[0:07] [music]

[0:31] All right, we'll call the meeting to

[0:32] order. On behalf of the planning

[0:33] commission, like to welcome our

[0:35] residents and viewers to this regular

[0:36] meeting of August 12th, 2026.

[0:39] On tonight's agenda, we just have one

[0:41] discussion item. Uh we'll get to that

[0:43] after one housekeeping item, which is

[0:45] the minutes from our July 14th, 2026

[0:49] regular meeting. Are there any additions

[0:51] or corrections to those minutes?

[0:54] If not, is there a motion?

[0:56] Motion.

[0:57] >> Have a motion for approval. Is there a

[0:59] » Have a motion for approval. Is there a

[0:59] second?

[0:59] >> Second.

[1:00] » Second.

[1:00] >> Motion and second. All in favor say I.

[1:02] » Motion and second. All in favor say I.

[1:02] I.

[1:03] >> Minutes are approved. We'll start our

[1:05] » Minutes are approved. We'll start our

[1:05] discussion item. This is a concept plan

[1:07] for the Sunrise North um addition. Tony,

[1:11] you're going to take this?

[1:12] >> I am. Let me get it pulled up here.

[1:20] There we go.

[1:22] Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair, commission

[1:25] members, uh we have a concept plan for

[1:28] what is uh at least right now called

[1:30] Sunrise North. Um Mr. Tim Giles

[1:33] submitted the the concept.

[1:35] Um the site is 3.48 acres. Um it's owned

[1:40] by P MKR Real Estate. Um and it's

[1:44] located directly north of the Sunrise

[1:46] Ponds development on the east side of

[1:48] town. um kind of at the juncture of

[1:51] Cambodia Avenue and 210th uh Street

[1:54] West.

[1:56] Uh the concept plan shows a total of 32

[1:58] town home units. Uh those would be four

[2:00] pods of eight units. Uh shows a gross

[2:03] density of 9.19 dwelling units per acre.

[2:06] Uh it does include the extension of 210

[2:09] Street West uh through the site. Uh, one

[2:12] thing to note is that right ofway 4,

[2:14] 210th Street was originally dedicated

[2:16] with the Sunrise Ponds Plat back in 2006

[2:20] and it runs that right of way runs

[2:22] parallel to the southern boundary of

[2:25] this site. So, in between the original

[2:28] development and this parcel, the road

[2:30] itself was never constructed being that

[2:32] it really didn't serve anything at that

[2:35] time, but we wanted to at least have the

[2:37] rightway preserved. Um with this uh

[2:41] concept plan, it shows the realignment

[2:43] of that road uh through the center part

[2:46] of this parcel. Um that realignment

[2:50] serves a couple purposes. Um it allows

[2:54] for um some more flexibility and usable

[2:57] space of the site. Um while also

[3:00] providing a buffer um to the res single

[3:04] family residents uh to the south as

[3:06] well. um so that those houses don't have

[3:10] double frontage on roads. Um the

[3:14] realignment would require vacation of a

[3:16] portion of the existing 210th Street

[3:18] right ofway. Um and it should also be

[3:21] noted that 210th Street would have to

[3:23] connect into Cambodia Avenue and Cameron

[3:25] Way um as well. So a portion of Cambodia

[3:29] Avenue right now is gravel um basically

[3:32] from the entrance of Sunrise Ponds

[3:34] north. uh that would have to be uh

[3:38] improved with Batuminous um if this were

[3:40] to move forward.

[3:42] Uh this just shows the concept plan. It

[3:45] shows uh 210th Street going through the

[3:47] center with town home units on either

[3:49] side of the road

[3:52] um with Cambodia again getting extended

[3:54] north and then uh extending into uh

[3:57] Cameron Way on the uh west side as well.

[4:03] Zoning. The property is currently zoned

[4:05] R2, which is our lowmedium density

[4:07] residential. Um, due to the town homes,

[4:11] uh, it should be reszoned to an R3,

[4:13] which is our medium density residential.

[4:16] Um, and also due to the, uh, density

[4:19] being, uh, nine units an acre. Uh, the

[4:23] R3 does allow for 12 to six dwelling

[4:25] units per acre.

[4:27] The comprehensive plan currently shows

[4:29] this as a lowmedium density residential.

[4:31] So it's in line with the current zoning.

[4:34] Um has a development time frame of 2030

[4:36] to 2040. And a lot of that just had to

[4:39] do with the develop how the site is.

[4:42] It's a very unique site. Um and it's a

[4:45] challenging site to develop. Um the

[4:48] property is located in the current Musa

[4:51] municipal urban service area. So um that

[4:54] does not have to be amended. Um but if

[4:57] the com if this process or this project

[4:59] were to move forward, there would need

[5:01] to be amendments um to change the land

[5:03] use designation to medium density

[5:04] residential and also to change the

[5:07] development time frame uh to 2020

[5:10] instead of keeping it in the 2030 2040

[5:12] time range.

