We got to wait for that TV. Okay. All right. We'll call to order the Newport Planning Commission uh meeting for July 8th at 5:30. Roll call or call to order. Uh Commissioner Kermes here. Commissioner Fueling is absent. Commissioner McMood here.
Commissioner Bonia here. Uh Chair Lighty here. item. Uh just real quick, well, we'll go through the meeting minutes and then we can talk about the arrangement of things, but uh meeting minutes for April 9th and everybody a chance to look at them. I looked at them.
They looked good. They matched what I watched. So, um Okay. So, I will look for I'll entertain an approval or a motion. Motion to approve. Motion to approve the April 9th minutes. Second. I can second that. All right. I got a a motion from
Commissioner Maria and a second from Commissioner Kermes to approve the minutes. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. Okay. Number four and five on the list. Uh the city's asked us to to move those around. Um so they're just going to be
in reverse order. So the first public hearing is going to be Red Rock Square 3. Want to start us off before we Yep. Great. Uh thank you, Chair Lighty. So uh I will be presenting this one. I'm going to share my screen through click share. So give me a moment.
All right. So uh Red Rock Square 3 is the third and final phase of the Red Rock Square development. Um the developer MWF properties has come in this evening or to the city for a preliminary and final plat approval, a planned unit development, and a
conditional use permit associated with that. I think we're all familiar with the project area, but uh as a reminder that's on the screen shown in red. Uh it's just north of Newport City Hall. The third phase is um directly east of
the second. So, uh just to recap here, uh we're looking as the city at a preliminary and final plat a PUD and the city council will review a request to vacate the easements that are currently over the property. That's just something that will have to happen if the plat is
approved. So, a refresher on some of the details about this site. We're looking at right now uh two different parcels. One of them is addressed. It's the Red Rock Square 2 site. The other is the vacant parcel, as I mentioned. That's where the Red Rock Squee uh Red Rock Square 3
building will be located. The zoning for this area is MX2 which is the city's transit oriented mixeduse district and the future land use coincides with that. The comprehensive plan has this site guided as mixed commercial and residential. The site area for the
entire um Red Rock Square 2 and three uh site is about 6 acres although this uh third phase is 3.3 acres in size. Uh looking at density, of course, we we do that when we reviewing conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. The
density for this project, the third phase, is at 24 a half units per acre. That is over the minimum threshold of 20 units per acre that's required in this area of the city. As a refresher to you on the subdivision
process, it's typically done in three steps with a concept plan review as our first step, a preliminary plat as our second step as and a final plat as our last step. Uh in some cases though where the project is straightforward, we will
bring forward the preliminary and final plat at the same time. That's what we did with the Red Rock Square 2 project. And so uh that's what we're doing here. Uh following those, if approved, then uh the city will enter into a development agreement with the developer. Um this is
really the detailed part of uh of our review process where we really get into the details and we'll talk about a lot of those details in this in this presentation. So uh without further ado, the site plan is on the screen for you now. Uh the Red Rock Square 3 building will have 51 units as proposed. the
developer uh is currently finalizing their financing and it's possible that it's they may increase to 53 units. So, we have reviewed for both of those scenarios. Uh if 53 units are uh the end result, uh the footprint will be no different. Uh there would just be a
couple extra units built into the structure. So, you can see on the site here, it's just north of Red Rock Crossing. The building is kind of mirroring the Red Rock Square 2 building. It's uh going to be as proposed four stories. It would
have a a tot lot for residents and their children to um have some outdoor recreation opportunities. There's a surface parking as you see on the screen uh that would access the existing access for the Red Rock Square 2 site. So, no new access points. Uh there's also
underground parking proposed that would be underneath the structure. North of that, we have a storm water pond that's proposed for this whole area. The storm water pond serves uh not only the Red Rock Square 2 and three sites, but also the transit station. Uh further north of
that is a wetland that's undevelopable. So you can see the site plan includes some open space between the building and the eastern property boundary. Uh that was identified pretty early on in and when we were reviewing the concept, if you'll recall, as an important buffer
between the building and the railroad tracks. um that is seen as kind of a best practice having 100 ft separation between a building and railroad tracks. So the next slide uh or shows the preliminary plat that's being proposed. Um so we've talked a little bit about
the Red Rock Square 3 project. I do want to mention that the application also includes a request from the developer to effectively carve the wetland that's on the Red Rock Square 2 site. um out of that parcel. Uh the reason for
