[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] All right. Good evening, everyone. I call the September 24th Planning Commission in order, maximum call roll.
[0:09] Andrew, sir?
[0:10] Sir?
[0:10] Here.
[0:11] Fade, Dranger.
[0:14] Client?
[0:14] Quisler?
[0:15] Nelson?
[0:16] Hey.
[0:17] Here.
[0:18] Thank you.
[0:18] We join me for the pledge of allegiance.
[0:22] I pledge allegiance to the flag.
[0:24] Good night.
[0:25] Thank you.
[0:25] Thank you.
[0:28] I'm going to ask you.
[0:33] Can
[0:36] we get a approval for the minutes of August 27th?
[0:40] That seems like months ago?
[0:41] I'll make a motion to the men's room.
[0:43] It's 20 seconds.
[0:44] Second.
[0:45] All in favor?
[0:47] All opposed?
[0:49] All motion cares.
[0:51] All right.
[0:51] We got a public here tonight from TCLD land holdings.
[0:55] I think Max got the show.
[0:57] Yeah.
[0:58] Thank you.
[0:58] Mr. Acting Chair.
[0:59] Members of the Planning Commission.
[1:00] So tonight we have request for a preliminary flat
[1:03] and a planning development for a development called Bering and Shores.
[1:07] This is general location in the community where it's located.
[1:10] It's off of Onika Lake Boulevard and just south of Onika Lake itself.
[1:16] And I've got an aerial view of the property here.
[1:18] It's a 67.4 acre property.
[1:22] And it is relatively on the eastern edge of the developed area of the community.
[1:27] We'll have a look here.
[1:29] So the property is 67.4 acres in size.
[1:32] Approximately 35 and a half.
[1:34] So that is buildable.
[1:36] It's currently his own future urban service.
[1:38] And the land use that's guided in the 2040 comprehensive plan is very low density, which guides for a development density of one unit per net acre.
[1:48] This is at the eastern edge of the Metropolitan Urban Service area, which is the area of the community that's eligible for municipal sewer water services.
[1:56] And then this is also in the shoreland overlay district for a nuclear lake.
[2:01] So, the developer is requesting approval over preliminary quiet and the use E to construct
[2:06] 35 single-family watts because there are about 35 billable acres on this property that would
[2:12] give it a net density of one unit per acre, and in addition, there are before outlots dedicated
[2:17] with this block.
[2:21] So, here's a bit of an overview of the proposed development, so the properties greatly large
[2:27] spanning both sides of a nickelate boulevard, the development area, itself, and most of the
[2:32] area on the property is west of the road. And so the 35 lots are arranged kind of
[2:39] clustered on this north west side of the property. There are two streets shown on here
[2:44] in the longer one right now is labeled as street A, and then there's a shorter one
[2:47] connecting it to the main road. It's called street B. This one obviously has regular street
[2:52] greens at some point in the view. A couple of things to note on this plan, so the developer is
[2:58] is showing a few trails up towards the north end of the development.
[3:03] There's a proposed gravel trail that would come along the shore of Unica Lake.
[3:08] This is sort of filling the space between a lake shore and some of the lots.
[3:13] There would also be a paved trail along Unica Lake Boulevard.
[3:18] Both of these trails are shown in the comprehensive plan on the future trails plan.
[3:22] And so the development would be implementing that portion of the comprehensive plan.
[3:26] And then the developer is also showing a sidewalk along a street A that would connect both of these trails.
[3:34] So just a little look at the land use plan that's in the 2040 comprehensive plan.
[3:40] I want to get everybody oriented here.
[3:43] The thick black line that you see kind of running through a legal lake and around this property.
[3:48] That is the metropolitan urban service area boundary.
[3:51] So this shows the area of the community that is eligible for steering water services.
[3:56] and the comprehensive plan would expect to develop at some point.
[4:00] And so this property is like a little bit lucky that
[4:02] the properties immediately to the west of it
[4:04] are also guided very low density,
[4:06] so expecting a density one need a per acre.
[4:09] And the properties for the east are guided at the control.
[4:14] And so the developers requesting a PUNE,
[4:16] which allows them some flexibility
[4:18] from the zombie war in its regulations,
[4:20] but that would be an exchange for a higher quality
[4:23] and more sensitive proposal than you typically see
[4:26] with what the zoning code allows by rights.
[4:29] And in order to approve a VED to develop,
[4:31] it needs to demonstrate that they meet certain criteria
[4:34] that are able to use that for VED.