[5:15] Uh the action requested tonight is just

[5:17] to discuss the concept plan. Um that's

[5:19] all it is concept and provide feedback

[5:22] to uh the property owners. Um Mr. Giles

[5:25] is not present. Apparently he is uh

[5:27] sick. Um but we do have the property

[5:29] owner here as well as their engineer. So

[5:32] >> all right. Thank you Tony. Uh Mr. Egan.

[5:36] » all right. Thank you Tony. Uh Mr. Egan.

[5:36] Uh Mr. Chris. I don't know why I didn't

[5:37] meet your last name.

[5:39] >> Chris Awig.

[5:40] » Chris Awig.

[5:40] >> Okay.

[5:42] » Okay.

[5:42] Do you have anything to add to Tony's

[5:43] report or anything you'd like to state

[5:45] to the commission? uh you know, Tony did

[5:48] a pretty good job on it. Um what we have

[5:51] is, you know, we're just trying to

[5:53] utilize this uh odd triangular piece and

[5:56] and uh working with staff. This is this

[5:59] is what we came up with. Um and we're

[6:02] eager to get going on it, but we

[6:04] definitely want your feedback before we

[6:06] do to

[6:07] >> make sure that

[6:08] » make sure that

[6:08] >> you're bringing it in. If you could stay

[6:09] » you're bringing it in. If you could stay

[6:09] available for questions. It's absolutely

[6:11] just a discussion item, so we're not

[6:13] quite as formal, but

[6:14] >> Sure.

[6:15] » Sure.

[6:15] >> you still have questions. Commissioner

[6:16] » you still have questions. Commissioner

[6:16] Berg.

[6:16] >> Sure.

[6:18] » Sure.

[6:18] >> Yeah. Thank you, Chair Rody. Uh, just a

[6:20] » Yeah. Thank you, Chair Rody. Uh, just a

[6:20] few questions more just for my

[6:23] understanding and anything. Tony, you

[6:25] mentioned Cameron Way. Is that the

[6:27] proposed name of the road that goes in

[6:29] in front of the the town homes there or

[6:31] which road is that referencing?

[6:35] >> Oh, it is. Okay.

[6:37] » Oh, it is. Okay.

[6:37] >> I think it's okay.

[6:41] » I think it's okay.

[6:41] >> Does it switch name?

[6:42] » Does it switch name?

[6:42] >> It switches north south.

[6:44] » It switches north south.

[6:44] >> Okay. Okay. That makes more.

[6:45] » Okay. Okay. That makes more.

[6:45] >> We have 212 as it comes in and then as

[6:47] » We have 212 as it comes in and then as

[6:47] it goes north it turns

[6:48] >> as it turns. Okay. Thank you for that

[6:50] » as it turns. Okay. Thank you for that

[6:50] clarification. Um so Tony I think you

[6:53] covered it. That portion of gravel would

[6:55] be matched with whatever road

[6:58] >> on Cambodia

[6:59] » on Cambodia

[6:59] >> on Cambodia there all the way up and

[7:01] » on Cambodia there all the way up and

[7:01] then as it turns east I assume it would

[7:03] turn back gravel.

[7:04] >> Correct.

[7:05] » Correct.

[7:05] >> Okay. Um and then the road that goes

[7:08] » Okay. Um and then the road that goes

[7:08] north as Cambodia continues would it

[7:11] terminate where that land terminates?

[7:14] where that development terminates on the

[7:15] north.

[7:15] >> Correct.

[7:16] » Correct.

[7:16] >> And also on the west s same question

[7:18] » And also on the west s same question

[7:18] that road would terminate at that pond.

[7:21] >> Correct.

[7:21] » Correct.

[7:21] >> Okay,

[7:22] » Okay,

[7:22] >> that helps. I just wanted to understand

[7:24] » that helps. I just wanted to understand

[7:24] what the plan was around the roads

[7:25] there.

[7:26] >> Um, second is around uh any sort of

[7:30] » Um, second is around uh any sort of

[7:30] thought or discussion around any sort of

[7:32] park. I I'm fairly familiar with that

[7:35] area. Is there any plan at this point to

[7:37] put any sort of park or uh public place

[7:41] for kids?

[7:42] >> No. Uh we did discuss this at our

[7:44] » No. Uh we did discuss this at our

[7:44] internal DRC meeting, development review

[7:47] committee meeting. Um Kelly, our park

[7:49] and recck director reviewed it. Um at

[7:52] this point, no, there would be any

[7:56] >> we wouldn't be looking to take park in

[7:58] » we wouldn't be looking to take park in

[7:58] this area. We take park dedication.

[8:00] Yeah. Um

[8:02] the

[8:03] park dedication

[8:05] um code got changed a couple years ago

[8:08] to where they're looking to do more

[8:11] >> larger communitywide parks. Um

[8:15] » larger communitywide parks. Um

[8:15] >> that are spaced out a little bit further

[8:18] » that are spaced out a little bit further

[8:18] just from a maintenance standpoint and

[8:19] things like that. That's why they did

[8:21] that.

[8:22] >> Um

[8:23] » Um

[8:23] >> and in this case, there's just not

[8:24] » and in this case, there's just not

[8:24] enough not enough land to do anything.

[8:28] >> Okay.

[8:29] » Okay.