this is that in finalizing their project financing, the developer re uh has come across a requirement that they cannot have wetlands located on the same parcel as their building. And so they're simply proposing to split the wetland off as its own outlot. It would still have
easements over it. It would be undevelopable. It would still be owned by the developer. Uh it's simply a separate lot. Um, this is seen by staff as acceptable considering that it's an outlot as proposed. They're doing the same thing. Uh, if you
look on the north side of the Red Rock Square 3 site, they're splitting that wetland off as a separate parcel. Staff made sure to require that the storm water pond uh for this area remain on the same lot as the Red Rock Square 3
building. So the next slide is is a very similar uh plan. This is the final plat. That's what it looks like. You can see again the location of the property boundaries and easements that are ultimately proposed. Here's what the building would look like. Again, as I mentioned, it would be
proposed as four stories. The building looks very similar in appearance to the Red Rock Square 2 project that the city reviewed and approved um a couple years ago. And uh you'll see that a lot of the design is similar but not exactly the same. I'll let the developer speak to
some of the influences to the design, but it was communicated that they're trying to kind of marry all three buildings in terms of the the design. So the the color proposed here is trying to tie into the first phase building. So uh we looked at the develop the city
zoning standards for things like lot area width and setbacks. uh both projects uh as proposed because remember we're carving a little bit out of the second phase. Um that still meets the setbacks that are required for that site and the
Red Rock Square 3 site as proposed also meets its minimum lot area width and setback requirements. Um both projects are still meeting the city's height standards and lot coverage requirements. The maximum is 75% of impervious
Well, we reviewed a lot of other uh standards and I'll get into some of those at a high level. Those include the building design, as I mentioned, open space requirements, parking, landscaping, uh access considerations, noise uh considerations, and parkland
dedication. So, uh, similar to the Red Rock Square 2 building, you'll remember that the design standards were, um, kind of a a challenge to overcome and and so we can approve the project through the PUB process where there's some variance
needed from the city's ordinance. Uh, the MX2 district has some really specific design standards um that are challenging to meet with modern construction. Um so the building materials uh have to be brick, stone, decorative masonry or similar materials.
Uh there are also requirements for street walls and building entrances that this project uh does appear to meet. So really at the end of the day, the the issue with the design standards is just that the stone and the block um do not comprise 50% as required by the city's
ordinance. uh the combination of those two things is equal to about 42%. So that would be one deviation. And I would mention that because of some of the things I've just mentioned, staff do support the PUD deviation. It's um look
looked at kind of as as consistent with the surrounding development. So I included a couple of the other uh design related aspects of the submitt. And here's a view of the building from the north. Uh you can see where the
entrance is to that underground parking area and kind of how the building will be oriented to the internal uh parts of the site. And then here's a view from Red Rock Crossing. You can see the location of that tot lot kind of the the scale of the building uh relative to some of its
surroundings. The city's ordinance also has open space requirements and wetland preservation requirements. Uh the ordinance requires 10% minimum of the site be preserved as open space. In this case, we're actually looking at probably in the neighborhood
of about 50% of the site being open space. Again, we've got a pretty large area of wetland, a storm water pond, and then a large buffer area between the building and the railroad tracks that is um going to have landscaping in it. And we'll look at that as well. the wetlands uh certainly meet the
city's wetland buffer requirement of 16 and a half feet uh surrounding the wetlands. So there is a separate process that um this actually the Washington County went through in coordination with the city and the developer to appropriately locate and design the
storm water pond. So for parking and loading uh we've reviewed a number of different aspects relating to parking. The only area uh with parking that doesn't quite meet the city's standards is the uh parking islands on the site are at 5% of the
overall parking area where they have to be at 10. Um this if if we look at the site plan on the previous slide, this is a a pretty tight uh site. They the parking area is squeezed between the building, the storm water pond, and a
wetland. So there's not really a lot of room uh for the extra parking island space. And what we're not getting in that, you know, 5% of parking island, we're we're certainly getting in in terms of open space preservation and and landscaping. So staff are again
comfortable with what's being requested there in terms of parking parking islands. Uh but kind of in summary, the the number of stalls meets the code requirements. uh bike parking is providing to meet the ordinance. Circulation has been considered for both
vehicles and pedestrians and there's that shared parking and access. So ultimately there will need to be a a parking a shared parking and access agreement between these two sites in the event that they're not owned by the same property owner long term.
