those started um and uh also remove some of the existing buildings that are on site that could become a liability, frankly. >> Maybe I'll say it this way. So if this isn't approved by city council, they can't move forward with those activities.
>> If this is not approved, uh they still have the existing plat that has been approved. The problem is is that by May 18th, if they don't record it by that date, it's essentially becomes null and void.
Um, yeah. I guess the reason I'm asking it that way is because we have have as a commission have talked often about not changing from original plan and not changing original spec. And
to me, this feels like we're kind of on the border of doing that by now bifurcating and approving one half and then the other. So, I struggle with >> well, both halves would be approved. the second the second edition just would not at this point be recorded right away.
>> And I guess that kind of goes back to the the why split it up. So >> part of it has to do with the current ownership structure that's out there between the school district and tracked essentially. >> Okay. Okay. Um that's all my questions
for now. >> We can come back to you too. >> Yeah. Thank you Randy if you want to. Commissioner Ellis, >> just um thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a quick clarification and to follow up on what Jake was saying where we this is
exactly what was approved prior and when it was approved prior, it was it was going to be all done at the same time. >> Correct. >> Right. But because different ownership and etc. That's why. But essentially, it's exactly what was approved. It's
just that the developer is going to move forward with and record the first edition and then the second edition will come before council and just like clarification on when that would come. >> Both plats will if this is recommended
to the council, both plats would go to council for their review and decision. Um it would just be a matter of when the second edition would be recorded at the county, >> right? And and so that would be
>> the intent is to approve both, >> right? And then so just just uh again because I was writing down dates. So if if that goes to the council and the council says, okay, the council's going to give a date for the second edition to be recorded. >> Well, per code it's per code it's
required six months. six months, but the council could give an extension and the applicant is likely requesting a one-year extension for that. >> Is there any limitation on how many extensions can be given? >> There is not. >> Okay.
Those those were my those are my questions. Thank you, >> Commissioner Rutherford. >> Uh I don't have any questions, Chair. >> Okay. My comments are going to be relatively brief brief and I'll just remind everybody that ours is a recommendation to the city council, but
I guess I found the process for this application quite unusual. And for that reason, I will be abstaining on a recommendation to the city council. For that reason, um again, the commission has several options in front of us. We can approve, deny, we can make no recommendation, or if you'd
like, we could have more time and continue this. It's up to the commission. What do you feel like? I'll go first. >> Go ahead. I >> I'm not comfortable with it, Cherati, quite honestly. Um, you know, I on a personal level, this is
a very near project to me for, I think, some very obvious reasons. I am really struggling with approving any deviation from what was originally approved simply because that was what was approved and I well I understand the
reasons for wanting to deviate it. I don't agree with them. So my recommendation would be to deny. Okay. >> Commissioner Alice, your thoughts. >> Can I get a clarification? Mr. Chair, we can not recommend or we can deny. We can
recommend or we can abstain from recommendation regardless of what comes out of this meeting today. This is going to the council at the council's next meeting. Is that right? >> That's right. >> Again, ours is a recommendation, >> right? Ours is just a recommendation. I just >> approved deny. No recommendation or
continuation. >> Okay. But again, just essentially and just we got to talk slowly for me. It's exactly what was approved in 2024 when it was going to all be recorded at the same time.
Okay, that that was my question. >> Commissioner Rutherford, >> uh, under the circumstances, as everything's been explained, um, I don't see any reason why we wouldn't recommend approval. I don't see the concerns that
you all do. However, I am one vote. Is there a motion? >> I'll make a motion to recommend approval of Farmington Technology Park first edition and the Farmington Technology Park second edition final plats and forward that recommendation on to the city council.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Have a motion, a second. Any more discussion? Call the roll, please. >> Berg, >> no. >> Rody, >> abstain. >> Ellis, >> yes. >> Rutherford, >> yes. The motion passes.
All right, Tony. Was there anything else from staff? >> Nothing, sir. >> Anything else from the commission? >> If not, I'll remind the commission and our residents our next regular meeting is May 12th. With I look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn.
>> There's a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Motion second. All in favor say I. I. I. I. >> Commission is officially adjourned. Thank you. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hello. Hello.