[8:29] The the reason I'm specifically asking

[8:31] about park is because there's a really

[8:32] nice one to the north of this

[8:34] development, but it's on the other side

[8:35] of the water. Right.

[8:36] >> Right. So, that's why I was like, if

[8:38] » Right. So, that's why I was like, if

[8:38] you've got kids that are attracted to

[8:40] that park, um just making sure there was

[8:42] some thought there around

[8:44] >> Yeah. And there there is a small total

[8:49] in the Sunrise Ponds development south.

[8:52] >> Um just off the map here south.

[8:54] » Um just off the map here south.

[8:54] >> Okay.

[8:54] » Okay.

[8:54] >> But it is very small.

[8:56] » But it is very small.

[8:56] >> Okay. Um, and then it appears at least

[9:00] » Okay. Um, and then it appears at least

[9:00] from this drawing to the the west and

[9:02] then the south there's some out lots,

[9:04] some sort of triangular outlots here. Do

[9:06] we have a plan for what would be done

[9:08] with those? Is there any thought around

[9:10] if it's built as sort of mapped out

[9:13] here, what what would be done in those?

[9:14] >> I I don't believe potentially

[9:18] » I I don't believe potentially

[9:18] potentially storm water maybe if

[9:20] necessary.

[9:21] >> Okay. Um, I know there's been talk about

[9:24] » Okay. Um, I know there's been talk about

[9:24] expanding the existing ponds to

[9:26] accommodate the storm water

[9:27] requirements.

[9:28] >> Okay.

[9:29] » Okay.

[9:29] >> Um, but really it's just the uniqueness

[9:33] » Um, but really it's just the uniqueness

[9:33] of the the parcel itself. Um,

[9:37] >> it really doesn't lay out to, you know,

[9:39] » it really doesn't lay out to, you know,

[9:39] fill the entire piece.

[9:41] >> Yeah. And honestly, that's exactly what

[9:43] » Yeah. And honestly, that's exactly what

[9:43] I was asking, right? It you guys

[9:45] referencing, right? It's a unique piece

[9:47] of land. So, trying to understand what

[9:49] the plan was. Okay.

[9:50] >> Mr. Chris, is that accurate? The land to

[9:52] » Mr. Chris, is that accurate? The land to

[9:52] the west that there's a parcel, I'll

[9:55] call it. Tony, you can point to him or

[9:57] maybe he knows we're talking about.

[9:58] >> Tell me if I'm wrong, Tony, that I

[10:00] » Tell me if I'm wrong, Tony, that I

[10:00] believe the city owns some parcels right

[10:02] here.

[10:02] >> City owns parcels through here. Um, the

[10:05] » City owns parcels through here. Um, the

[10:05] city owns all of this. It was done as

[10:06] part of the Prairie Waterway back in the

[10:09] '9s.

[10:10] >> I was looking at the stuff to the right,

[10:13] » I was looking at the stuff to the right,

[10:13] I'll call it west, southwest.

[10:14] >> Yeah, that little one right here. Yeah.

[10:16] » Yeah, that little one right here. Yeah.

[10:16] >> Yeah. Is that accurate?

[10:18] » Yeah. Is that accurate?

[10:18] It would likely just be open space,

[10:21] >> right?

[10:21] » right?

[10:21] >> Nonbuildable there.

[10:23] » Nonbuildable there.

[10:23] >> Yeah.

[10:23] » Yeah.

[10:23] >> Okay.

[10:24] » Okay.

[10:24] >> Yeah, it gets to be too small to do

[10:26] » Yeah, it gets to be too small to do

[10:26] anything.

[10:26] >> All right. Okay. Okay.

[10:28] » All right. Okay. Okay.

[10:28] >> Gary. No, that's good for me.

[10:30] » Gary. No, that's good for me.

[10:30] Commissioner Rutherford.

[10:34] » Yeah. I got just a couple of questions,

[10:36] Tony. Was there ever any No, I assume

[10:39] the the rightway for the existing

[10:41] rightway is what runs right along those

[10:43] backyards on the north side of the

[10:45] current development. Yeah, that area.

[10:47] >> Yep. It's all that

[10:48] » Yep. It's all that

[10:48] >> and that lines up with 210th Street to

[10:51] » and that lines up with 210th Street to

[10:51] the east. Was there ever any plan for

[10:53] that to connect all the way to Highway

[10:55] 3?

[10:56] >> That was the intent. We actually have

[10:58] » That was the intent. We actually have

[10:58] easement through Mr. Regan's old bus

[11:00] garage property that's just to the west

[11:02] of

[11:03] >> Y

[11:04] » Y

[11:04] >> um to eventually make that connection.

[11:07] » um to eventually make that connection.

[11:07] >> Sure. And does this re would this

[11:11] » Sure. And does this re would this

[11:11] realignment have any negative impact on

[11:13] that future plan?

[11:15] >> No.

[11:16] » No.

[11:16] >> Okay. So engineering has taken a look at

[11:18] » Okay. So engineering has taken a look at

[11:18] this and they're okay with the

[11:19] engineering proposed realignment look at

[11:21] it. Um they've actually looked at

[11:24] designating as MSA route actually.