Landscaping and tree preservation. So again I mentioned it was a it's a pretty tight site. There's existing wetlands already there. Uh we've got a storm water pond as well that kind of constrains things. So there's not as much room to plant new trees. Uh there is some trees that have been preserved
on the property from that were pre-existing the development. Um in in total there are 53 trees uh provided where 81 technically are required by the city's ordinance. The ordinance requires trees on a square foot to um tree ratio.
So, um, one tree is required for every thousand square ft of non-imperous area. That for this site, because there's an existing wetland really adds up, and they really can't locate the trees back there. And so, staff are again comfortable with this request to only
plant the trees in the area that's being disturbed with construction. Um however we are recommending that the city require a fee in lie of trees that aren't being planted um on whatever um
the city's current costs are to plant a tree. So in other words, that fee could ultimately be used elsewhere in the city to plant new trees. Uh tree preservation, I mentioned that a little bit that was largely completed with the Red Rock Square 2 project
there. the tree removals occurred and um the the Red Rock Square 2 project made up for the required trees that had to get replanted as a part of that. Um we've also looked at this from a screening perspective and feel comfortable with the location of the
parking lot in particular being screened away from the public view. So the last thing I have in in the review here is Parkland dedication. Um, so we we do know obviously there's a park really close to us here at city hall, Lions Park, which ultimately will
be a city park that can be accessed by the residents. Uh, but there would be a demand created by the project on the city's park system with 51 or 53 new units. So, uh, staff are proposing to have a fee in lie of parkland dedication
for this project. um Parkland dedication cash and l fees are based on the fair market value which will arrive to um after at a later stage of the development process but it would have to be an equal fair market value to.33
acres. So, in addition to our uh planning review, of course, the city's development team has had a opportunity to review these plans, uh the city engineering and public works team have put their heads together and provided a a number of comments on the project. Um
just a couple that I've pulled out uh to share with you. The corner of the Red Rock Square 3 building is within a easement area and so we think that's fixable. It just is something that we're noting as a condition of approval. in the engineering memo that the building
has to either get moved out of the easement or the easement has to be revised and I think we can come to a con a workable result there. Uh other general revisions are required to the construction plans before things
can get built and that's pretty typical uh for for these types of comments. And lastly, uh we've got also permits that are required or identified in the memo that are required before a building can start. The city's fire department had one primary comment on this project like it
did with the Red Rock Square 2 project, and that is that stand pipes are required for fire service, so that um there's there's good availability with this four-story building for water in the event of an emergency. Uh we did not get any comments from Washington County on this project.
They're right next door with the transit station. They didn't provide any comments. We also did provide this to Mandot, but at the time of writing, they haven't provided any comments to us either. The project will ultimately need some review by uh for conformance with South Washington Watershed District standards.