[4:37] So staff looked at that VED request against those criteria,
[4:40] and then also referenced the large,
[4:42] large, large, single-peppy zoning district,
[4:44] which is abbreviated as R1.
[4:46] That zoning district is essentially aligned
[4:49] with the very low density land use designation,
[4:52] and it's meant to implement that one unit per unit density.
[4:55] So the developers are questing the following days.
[5:00] For the most part, these meet the requirements that are in the zoning district, but they're asking for a smaller minimum lot size. Smallest minimum, smallest minimum, smallest lot that they have proposed is 15,000 square feet, where normally one acre would be required.
[5:16] This isn't quite bold enough here, but they're also asking for a minimum lot with about 100 feet.
[5:22] where 50 E is usually required, and they're also asking for a minute from the art set back
[5:27] of 25 feet or 30 E is usually required.
[5:32] In addition, because they're in the Stormland District for Omega Lake, the developers
[5:38] requesting some flexibility from those regulations, mainly with the lot size as well, and
[5:44] they're also requesting some flexibility from the 25% and purpose service coverage requirements
[5:50] That's part of the short-lived district.
[5:54] The individual lots may have an impervious service coverage up to 35% which is allowed in the zoning code.
[6:01] But overall throughout the entire site, the development would have an impervious service coverage less than 25%.
[6:08] So the entire development needs the short-lived goals.
[6:12] So in addition to the request of flexibility, the developers proposing some amenities that, you know,
[6:18] see the organ standards and provide a higher quality element.
[6:22] So they're showing a sidewalk connecting the trail in the lake
[6:26] and trail on a decolake boulevard along their proposed street
[6:29] A. This is an additional proposal because the zoning code
[6:34] requires sidewalks. Lots up to eight feet in width.
[6:38] And since these are wider, most technically are required
[6:41] to have sidewalks along their streets.
[6:44] The developers showing the clustering of lots
[6:47] towards that northwest corner of the property, which maintains a lot of open space throughout
[6:51] the rest of the site, and then with these being fairly large or lots that would generally
[6:55] be, support open space in the neighborhood, but then throughout the whole site there's still
[7:00] a lot of open space maintained.
[7:03] The lots are pulled back from the lake shore in some ways,
[7:06] and that trail being shown along the lake shore to keep the lake shore public. This creates a
[7:11] very different field on the lake shore than we might expect where lots are built right up to the
[7:17] or in their docks extending into a lake.
[7:20] The landscape plan exceeds ordinance standards.
[7:22] We're going to do that in a little bit.
[7:24] And then also the developers
[7:25] were closing to irrigate the development with stormwater.
[7:30] And so staff reviewed the PD request
[7:31] for consistency with the criteria of approval.
[7:35] And generally staff is comfortable with the flexibility
[7:37] that the developers asking for a couple of recommendations
[7:40] for changes.
[7:42] And so in the happen-consnerative, they were
[7:45] and lots of 14,000 square feet, but the actual smallest lot that's shown on their plan is 15,000 square feet,
[7:53] and so staff is recommending that the minimum lot size that's approved reflects what's actually shown in the development.
[8:00] And staff is also recommending that in additional sidewalk along the street B would be implemented,
[8:07] so that there's more of a loop for pedestrians to take the development that's entirely in the site.
[8:15] And the DNR is required to review shortland PUE requests,
[8:19] and so the developer did a shortland PUE analysis
[8:23] that met what the DNR is looking for.
[8:26] And on August 28th, the city received a letter from the DNR
[8:29] through being with the PUE request from their standpoint.
[8:35] Just a little bit more information about the project.
[8:38] So the development is going to receive access
[8:40] from a legal aid full of art, and we don't have some internal public streets.
[8:44] The development does meet all of the parking requirements for single-family homes, single-family
[8:48] homes are required, for probably at least two off-site parking spaces.
[8:53] The developers indicated that a future model inside would be installed at the entrance to
[8:57] the development, so it will be responsible for applying for a site for a minute at that
[9:01] time.
[9:02] And the developers also indicated that an HOA would be formed here, they would be responsible
[9:07] for the maintenance of the monument side and some of the landscaping around the monument
[9:11] sign, some cluster mailboxes, the weapon development, and then the HOA would also maintain
[9:16] the stormwater use system on the turn.