[11:26] >> Okay.

[11:28] » Okay.

[11:28] >> So

[11:29] » So

[11:29] >> uh and then one final question on the

[11:31] » uh and then one final question on the

[11:31] existing rightway if that's vacated who

[11:34] takes ownership of that then what what

[11:36] happens?

[11:36] >> Uh 50% goes to the north 50% goes to the

[11:40] » Uh 50% goes to the north 50% goes to the

[11:40] the south property line or property

[11:43] owners.

[11:43] >> Okay. All right. That's all I have for

[11:45] » Okay. All right. That's all I have for

[11:45] now. Thank you,

[11:46] >> Commissioner Lemire.

[11:49] » Commissioner Lemire.

[11:49] >> I took a stroll over by this property

[11:52] » I took a stroll over by this property

[11:52] here a little bit this evening and when

[11:54] I did I just the one thing that popped

[11:57] out at me was the um electrical lines.

[12:01] >> And so what sort of uh items would be a

[12:06] » And so what sort of uh items would be a

[12:06] hindrance for this conceptual plan in

[12:08] relation to those electrical lines and

[12:11] and

[12:11] >> right

[12:12] » right

[12:12] >> what goes through there at this point in

[12:14] » what goes through there at this point in

[12:14] time. Actually, that's one of the other

[12:16] reasons why the realignment of 212 went

[12:18] through because they would have had to

[12:21] um either relocate those lines or

[12:26] bury them or do some some other thing

[12:30] with those lines. And that is a very

[12:33] costly thing to do with those lines. Um

[12:35] to the point where, you know, even

[12:38] making this development work as is

[12:40] tight. Um, but then you throw that on to

[12:43] it, it just adds to that. Um,

[12:47] >> but it's still doable with where those

[12:49] » but it's still doable with where those

[12:49] lines are at at this point in time and

[12:51] what the development is looking like at

[12:52] this point.

[12:53] >> Right.

[12:56] » So, [snorts] is there actually going to

[12:57] be a road that can go through 210 then

[13:00] >> or to like from Highway 3 to 210

[13:05] » or to like from Highway 3 to 210

[13:05] or like will 210 go all the way to

[13:07] Highway 3 because of those lines? Not

[13:10] because of those lines, but just because

[13:12] of need for transportation connectivity

[13:14] through the area.

[13:15] >> But those lines won't be a hindrance for

[13:17] » But those lines won't be a hindrance for

[13:17] that road to be developed later on down

[13:20] the line.

[13:20] >> Shouldn't.

[13:21] » Shouldn't.

[13:21] >> Sorry. Okay.

[13:23] » Sorry. Okay.

[13:23] >> Um, is there a need to expand that 210th

[13:27] » Um, is there a need to expand that 210th

[13:27] all the way west to Highway 3 or can it

[13:30] come up Cambodia and have the entrances

[13:33] and exits through the current

[13:35] development and Cambodia?

[13:38] >> [clears throat]

[13:38] » [clears throat]

[13:38] >> Well, you don't need the connection to

[13:40] » Well, you don't need the connection to

[13:40] Highway 3 to develop this okay

[13:43] >> specific parcel. Um I think long term

[13:47] » specific parcel. Um I think long term

[13:47] the plan is to have it connect in. Um

[13:50] but yeah, you we're not saying that you

[13:53] need to have that connection with this

[13:56] specific development.

[13:58] >> Okay. So with the entrance um through

[14:01] » Okay. So with the entrance um through

[14:01] Cambodia,

[14:02] that would be sufficient enough at this

[14:04] point in time for the development to

[14:06] happen. Okay, that should be it for me.

[14:09] >> Yeah, there there would be multiple ways

[14:10] » Yeah, there there would be multiple ways

[14:10] in and out. You could have Cambodia and

[14:12] then you also have Cameron way to get in

[14:14] and out. So, you have your multiple

[14:16] accesses.

[14:18] >> All right, thank you Nate. And I'll ask

[14:20] » All right, thank you Nate. And I'll ask

[14:20] a few questions then I'll touch a little

[14:22] more on what Nate was getting at but and

[14:24] what others did too. But um and this

[14:26] might be a question for Chris or Pat or

[14:28] I would ask Tim this if he were here.

[14:30] Now Tony laid out several road projects

[14:33] that kind of he's right in your

[14:34] checkbook for you.

[14:37] Are is you as the property owner, Pat or

[14:40] Chris as the engineer,

[14:43] is is that going to fly with this

[14:45] project?

[14:46] >> I mean, there's some significant road to

[14:48] » I mean, there's some significant road to

[14:48] build here.

[14:49] >> Yeah. So, I assume you're talking about

[14:51] » Yeah. So, I assume you're talking about

[14:51] paving uh Cambodia.

[14:53] >> Paving Cambodia. And also the, you know,

[14:56] » Paving Cambodia. And also the, you know,

[14:56] the other stuff. Yeah.

[14:58] >> I mean, that's that's some significant

[14:59] » I mean, that's that's some significant

[14:59] roads.

[15:00] >> There's more.

[15:01] » There's more.

[15:01] >> Two10.

[15:02] » Two10.