So, um that is typically baked into the engineering review actually. And so, um I feel confident that we're we're getting the the review that we need. We'll also be providing the plans to the watershed district for for comment. Um and lastly, we do have a public
hearing tonight. Uh we have not received any comments from the public regarding this project. So, uh just summarizing the PUD standards for this project that are requested. Um first of all, we need a PUD for any multif family building in this area over eight units. Uh second,
we've got a 42% ratio of stone and block to the rest of the facade area on the building. Third, the parking lot landscaping area should uh is requested to be at 5%. And lastly, as mentioned, we have the reduction in the required number of
trees being requested. So, uh another thing that we have to review is whether the project qualifies for a PUD. There's two things. um the the site is basically has to be of a certain area and if it's not it has to
meet goals within the city's comprehensive plan. So we reviewed the city's comprehensive plan and found that the the city planning commission and council can can definitely make appropriate findings should it want to about the conformance of this project with at least uh two different goals in
the city's land use chapter of its comp plan. So, one is to support new development and redevelopment in this particular area of the community and two is to provide housing and jobs to attract younger people and families to the community. Uh, we've got a lot of different findings. If you read through the staff
report, I apologize. There are tons of findings that we have to make in order to approve a PUD with the way the ordinance is written. Um, but long story short, staff do um believe we can make pretty strong findings to approve this development. Uh they're summarized here on the slide. Um generally speaking, the
project meets um requirements that the city has for the types of requests that are being made. Uh meets the PUD criteria, the CUP criteria, preliminary PLA criteria for denial are not met. Um it's consistent with our comprehensive plan and zoning district with of course
with those PUD flexibilities that they've been requested. So, uh, staff are comfortable recommending approval to the planning commission and city council with 11 conditions for approval. So, we have nine proposed standard conditions that they're basically standard with
developments like this where we're requiring a development agreement, fees, and permits. Uh, also requiring conformance with um things like the city engineer and fire department comments. The two unique conditions that are currently in the recommendation to you are uh one that that easement we talked
about be modified to remove the corner of the building and two that we get a cash inlue fee for u planting basically for the trees that aren't planted but are that but are required. So uh with that said I have an example
motion that's on the screen here should the planning commission want to recommend approval. Um, I would also note to you that we have a public hearing tonight and uh our applicant is here if you have any questions for them. So, with that, I'll stand for any questions you have for me.
Anybody have anything for Nathan before we I do. Um, so getting to the um park dedication. Yeah. Is that just for the building itself or are there is there separate park dedication for each of the
you know you're splitting out where the where the watershed district is or whatever the wetland wetland you're you're separating that you're making that be its own piece of property. Usually we have park dedication for each separate plat.
We're looking at that's a great question uh commissioner. We're looking at the 3.3 acres of the overall site. the overall year after that. So, we got Parkland dedication in phase two uh as as part of that project when they went through their subdivision and we're going to get Parkland dedication
for phase three. Um just the phase three part of the project because we've already gotten parkland dedication for the phase two and we can't double charge it. Remind me did phase two involve any cutting out of wetlands to make this work? No. In fact, the the phase two project
the plat was a very simple I'll call it. it was just the the building and um you've got the one parcel. And so maybe if I go way to the very beginning of my presentation, you can see how the parcel oops the parcel boundaries are drawn
today. So you've got a pretty clean split between the two sides. And what the developer is proposing to do is just split the go to the plan split the wetlands out from the second phase. Outlaw A and outlaw B.
Correct. Okay. Yep. It's a really convenient. Yep. And and we've talked about this internally as staff. You know, is this a concern? Um is there a concern with this this and ultimately we landed at there's not any real concerns with this approach?
Um because the Red Rock Square 2 building will still meet the standards it needs to meet on the parcel that's um going to remain. And the wetland will be on its own. It will not be developable property. It's an outlot. it'll be covered by an easement. And so, uh,
there's also no real maintenance required for storm or so, not for storm water, but for wetlands. So, long-term, that can kind of just be let to do its thing as a wetland. The DNR and Washington County, they're fine.