[9:20] The landscape plan exceeds ornament standards in a number of ways, and so for single family
[9:26] homes, the verifiers that at least two are restoring the situous shade trees be plants in
[9:32] each front yard, so they are showing that on all of their lots, but then additional trees
[9:38] are planted in a number of yards, particularly backhairs that face each other, and backhairs
[9:45] that are about neighboring properties that they're still screening between those neighboring
[9:49] properties.
[9:50] Properties that face the road in the properties that face the storm line pond also have some
[9:55] additional landscaping there for screening.
[10:00] A little bit small, but I just wanted to give the planning commission an idea of what that Wednesday's plan may look like, so you can see a lot of the trees around various critters of the developments that will provide some additional screening and a buffer from neighbors.
[10:17] So as for a grading and stormwater management, the sites proposed to be graded in one phase, it's also proposed to be constructed in one phase of the developer hasn't been asked before, facing plan.
[10:28] The developer will be responsible for obtaining a stormwater permit by analyzing stormwater
[10:34] plans with the city engineering staff.
[10:36] And then outlock C, which is on the west side of the road, is where the proposed stormwater
[10:42] reuse system would drop from.
[10:44] And then this is just another look at the grading plan for the site.
[10:49] And so you can see that upon the west side of the road there, it would be the primary
[10:53] on user store management and where the store model we use system would draw from.
[10:58] On the east side of the road, the developer showing another pond that essentially be done for
[11:02] a bar area or soil that's needed on the site.
[11:06] And then there would also be used for a store model management as well.
[11:11] Utilies to the site.
[11:13] So there's no sewer water at the site right now.
[11:16] It is nearby over on green avenue to the west,
[11:19] But there are some properties in between, and so the developers going to be responsible for obtaining
[11:24] an easement from a connecting property owner.
[11:28] And then also, a lift station doesn't need to be built at this site to serve the sewer system
[11:33] in here.
[11:34] And so they're showing a lift station at the south of us for the property.
[11:38] So, this is just to give plenty of commission an idea of where those utilities are right now.
[11:41] You can see that there's sewer water lines running through green avenue, and the developers
[11:46] proposing to connect to be an easement on the south edge of that property, on the north side
[11:52] of Wynucleic Boulevard to bring utilities to the site, then here's just a closer look of
[11:57] how that utility extension may look with an easement area. This is the road, and then the proposed
[12:04] listation there at the south-east corner of the property.
[12:09] To satisfy the part dedication requirement,
[12:11] the developers proposing to pay the fee, which is $3,400 for lots, or a nice $19,000.
[12:18] The Harks Commission did review this request that there's September 16th meeting, and
[12:23] did recommend approval of that request.
[12:28] As we mentioned, the developers proposing some trails.
[12:31] The gravel trail on Eika Lake, and then a paved trail along Eika Lake Boulevard.
[12:36] These are both trails shown in our future trails plan, and so they're satisfying the
[12:41] the comprehensive planning requirements in those areas, and then additionally, they're showing
[12:45] that sidewalk along the street A. Staff is recommending additional sidewalks how to
[12:49] street B to create this more of an internal loop for their residents to use. And then an
[12:55] developers also showing a trail off-site that would essentially be in that utility easement
[13:00] area to connect to an existing trail on a make-a-lake full of our near green avenue,
[13:05] and that would connect the development to the rest of the city's trail system. However,
[13:11] the developers indicated that they've had some difficulty in getting that trail from the
[13:17] property owner and so staffs to just recommend that they continue to work on that.
[13:23] So link in conclusion, staff review the request for consistency with city code requirements
[13:27] and the comprehensive plan and staffs at the opening that these requests do need the criteria
[13:32] necessary to approve both the preliminary platt and the P&D. This is staff that's recommending
[13:37] would rule up the poor main platform, e.e. subject to conditions in the resolution.
[13:42] So, Mr. I can share staff available to answer any questions, and then the app is also
[13:46] the audience, it's a little bit of questions.
[13:48] And then have any questions?
[13:49] I have two.
[13:51] Okay.
[13:51] So, see more about the 35% impervious incentive, 25% is that because the lats are smaller, and so
[13:59] that increases the impervious and a certain area are...
[14:04] Yeah.
[14:05] So just for clarification, the zoning code requirement
[14:09] for a previous surface coverage is 35%.
[14:12] But then within the shoreline area, that's reduced to 25%.
[14:17] But similarly, because the lots are smaller,
[14:19] I'd be suggested the, in previous surface coverage,
[14:23] within those individual lots, maybe a bit more than 25%.
[14:27] Less than 35% overall.