[15:02] >> Two10th. Yeah.

[15:03] » Two10th. Yeah.

[15:03] >> Among others. I mean it's it's you got a

[15:06] » Among others. I mean it's it's you got a

[15:06] number of town houses here but yeah

[15:08] >> I mean you got some road construction to

[15:09] » I mean you got some road construction to

[15:09] do. Are you okay with that?

[15:11] >> Are you okay with this question?

[15:13] » Are you okay with this question?

[15:13] [clears throat and laughter]

[15:14] >> Then I'll get into the reason why in a

[15:16] » Then I'll get into the reason why in a

[15:16] little bit and explain to the

[15:18] commission.

[15:18] >> It's a good question. I have the same

[15:20] » It's a good question. I have the same

[15:20] question.

[15:20] >> Okay.

[15:21] » Okay.

[15:21] >> Uh and I wanted to react if I could. Um

[15:25] » Uh and I wanted to react if I could. Um

[15:26] the road termination points of the new

[15:28] 210th if you could call it that. this

[15:30] relocated 210th and the and Cambodia.

[15:35] Uh, as as I stand here now, I think

[15:39] we're going to want to try to minimize

[15:40] the length of those roads on I don't

[15:44] know how I point, but uh

[15:47] >> on the on the west end here, I don't

[15:51] » on the on the west end here, I don't

[15:51] envision that we would want to put a

[15:53] road next to the neighbor's sideyard. I

[15:56] think we'd want to connect directly to

[15:58] Cambodia and just make it kind of

[16:01] >> Cameron way. I'm sorry.

[16:02] » Cameron way. I'm sorry.

[16:02] >> So maybe end it like right here.

[16:04] » So maybe end it like right here.

[16:04] >> Yeah. And just just connect here. Those

[16:06] » Yeah. And just just connect here. Those

[16:06] those power poles are they're a main

[16:10] line from Great River Energy. We've been

[16:12] involved in this area in with wearing

[16:16] multiple hats for 25 30 years now. And

[16:20] the same question I have is what Mr.

[16:24] Rod's asking. What would be the the

[16:27] final condition on the east end at

[16:29] Cambodia and the new 210th? In in my

[16:33] view, we would just connect them and

[16:36] maybe extend long enough to do a

[16:38] turnaround. I don't think we would be

[16:41] interested in building a culde-sac or

[16:43] anything like that because emergency

[16:45] vehicles would be able to connect and

[16:47] make a loop through the the new 210th

[16:52] Street. the history here. Uh,

[16:56] I bought the property to the east of to

[16:59] the west of here where the bus terminal

[17:01] is was and where it was the Dakota

[17:06] electric pole yard prior to that and

[17:09] there was a a railroad right away that

[17:12] went through there and then I

[17:16] um needed more land and there was a very

[17:19] large multi- uh single family

[17:22] development that was going to take up

[17:25] a few hundred acres and a few hundred

[17:27] homes to the east of us that was being

[17:31] proposed by one of these big developers

[17:33] during the the boom in the '9s. And so

[17:36] the city and I made an agreement to

[17:40] allow for an easement to create that

[17:42] 210th Street connection from from

[17:45] Highway 3 all the way to the east end of

[17:48] my property that the bus terminal was

[17:50] involved in. And the question about

[17:55] 210th Street uh was always there for me

[17:59] in the future because these this big

[18:01] development that never occurred was the

[18:04] driving force. So in that easement

[18:06] agreement that we have with the city, I

[18:10] traded the easement and the city gave me

[18:13] the lot over in the in the uh new

[18:15] Farmington Industrial Park that is now

[18:19] uh I developed it. I moved a building

[18:21] over there. We had buses parked there

[18:23] and I've since sold it to another user.

[18:26] Um

[18:28] that's on

[18:30] 208th Street I think.

[18:32] >> Yeah.

[18:33] » Yeah.

[18:33] >> And uh so we were able to expand our

[18:37] » And uh so we were able to expand our

[18:37] operation. The city got the easement.

[18:40] Part of that agreement provides that uh

[18:45] this property I retained

[18:48] does not would not be subject to any

[18:51] assessment if a road is ever built. And

[18:53] it's such a long stretch. I think it's

[18:57] would that be 1,800 ft? I think it's a

[19:01] from here to here. It's it's a long long

[19:05] road and uh would never be economically

[19:08] feasible for our property because of

[19:10] this triangular shape that was formed by

[19:13] the railroad originally. The same thing

[19:16] applies on this

[19:19] small parcel that we got we were

[19:22] involved in the Sunrise Ponds

[19:25] development when that was built and then

[19:27] Mr. Giles and then it then it got hit

[19:30] hard in the downturn. We foreclosed on

[19:32] the property. That's I'm wearing my

[19:35] banker's hat now when I'm talking about

[19:36] that. And those were tough times and I

[19:42] along with the bank and Mr. Giles came

[19:44] in and and were able to replplat this

[19:47] part of Sunrise, the the part of the

[19:50] Sunrise Ponds that's existing and but we

[19:53] couldn't come to an agreement on what to

[19:55] do with uh with this parcel we're

[19:57] looking at today and because of the

[20:00] 210th Street

[20:03] uh condition was just too much to invest

[20:07] on such small lots if they were going to

[20:09] be single family. So the the ability to

[20:12] relocate

[20:13] 210th Street and it's a 50- foot Yep.