Yeah, it's not uncommon to have outlaws as part of subdivisions. Um, sometimes we'll also see storm water ponds as a separate outlot. In this case, that's it. It's not necessary. So, couple years ago when we were talking about all this, one of these
buildings might become or was going to become a like a senior citizen, there have age restrictions. Is that not happening anymore? That's a great question um and one that I might um ask the developer to respond
to. We did do a concept plan review. Uh you're recalling where we talked about two possibilities. One was that it's kind of this kind of outcome which is just kind of a general population multif family building and the other was an age
restricted um apartment building. But I I can't really speak to the um thought process that went into why they proposed this over the other. Okay. So right now as it sits this is not going to be an age restricted building. No age restrictions. It's open to anyone
who who can apply. That's all I had. I had a question also about the wetlands. Um, uh, is that so does the developer, uh, maintain that or is it just kind of like exist on its own or
Great question. I guess I don't know. What? Um, so technically the maintenance obligation will be on the property owner. Okay. So in this case, the city will not be taking the wetlands on and they'll be remain remain owned by the developer. Okay. Thanks.
Uh just long term, what types of management might you expect in a wetland? It's really not much. I mean, they're existing wetlands now, they're expected to stay in that form into perpetuity. Um, occasionally it's it's less likely when the
property's developed like there can be accumulation of sometimes like debris that has to get cleaned out, but that's typically that's the responsibility of the property owner. Okay. Thank you. And we've probably talked about it as a wet land, isn't it? It's not swamp. It's just it holds water.
Yeah, it's classified as a wetland. I can't tell you what classification it is, but it is certainly a wetland. Yeah, all my questions have to do with the wetland and how it's being tweaked to make this work. And why on building three, we're still
making concessions, but I digress there. Uh yeah, it seems like we're kind of far along on this one. The fascia, the fascia, parking, trees, and the easement were the the four and those are going to be in our
we uh approved this. They'll be brought up in the uh with requests obviously. So yeah, multi stone. Okay. And the stone and block that's that's just the overall look of the building
that doesn't support doing 50% or I guess. Yeah. We've got we've got design standards that have proven to be I think pretty challenging for everyone to meet across the board in the city, not just this one project. The first one of these. What was that? When did we do the first one of these? The Red Rock Square two or one? Yeah.
How many years ago was that? Two was I think two years ago. I think it was 2023 that it was the first one. Oh, the first one. The first one also didn't meet. Correct. Or the first one did meet the 50%. Um I would say the first one didn't meet the standards. But I I can't tell you exactly when it
I'm just trying to figure out how long we're along here where we're still not meeting standards and doing the same thing. Seems like over and over and over again when maybe we need to look at our stuff. That's exactly what we're doing right now. like I mean this is this is six years in the making and we're on the third one and we're still giving concessions on these.
I totally hear you actually. It's frustrating but no chair and members of the commission that is an excellent comment. I believe um staff have kind of taken to heart the issues we're having with the design standards. people are proposing materials that are acceptable in modern construction
and uh we're actually right now re-evaluating those um design standards to make sure that we communicate design standards appropriately to the development community but also have uh reasonable requirements as the city. So that's what we're looking at right now and certainly your your point's a good
one. I don't have any other question kind of makes sense. Yeah. Yeah, that one's going to be my next it was a hard question. I'm sorry but was getting a little pissed reading this stuff. Um, but chair, one thing I I would add is, you know, staff when we did look at the Red
Rock Square 2 project, um, it initially came in looking exactly like the first phase and I know there was and as you'll recall, um, revisions were required to make sure that it was more conforming. Yeah, it's a lot closer. One of those kick the can things that isn't always exciting to talk about over
and over again, but I'm good to any other discussion before the public hearing. No. Okay, we will open the public hearing for the Red Rock Square 3 uh at 557. If anybody has anything they want
to say, please come to the podium and state your name and address and we will hear what you have to say. I think we got developer, we got my do you have you want to come up and say anything? No. Okay. Just want to make sure you have an opportunity. I Marv,
you don't got anything to say? No. Okay. All right, we'll leave it open. Oh, it's been a minute, so go ahead and close it. Close the public hearing at 558. Any other discussion? Do we have any other I mean, we we could ask any questions, but I think I made my
frustration. I mean, I feel like this is a third iteration. Um, to me, the the buildings, they look good. um uniform. Um I don't have any additional comments.