[14:29] But then, when you're looking at the entire site
[14:33] And with those last being clustered in one side,
[14:36] the entire site's impervious surface coverage
[14:38] should be well under that 25% requirement.
[14:42] And then can you show how you, that trail,
[14:44] how you, how you would access,
[14:46] if I didn't live there, how would I access that trail?
[14:50] You talk about the trail on a week of late.
[14:52] Yeah.
[14:53] So if, with the trail being connected to this development,
[14:58] it doesn't connect.
[15:00] To any adjacent properties at this time. But these would be public streets, and presumably public parking would be allowed on these streets, so somebody wanted to access the trail they could use that way.
[15:15] Is that a little pathway going to it in between those two?
[15:18] Okay.
[15:35] Any other questions?
[15:43] Perfect. Perfect. If we can get the applicant out here.
[15:51] Anything you'd like to add, I don't
[15:52] think they do a great job. Yeah, Ben's. Ben says he's lying to me again. I first by saying
[15:57] I apologize. We'll underdress. We had a volunteer deal today that lasted a little longer.
[16:02] So I came right from it. So apologize for that. I mean, I think staff's in a good job
[16:05] line it out, really don't know anything to add other than we're excited to work in your town
[16:10] again.
[16:10] It's been a while since we've been here, and I think this one is hopefully kind of simple.
[16:16] They never are, but hopefully it's kind of simple, but yeah, happy standing for any questions
[16:19] you might have.
[16:21] Who's your builder?
[16:23] I would expect to be creative homes out of Woodbury.
[16:27] Good question.
[16:29] I have a question as far as when you plan to start this, you look early spring.
[16:33] We think to pay it on how the winter goes, we'd like to actually grade this winter, you know, winter is about a little mild there. So we'll grade this winter with the idea of the utilities and streets on the spring.
[16:45] I have a question about the areas surrounding the lift station.
[16:51] What kind of landscaping is there going to be around that to separate that from the line?
[16:56] Lastly, we've shown on our Wednesday plan, we showed a pretty robust area of some trees
[17:01] and bushes around there too, to make that high debt from that adjacent lodge.
[17:13] There ain't nothing else else to know.
[17:15] We appreciate it.
[17:15] Thank you.
[17:15] Thank you.
[17:20] So, everyone's ready.
[17:21] I'm going to open the public hearing.
[17:23] Please enter, you know, walk up to the podium here.
[17:27] When you do get up, state your name and address.
[17:30] Now, once they have a little kind of, it could be enough wives.
[17:32] You may not answer questions upfront.
[17:33] If you have a lot of kind of the same questions together,
[17:37] we like to clump them up together.
[17:39] So, okay, just be prepared for that, you know, so I'm sorry.
[17:41] We have been called to hearing, so sure.
[17:44] Sure.
[17:44] My name is Jan Raster.
[17:46] We own the property being in the far north, next to the lake.
[17:53] And just hearing the word trail scares the heck out of me.
[17:58] We don't want it coming across our property,
[18:00] so that's a big concern for us.
[18:03] Okay. Thank you.
[18:17] My name is Mark Miran.
[18:19] 69-1 Honiculate Boulevard.
[18:22] So I own the property to the north,
[18:25] and east to piggyback on the trail.
[18:28] Currently the trail is supposed to end along a lot
[18:33] B and kind of dead end at the north end and
[18:37] stops right kind of in front of my property.
[18:40] And I have just a suggestion as to be, would there be another connection that could come
[18:47] around to make that a full loop back to the call the sack, or somewhere else, and then
[18:53] maybe what kind of signage and different things that that dead end stays there?
[18:57] I just sort of about people continuing on to private property and causing some issues there
[19:02] and conflict and protect that.
[19:05] the property on the east side of the road that also butts up to my property on the
[19:10] east side, Outlot D, right?
[19:16] That I understand it's going to be city managed property and I would request that city,
[19:22] that the city restrict hunting and discharge of firearms to alleviate some land use
[19:28] conflict and protect public safety.
[19:33] The area I have active agriculture fields kind of either side of the called the sack kind
[19:39] of there and on the north with some of the trees and different things that would be put
[19:44] in along my cornfield for the setback there so that full growth trees don't end up infringing
[19:52] on active agriculture field so there's enough setback there so I'm not having to trim trees
[19:57] that are growing onto my property.
[20:00] So that can actively be farmed. There's another concern there. Just additional activity on the roadways,
[20:10] different things like that, how the city is assessment policy for improvements will work on that,
[20:15] and how that's going to be applied to the homeowners association.