[20:16] >> right away makes this at at all

[20:20] » right away makes this at at all

[20:20] financially feasible. And the fact that

[20:22] we can get 32 units in here, there are a

[20:27] lot of other similar products in the

[20:30] market nearby that we've tried to

[20:32] emulate here that have been built by

[20:34] multiple builders and developers. So,

[20:37] and we've got the waterfront which we

[20:39] think is going to be an attraction. So,

[20:42] uh,

[20:44] long answer to your short but pertinent

[20:47] question about does this work

[20:49] financially. We think it does under this

[20:51] relocated road design. There

[20:54] [clears throat] was an earlier question

[20:55] if I could respond to the idea of the

[20:59] vacation of the existing 210 street

[21:02] rightway. I think that's an open

[21:05] question. There is you can see a trail

[21:08] there was the base of that road was

[21:10] installed because there are some

[21:11] utilities in that line also. So I think

[21:16] it's worthy of further study and

[21:18] consideration. The basically the the

[21:21] base for the bike trail if you wanted

[21:23] one is there and who owns it. The city

[21:27] could take an easement or take ownership

[21:29] of a

[21:31] >> or you could just leave it as right of

[21:32] » or you could just leave it as right of

[21:32] way. We could leave leave it as right of

[21:35] >> An option.

[21:35] » An option.

[21:35] >> You can see in the photos the neighbors

[21:37] » You can see in the photos the neighbors

[21:37] are using part of the the the 210 street

[21:42] right ofway which is natural. There's

[21:43] nothing else going on back there and it

[21:45] hasn't bothered us. It's not our right

[21:47] away.

[21:49] Um but there's there is enough extra

[21:52] space between the right of way and these

[21:55] little pockets for for drainage or if we

[21:58] wanted to plant a grove of trees and

[22:00] that kind of thing. I I think it would

[22:02] fit in well. And I was going to refer to

[22:04] the little tot lot that was part of that

[22:07] Sunrise Ponds. It's just off of the map

[22:09] on the on the corner.

[22:11] >> Okay.

[22:12] » Okay.

[22:12] >> Um

[22:14] » Um

[22:14] so we'd have to be thoughtful about this

[22:17] the final road design and if we start

[22:20] stretching out the road, it could end up

[22:22] being a a problem for the for the uh

[22:27] the development and the power poles. We

[22:30] did investigate the cost to relocate or

[22:34] bury those. They're are they 150 ft

[22:37] high? They're they're

[22:40] >> transmission. They're It wouldn't be

[22:42] » transmission. They're It wouldn't be

[22:42] >> many many many many hundreds of thousand

[22:44] » many many many many hundreds of thousand

[22:44] dollars.

[22:44] >> It wouldn't be cheap for you. So,

[22:45] » It wouldn't be cheap for you. So,

[22:46] >> so it wasn't

[22:47] » so it wasn't

[22:47] >> okay

[22:47] » okay

[22:47] >> feasible.

[22:49] » feasible.

[22:49] >> Well, thanks Pat.

[22:49] » Well, thanks Pat.

[22:50] >> Any other questions? No, I just want to

[22:51] » Any other questions? No, I just want to

[22:51] follow up then to Nate and uh what's

[22:53] going on and and as we go through our

[22:55] comp plan, we'll do a transportation

[22:57] section and things like this row and

[22:59] stuff will be shown and and discussed

[23:01] further and why and then what I wanted

[23:05] you alluded to it and and why I brought

[23:07] it up and wanted to ask cost first is

[23:12] is we don't want to leave roads to be

[23:14] built by our taxpayers. you know, if

[23:16] there's a development that's going on,

[23:17] and you guys understand as you've been

[23:18] in this business, um, one time in my

[23:21] career, years and years ago, 30 some

[23:24] years ago, we didn't make a developer do

[23:26] it, and then the next one came back, and

[23:28] then he he or she or they had to in

[23:32] essence pay for it or find means to pay

[23:36] for it. and and so we do in this

[23:38] community and others too, I'm sure Chris

[23:40] you've been working with them kind of

[23:41] require as a development goes they they

[23:43] pay for the roads. Um and that's why I

[23:47] thought it was pertinent. I just want to

[23:48] let the other commissioners know why why

[23:50] we're doing it rather than letting our

[23:51] taxpayers foot the bill for, you know,

[23:54] the road that's going in front of

[23:55] somebody else's. Yeah. When it comes to

[23:56] maintenance in the future, everybody

[23:58] contributes to road maintenance, but new

[24:00] construction is that of the developer.

[24:03] So, I just had a few others. Um

[24:06] Tony um you know this you listed all the

[24:08] different things comp plan um reszone uh

[24:12] land use time frame as we're working

[24:15] through a comp plan. Can this be tied

[24:17] into it or are you thinking this is

[24:19] something that um is going to be an

[24:22] exception too or what what are your

[24:23] thoughts on that?