Gosh, they're uniform. Maybe we had some other things to say about these 8% if they weren't all looking the same. Um I feel the same way. I mean, what else are we going to put in there? Something that looks completely different and doesn't fit and it follows
the comprehensive P plan. So, I don't love the concessions, but I understand it's on us. We're in and they're in. So, Right. Entertain a motion on the screen if anyone wants to go for it.
Um, I'll motion to move to recommend to city council approval of the preliminary and final plant and PUD subject to the findings and conditions of approval recommended by staff. Can I get a second? I'll second it.
All right. We've got uh one motion by Commissioner Monia and a second by Commissioner Kermes. All those in favor say I. I. All opposed. There's the vote. Okay. On to number
I think it's five now since we move moved them around. LTS communications flood plan conditional use permit. You want to get started? Uh thanks chair. We're going to have um Will on on my team uh present this review to you. This is a conditional use
permit request for the installation of fiber optic in the city's floodway district. And so Will's going to talk a little bit about the request and um and then we'll uh tee this up for your discussion. So I'm going to sit back and let Will and Madison help to answer these questions.
So I'm going to help Will get this presentation started. Wasn't sure how that worked. I was but questioning it. Mate, it was kind of interesting when they were talking about it. I was like, we're
just picking random leaves in a blank blue background. This is fantastic. At least they made the angles right. What? Oh, let's see. From Chernobyl. Could be a butterfly.
St. ballpark. [Music] You might want to just pull it out and then put it back in. That's what it just opened. Did that was that is that what supposed to do? My dad's always
and I don't this I connect a lot of times it'll give a pop right there. Well, yeah, that's what I click into but it just settings. Is this a city? Yeah, with a capital W
number. Oh, here it goes. There you go. All right. Do you want me to swap? Yep. All right. Thanks everyone for your patience. Okay. Good afternoon, chair and members of the commission. Um, I'd like to first
introduce myself. My name is Will Story. I'm an intern at Balden and Mink. So, I'm helping Nathan and Madison out here today. We'll be nice. Okay. Chair, if I may, this is uh this is also Will's very first planning commission. Be very nice.
So, I remember back in 1983 when I had my first planning commission. So, be nice. Yeah. Three. Wasn't even born yet. Geez. Well, good luck. All right. So, a brief agenda. Um, we're just going to overview the project.
My microphone a little closer. Yeah. Yeah. It's a Bob Barker microphone. So, I'm going to give a brief overview of the project. Um, the construction methods that are going to be used, uh, site plan review, uh, the conditional use permit itself, um, an example
motion, and then I'm going to open it up to questions for Madison and myself. and the uh the applicant is in attendance as well. So the project itself um will be approximately 2 mi of
telecommunications utility for the city of Newport. Um the section we're focused on here is approximately 750 ft. Um, and the reason for this conditional use permit is because it's located within
the city's flood plane, uh, in the floodway district specifically, um, and it's going to cross the Mississippi River. Uh, the construction methods being utilized are horizontal directional
drilling. You're probably wondering what that is. So, it's designed to um be min minimally invasive. Um basically, there will be two pits dug on either side of the
Mississippi River. Um there's not going to be any trenching in the Mississippi. Um very minimal ground disturbance. Um and these pits are going to be approximately 10 ft by 10 ft. um about
the size of a bedroom. Um and the drill path itself is located 15 feet below the riverbed. So there's not going to be any impact on water level flow or the river bed. Threads a needle underneath the river. Yes. It's just a big ditch witch. Right.