[20:21] And I think the other thing would
[20:22] just kind of be a request to survey and mark or stake property lines to be sure that we're not
[20:29] So something that I would like to be personally active in and what, so it's kind of what I have.
[20:37] Thank you.
[21:01] I'm a raster.
[21:03] Going.
[21:05] My last house on Green Avenue on the far right right next to the boat landing.
[21:13] A few years ago, I'm sure you guys may be recollect that.
[21:19] On Eco Lake was high and that I mean very high was causing basement falling palms at least
[21:27] for us and maybe I don't know others but my point is that there is an outlet I guess
[21:35] to Eco Lake up to the far right there and that map perhaps but at that time the land owner
[21:49] had some duck pines or something and he refused to let the city open up the outlet and lower
[22:00] the lake a bit because it might affect his duck pines. So I'm just really concerned that
[22:07] if we have the same issue here, we're going to have some future date where Niko Lake is going
[22:19] indicated in it's whatever approval that the city would be in control of the outlet from
[22:31] the O'Neeke Lake.
[22:33] Thank you.
[22:53] I'm Darren Wood, regards the 155-185 green,
[23:00] just wondering what this PUD how that looks for the
[23:09] If this goes through, are we still in very low density zoning or does that affect us in any way?
[23:20] On Green Avenue.
[23:23] That's kind of one of my big concerns where we might get a little late to the game, but we're just kind of catching up right now.
[23:30] So found out on Tuesday, obviously, with the mailer.
[23:36] So, like I said, we're catching up and we're just kind of wondering if there's
[23:43] effects to the four homes on green.
[24:12] I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing.
[24:15] I'm not saying one else, and I'm going to bring that back here to a few
[24:22] of good points here about you.
[24:26] Mr. Reckon, Chair, it might be appropriate for the developer to come up and answer some
[24:30] of the questions that the public had first so that you can answer and then I can try to fill
[24:34] in the rest.
[24:35] Okay.
[24:35] Sorry to add about that step.
[24:40] It means I had to listen to everybody.
[24:41] Thank you.
[24:42] There was questions relative to countries on the east side and yet for sure we can be cooperative
[24:48] to make sure that any trees that are planted are far enough into our properties that they
[24:52] don't affect the Jason property owner for sure.
[24:55] Relative to survey of the property line there,
[24:57] I don't think there's any dispute on that.
[25:00] We've had the property surveyed, happy to meet with the adjacent land owner and just make sure we all agree these were the pins are, but to my knowledge, there was no anything in conflict.
[25:11] Relative that trail on the lake, I suppose it could do a loop, I mean, we saw it as, we don't know what happens with that trail on the future, obviously, future things can be whatever they might be.
[25:25] We for certain would expect that we would sign either end of it because I'm a big believer in private property rights and we don't want any of our people or other citizens walking on someone else's property.
[25:36] So we would expect that we would put signage on either end of that saying hey, this is the end of the public trail. Don't keep walking. Absolutely.
[25:44] Um, first, the output goes at a little beyond my skull, hopefully city staff can help with that.
[25:53] Um, what else did I miss anything?
[25:59] Do I get covered the ones that I could maybe cover?
[26:02] Of course, I have to answer any others that might come up.
[26:05] Yeah, but thank you for sharing that.
[26:07] Thank you.
[26:08] All right.
[26:14] So I think we had a few questions.
[26:17] Just kind of trying to go down this list as much as I can.
[26:21] Does any changes in this effect any of the adjacent property zoning and all that came up?
[26:28] Yeah, I'm directing chair. I'll go I'll start with that one because that's an easy one.
[26:32] And then I'll go through the ones that I have on my list and then you let me know about missing something.
[26:37] So the properties on green avenue will remain the same zoning and the same land use that they have right now.
[26:43] So nothing's changing to the green avenue zoning and land use so that will stay the same.
[26:48] So the very low density as well.
[26:52] And then, yeah, I'm not aware of the outlet on O'Nique Lake,
[26:56] but we'll definitely check on that.
[26:58] We'll talk to our city engineer in our public work staff
[27:00] and if there's something that we need to make sure
[27:03] we have handled on the platform as far as an easement goes
[27:05] or something like that, we can certainly do that.
[27:12] The outlet D, the city managed property.
[27:15] So typically, we're not allowing hunting on city owned property.
[27:21] It's only allowed in certain areas.
[27:24] So we'll take a closer look at our shooting regulations
[27:29] and talking internally about that.