[24:24] >> It certainly could be tied into that um

[24:27] » It certainly could be tied into that um

[24:28] you know obviously the comprehensive

[24:29] plan um takes a a number of years. Uh

[24:34] we're looking probably a year and a half

[24:35] out um for that to be approved. Um you

[24:40] know, I know we've had this conversation

[24:42] on a number of different parcels.

[24:45] >> Um

[24:48] it could be tied to that or, you know,

[24:51] we certainly could um or they could

[24:54] apply and at that point we'd have to

[24:57] make a decision one way or the other.

[24:58] >> Yeah.

[24:59] » Yeah.

[24:59] >> Um at that time.

[25:00] » Um at that time.

[25:00] >> Sure. and and you know, you're going to

[25:02] » Sure. and and you know, you're going to

[25:02] have a lot of discussions. Pat brought

[25:03] up some great questions that I think

[25:05] still need to be talked discussed with

[25:08] staff. Um things that the commission

[25:11] doesn't decide. Uh Pat, um things that

[25:15] you know, the staff will bring a

[25:16] recommendation. Most likely a lot of

[25:18] that would be finalized with our city

[25:20] council.

[25:21] >> Sure.

[25:21] » Sure.

[25:21] >> But you know, we certainly uh will see

[25:23] » But you know, we certainly uh will see

[25:23] it in the future if it does come. And

[25:25] the last thing I wanted to mention and

[25:27] and I say this as much for the

[25:29] commission but is developers certainly

[25:31] know this but when we have two different

[25:33] zoning districts

[25:35] we always like a buffer. Um you know 50

[25:38] foot road right away with the road in

[25:40] there to me I I I think would suffice as

[25:44] a buffer. Um I think that Tony you

[25:46] alluded to that in there. Maybe you

[25:47] didn't say it, but I think that's why

[25:49] you said there's a road in between,

[25:50] >> right?

[25:51] » right?

[25:51] >> Single family and the multi

[25:53] » Single family and the multi

[25:53] >> and the actual right ofway for 210

[25:55] » and the actual right ofway for 210

[25:55] that's in between. Um I believe that's

[25:57] either an 80 I think it's an 80 foot 80.

[26:00] Okay.

[26:00] >> So it's it's it's a 70

[26:04] » So it's it's it's a 70

[26:04] >> 70. Okay. It's either 70 or 80.

[26:06] » 70. Okay. It's either 70 or 80.

[26:06] >> All right.

[26:07] » All right.

[26:07] >> So it's a substantial right.

[26:08] » So it's a substantial right.

[26:08] >> Yeah. And but I just want to make known

[26:10] » Yeah. And but I just want to make known

[26:10] then for the the newer commissioners

[26:13] that you know we always do look for some

[26:14] kind of buffer. If this was backyard to

[26:17] backyard, we'd say, "Hey, let's think

[26:18] about this a little more." But when you

[26:20] got, you know, 70 80 feet in there, are

[26:23] you guys okay with that as a buffer

[26:25] transit? I I call it a buffer some

[26:27] transition maybe a better term. But uh

[26:30] so that you know you don't because you

[26:33] know I don't know these people that

[26:34] bought these lots you know when they did

[26:36] at their backyard what you know they

[26:37] were backing up to what they assumed

[26:39] would be single family not and I don't

[26:42] know if town houses are are any

[26:44] different but you know that's just what

[26:46] their assumption was when they bought

[26:47] the lot with the house. So

[26:50] >> that's why I mentioned that I really

[26:52] » that's why I mentioned that I really

[26:52] don't have an issue you know I think

[26:53] it's a fine use for the piece of

[26:55] property. Um I think you can make it

[26:57] work if you can do it financially.

[26:59] That's why I brought that up. But that's

[27:01] not my job. It's your job to to, you

[27:04] know, crunch the numbers on that and

[27:05] work with staff. Work with Tony. He'll

[27:07] direct you to the right people in and

[27:09] the city to to talk with and deal with.

[27:13] So, I actually I kind of like the

[27:15] concept. It's it's a useful piece of

[27:17] land. Somebody mentioned the frontage of

[27:19] the water. I think I think that would if

[27:21] you sight them right, I think that'd be

[27:23] a great amenity for some of those uh you

[27:27] know, the back ones. I really do.

[27:29] >> We think so, too.

[27:31] » We think so, too.

[27:31] >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that it would be

[27:33] » Yeah. Yeah. I think that it would be

[27:33] nice lots there. So,

[27:36] >> I don't have anything else. Tony, how

[27:37] » I don't have anything else. Tony, how

[27:37] about you?

[27:38] >> No. Um,

[27:39] » No. Um,

[27:39] >> okay.

[27:40] » okay.

[27:40] >> At this time,

[27:41] » At this time,

[27:41] >> I'd like to add that it's our intention

[27:43] » I'd like to add that it's our intention

[27:43] if we have to go through the cup

[27:44] amendment, we would make that

[27:46] application as soon as we feel confident

[27:49] we can go ahead and a year and a half

[27:51] wouldn't wouldn't work.