Correct. So you can see here this little blue square that is where the bore pit will be located for this section of the line. Um this red and blue
striped pattern is the floodway itself. Um and so you can see the line will extend across the Mississippi um from this bore pit to the other side of the river. Um so as far as the construction impact
goes um all of the disturbed areas will be seated and mulched. Uh there will be additional stabilization if need be. Uh the drilling itself will have no impact on the Mississippi River as I said. Um there has been a no rise
determination which confirms there won't be any change in flood plane water retention or drainage, no flooding issues. Um the construction area itself will be fully restored. Um
there's no tree removal required and um city staff has uh confirmed compliance with the code. So the code of ordinances contains a number of criteria for consideration
which we have summarized here. Um but staff have reviewed um these criteria and recommend approval. Um now the conditions of approval recommended by staff uh first of all a
right-of-way and utility permit um must be approved by the city of Newport. Second, a site review and permit uh must be approved by the South Washington WHED district. Um and three, uh the applicant must submit certification from a registered
engineer, architect, or surveyor confirming compliance with flood plane regulations. And finally, areas disturbed for installation must be restored to an acceptable condition per city standards and at the discretion of the superintendent of public works.
So, here is an example motion uh moving to approve um the conditional use permit. And with that, I will open it up to questions. Um like I said, Madison and myself are here for questions. The
applicant is in attendance and I will remind you that there is a public hearing for this item. Okay, first question. So because of where these come out, it needs a cup. Because of where these come out, is this fiber or is this coax? Fiber.
Fiber. So if where this comes out, is there a replicator or something going in there? Is that just how you're tying it in? This is just our only cross chair. Got it. If you're going to have comments, please have the applicant go to the D. Um what other um
with that said, why do they need a cup if it's on what technically their property? What is it on the on the uh refinery? That's storage tank facility. Is that where the that owns the property?
The cup itself is I believe because the line runs uh through the floodway district. Got it. Um under the river. Uh, I will add thank thanks Will and Joe. I will add that the the alignment of this fiber optic line will be actually in the
city's right of way. Got it. So, it won't be on any any individual property owner's land. It's in the city's right of way and it's, as Will mentioned, still subject to a right-of-way permit requirement as well. Okay. this fiber optic is coming in to bring
us communication or have you come up and we'll ask you just state your name. We know you're with my tech. Yeah. Uh my name is Conor McKinnon um with my services. We did the design on this project. Um go ahead with your question.
Yeah, I guess why don't you tell us why you're running this giant fiber optic under the river to us? Yes. So, in our review, uh this is a very limited crossing to get across this Mississippi. Um we've reviewed with the Army Corps of Engineers to avoid their
levies uh to the north here. Um we entertain an option probably 6 months ago uh to cross closer to 494 and the Army Corps advised us not to due to the levies. So, we didn't want to have any impact on that. Um, and this crossing
right here, um, is probably it's really the only crossing, okay, that the river kind of allows, uh, just due to the nature of where the levies are located along the river. Okay. And this is public broadband coming
across or what is it? Uh, it is a private uh, utility. Well, I think it's actually might be public broad or public. Okay. I know they're putting fiber optic in all over the rural areas and things like that. So, y I believe it's going to be used for um
multiple uses. So, there'll be different companies leasing from LTS to go on there to connect um okay, data centers, fiber the home, all sorts of stuff. It's the main thoroughare that they're building. It's the new coax. It's information traveling at the speed of light. I work
for Mazda, so I know you guys very well. um and all this stuff, but it's just it's the way of the future. And you're not going to run it over the river. Yeah. You've got to run it under um and you got to have a short distance between the banks. So, okay.