[27:32] As far as the assessment policy goes,
[27:37] we'd have to follow our assessment policies
[27:38] for assessments to only go like Boulevard
[27:41] or any other public streets.
[27:42] But we will review that policy to and make sure that we're covered on that.
[27:55] Oh, I think Ben from Twin Cities Land Company already offered, but I think it would be good.
[28:02] We have contact information for the development group.
[28:04] So if there's any adjacent property owner that would like to be in contact with them, it sounds
[28:09] like they're happy to remain contact and talk about property lines and, you know, how to
[28:17] where they are, so
[28:25] bring it back to the commissioner.
[28:27] Thank you, Acting Minister.
[28:29] Rachel, on the on the on the maintenance for the HOA,
[28:33] the situation is like that one, let's say the road has to be,
[28:37] main road has to be a resource to whatever.
[28:41] How does that HOA normally get charged for?
[28:44] Is it charged as a group than the HOA determines
[28:46] how they pray for that maintenance?
[28:49] How is that broke up?
[28:51] For the stuff that they're maintaining?
[28:53] I don't know what the HOA pays for their own internal streets and so forth for us.
[28:59] I mean, when it comes to the other roads that, you know, but against that HOA, how does that pay down?
[29:08] So typically an HOA is not going to come into play with assessments unless they own a common space that's adjacent to the road.
[29:16] other than that, private property owners are going to be charged for those assessments.
[29:24] But in this situation,
[29:27] then the HOA would have to pay some time of payment if there was any
[29:31] type of maintenance on the road.
[29:35] So they don't, all of a sudden, they're not owning any of the outlots, so the city is going to own
[29:44] all of the outlooks, they will not have any common land that would be adjacent to it.
[29:49] The only land that would be adjacent to it would be private property.
[29:53] So those private property owners would be responsible.
[29:56] Okay, so each 35 units, each 35 units, each 35 units.
[30:00] Individuals would be Characters accordingly. It's only ones that are going to but the roll that's being fixed.
[30:06] Okay. All right.
[30:09] Let's see what I'm supposed to
[30:13] say.
[30:14] And the other thing I had, if I may is the outlet on the south end, that I live on the north end.
[30:24] So I knew what you're talking about, because my property got flooded.
[30:29] And when that Nika Lake gets high, that's one thing that I think as a city we should take a look at that.
[30:37] I think it's certain that that's able to flow because that is a huge problem.
[30:42] This whole area is wet, but particularly where you're talking about, and on my end too, it's the same thing.
[30:48] Things get backed up, it's soaking wet.
[30:50] I mean, it's like a sponge, literally, so.
[30:53] Yeah, we'll take a look at that and make sure that we're not in peating anything or if we need if it's even on this property we're not quite sure so.
[31:08] The discussion on this.
[31:10] Let's try to forward.
[31:12] I do want to add that I support the path or sidewalk on B Street.
[31:20] I think that's required.
[31:24] We're in my development, there are no sidewalks and it's not taking your life in your own hands or anything, but it'd be so much better if they were direct paths or sidewalks to the park and areas when I go.
[31:37] So I do definitely support that and also the minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and all there's some wish you washing us on that.
[31:46] I would like to see that remain not less than 15,000.
[31:52] max that's in the resolution correct yep yep so he would be that in that to you
[31:57] sorry
[32:08] and be happy to make a motion to
[32:12] let the air motion motion to accept the preliminary plan PUD request to construct
[32:16] 35th single family of this
[32:19] it's like of course you guys by the
[32:23] Steve. Steve, all right. Max, you want to follow up on it?
[32:28] Interest? Yes.
[32:29] Durr? Yes.
[32:30] Baby.
[32:31] Granger.
[32:31] Klein? Yes.
[32:32] Chrysler? Nelson?
[32:35] Yes.
[32:35] Motion carries.
[32:37] Windsor is going to hit city council.
[32:39] So right now it's scheduled for October 5th.
[32:45] We'll shade everyone's time.
[32:46] So that's time.
[32:48] Do you have any other miscellaneous new business?
[32:52] We just have a reminder of the city white bus tour
[32:54] on October 3rd. If you have an RSVP to me, just let me know if you want to have this
[33:00] result. If you haven't done one of those, I didn't spawn. Brian puts on a very
[33:10] show.
[33:12] All right.
[33:13] So can you get a motion for your motion to the turn?
[33:16] Second.
[33:16] All right.
[33:17] All right.
[33:17] All right.
[33:18] All right.
[33:19] All right.