[27:53] >> That's why I asked that's why I asked

[27:55] » That's why I asked that's why I asked

[27:55] Tony that same question. I I didn't know

[27:57] your timing, but now you've told us your

[27:58] timing.

[27:59] >> Yeah, we if we have to put in the that

[28:01] » Yeah, we if we have to put in the that

[28:01] application to get that amendment to

[28:04] this land, we do have plans we're

[28:06] working on for the bus terminal property

[28:09] also.

[28:09] >> Okay.

[28:10] » Okay.

[28:10] >> That's impacted by the the big uh um by

[28:14] » That's impacted by the the big uh um by

[28:14] the same road right away and the staff's

[28:16] been flexible and open to some ideas on

[28:19] the width of that easement and that kind

[28:21] of thing. We're talking about garage

[28:22] condos probably because of the the big

[28:25] uh warehouse to the south of us and uh

[28:29] we don't think it's going to work very

[28:31] well for residential because of that.

[28:33] That's a so it's but it is a nice

[28:36] transition. We've got the the holiday to

[28:38] the north.

[28:39] >> You know, Pat, if you were talking 160

[28:41] » You know, Pat, if you were talking 160

[28:41] acres and I've been pretty vocal on

[28:42] this, I'd say, you know, then then I'd

[28:46] ask you, can you wait? But you're not

[28:48] talking 160 acres. you're talking the

[28:50] smaller concept plan here.

[28:52] >> Um,

[28:53] » Um,

[28:53] I think it's doable. I think I don't

[28:55] know what other you'd use the land for.

[28:56] I mean, if you came in with a different

[28:58] use, maybe we'd have a different

[29:00] question, but this this would work here.

[29:03] I believe I don't, you know, I leave it

[29:05] up to the other commissioners if they

[29:06] don't agree. But, um, I think our city

[29:09] council, you know, would think it's a

[29:11] nice addition to the area, but that's up

[29:14] to them, not to me. I think it makes

[29:16] good use of the the regional pond that

[29:18] was built there since we owned the

[29:20] property that we can turn it into an

[29:23] amenity. These aren't these are going to

[29:24] be houses that'll that'll fit a broad

[29:27] economic market. They'll be available to

[29:30] a lot of people. I don't want to use

[29:32] >> certain words that means certain things

[29:34] » certain words that means certain things

[29:34] to other people, but they're these are

[29:36] going to be houses that a lot of people

[29:38] should be able to be interested in and

[29:40] it be affordable and and uh but

[29:44] and again, we did look at other projects

[29:47] in

[29:49] other other communities nearby and and

[29:51] tried to model those. They look like

[29:53] they're they're moving pretty well and

[29:55] uh so

[29:57] we want to

[29:59] get it done. We've had it long enough.

[30:00] We've got to make make something happen

[30:03] here. So, we appreciate it.

[30:05] >> We got everybody involved. Did you have

[30:06] » We got everybody involved. Did you have

[30:06] anything to add?

[30:08] >> Nothing. All right. All right. Anything

[30:10] » Nothing. All right. All right. Anything

[30:10] else from staff? You got Do you guys

[30:12] have enough Pat? Chris, you have enough

[30:14] to go on from here? Deal with Tony. Not

[30:16] [laughter]

[30:18] >> this has been helpful. Thank you.

[30:19] » this has been helpful. Thank you.

[30:19] >> All right. Yeah, I got a lot of good

[30:20] » All right. Yeah, I got a lot of good

[30:20] questions, I thought, from the

[30:21] commission. They they did a nice job.

[30:24] >> All right, Tony. Anything else,

[30:26] » All right, Tony. Anything else,

[30:26] >> uh, not on this? No.

[30:28] » uh, not on this? No.

[30:28] >> All right. Do you have anything else?

[30:29] » All right. Do you have anything else?

[30:29] >> I was just going to mention our uh

[30:31] » I was just going to mention our uh

[30:31] meeting in uh September will also be uh

[30:35] on Wednesday as well. Um just so you're

[30:40] aware um due to uh the holiday and then

[30:44] the city council meeting being pushed to

[30:46] the Tuesday where we would typically

[30:48] have our meeting. So just wanted to make

[30:51] you aware of that again. So

[30:52] >> perfect. And I'll just remind them our

[30:54] » perfect. And I'll just remind them our

[30:54] next regular meeting is September 9th

[30:55] and it is a Wednesday and Tony will do a

[30:58] nice job of emailing us and reminding us

[31:00] so nobody absolutely Wednesday night. If

[31:02] you are you can sit through the council

[31:03] meeting [laughter] with that I'd look

[31:05] for a motion to adjurnn.

[31:07] >> A motion.

[31:08] » A motion.

[31:08] >> We have a motion. Is there a second?

[31:09] » We have a motion. Is there a second?

[31:09] >> Second.

[31:09] » Second.

[31:10] >> Motion a second. All in favor say I.

[31:12] » Motion a second. All in favor say I.

[31:12] >> I.

[31:12] » I.

[31:12] >> We're officially adjourned. Thank you

[31:13] » We're officially adjourned. Thank you

[31:13] everybody.

[31:24] » [music]

Planning Commission - Aug 12 2026

Transcript