I don't see it overall affecting Yeah. I don't Newport a lot besides maybe getting more options and more connectivity. Yep. They might benefit from Well, is that a byproduct? I mean like that will have more connectivity or are we more more avenues coming into the city to carry
signals. So yeah. Who's funding this? Uh uh LTS communications. Okay. And the idea behind these companies like LTS communications is they put it in the ground. They put the infrastructure there and then they lease it at a
premium. And that's you know the same thing that Verizon and AT&T do. It's it's kind of how the future's going. the main construction aspect is the most yes um costly part of putting fiber optic around um and connecting everybody into
that is just the construction cost of it all because then you don't have to touch it until somebody touches it. Yep. You hope they hydrovac. Just out of curiosity, who who makes the decision regarding the actual river like that you could drill under?
Yeah. So that is um that gets reviewed by the Minnesota DNR. Um I know there's a few watershed districts that we've already went through got approval for. Um of course the Army Corps of Engineers with any kind of national waterway um
and with the levies being there they do their initial review believe we got signed off on that. So we're not having any any impact on that. Okay. So, if the if it's not going to impact anything, why does the Army Corps of
Engineer not want you to go through or under their levies? This this area it's not impacting. Um, I believe the east side levey just ends a couple hundred feet north of where we're crossing. Um, so that's kind of why we
have to review it with the Army Corps of Engineers. Um, prior to when we were looking at a different route going further north, we were un going under two levies and they advised not to do that just as a common practice not to disturb those areas.
What I found as part of that is kind of like the railroads. They don't want you anywhere near their stuff because if you touch it, it's going to cost them. But since the railroads are the exact same way, you get anywhere near their stuff and they got eyes on you at all times. Yep.
And north of north of the 494 bridge would be the the spillway and that'd be an even wider birth crossing. Correct. And how many feet below this the river bed are you going? 15. 15 is the minimum. Are you using 3GIS to track this to make
sure it is 15 all the way across? I believe there in prior river borings that we've done um that LTS has done is they use the um they have a spotter boat out there. Okay. Tracking it the whole time. The drill
head across and depending on how long it is, they might use two drills and then Oh, okay. Me in the middle. Me in the middle. That'll be interesting. But yeah, how deep is the river right there? Do you know? Um, I would have to review my
notes on that. I didn't bring All right, bring on the technology. Any other questions for applicant? Good. Okay, thank you so much for coming. Appreciate all your answers. Okay,
with that said, we'll uh go ahead and open the public hearing for the LTS communications flood plane conditional use permit at 6:15. Anybody want to say anything? Please come to the podium and state your name and your address. Okay, seeing no one, go ahead and uh
close the public hearing at 6 6:16. Any discussion? I will tell you based on the review of what I've seen in that uh CPU um or CUP is textbook as far as going
under the river. They would never go across the top of the river. They would never run it underneath the double bridge. Um it and wireless connectivity is severely limited by its range and its bandwidth. And so fiber offers you literally information at the speed of
light. And there's there's not many places you can go besides underground with it. You know, Newport famously, we're we're an old town, so all of our stuff's above we we have telephone poles and wires everywhere. But you go into a new town, it's all been ditched underground connecting everything. So
they don't have light poles and power lines above ground and stuff like that. So, I don't know, but um I'm open to mo the motion on the screen and actually I'll I'll I'll give the motion. Um but I'll motion to move
to recommend city council approve the LTS telecommunications conditional use permit as staff as proposed. Second. Second from Commissioner Mahmood. Uh all in favor say I. I. All opposed.
Motion is sent to council. Well done. It was a little bit node cardy, but we got through it. You'll get there. Um otherwise, uh if anybody else has anything, I'd be open to a motion to adjurnn.
Motion to adjurnn. Okay. Got one. I'll second that. All right. And I got two. I got two motions to adjurnn. All those in favor say I. I. Planning Commission is closed. Diamond done.
Yep.