1
00:00:07,800 --> 00:00:35,530
Of the Inver Grove Heights City Council, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge. Of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Clerk Karen, please call the roll. Murphy.

2
00:00:35,530 --> 00:01:00,200
Hear, hear! Dietrich. Hear, here. Here. All present. Thank you. Um. Is there anything that council would like changed on the agenda? Yeah. Um. I’m not sure how long this special closed session will last. I was wondering if staff might give us some advice on that. Maybe we want to move that after public comment. Um.

3
00:01:00,200 --> 00:01:20,470
Mayor. Um. Councilmember. That may be appropriate. It could be maybe 20 minutes of discussion. I’m not sure, but I think that would be appropriate to move it after public comment. Okay. And I would make a motion to do that. Okay. Second. Uh, any other changes to the agenda? Okay.

4
00:01:20,470 --> 00:01:41,630
Um, staff, any changes from you? Um, I do, as it relates to the consent agenda. I have two items I’d like to pull if this would be the appropriate time, but. Okay. Um, it would be items F or five J and 5 a.m.. Just quick clarifications. J and M, correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So can I have.

5
00:01:41,630 --> 00:01:57,630
Um, roll call? What? We still need to vote on the approval of the agenda. Yeah, that’s what I was going to ask for. A motion of those changes. Uh, we they.. There’s one change proposed for the agenda. The agenda? The consent. That’s a consent agenda. That’s separate.

6
00:01:57,630 --> 00:02:18,400
That makes sense. Okay. So we will just go with a roll call. Yes. Thank you. So, all in favor? No. You’re you’re approving your agenda. We have we have a first and a second. We just need the vote. So if you can just go. Yeah, we can just do a simple majority.

7
00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:43,530
All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Um, we do not have any presentations this evening. So on the consent agenda, we’ve got items J and M that are going to be pulled for discussion. Are there any from the public that would be like that would be pulled for discussion off of consent.

8
00:02:43,530 --> 00:03:10,200
Okay. I would take a motion then for approving the consent agenda, omitting J and M. So moved. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

9
00:03:10,200 --> 00:03:35,270
Um, with that, we will, um, move on to item J, which is the contract between the Criminal Justice Network and Inver Grove Heights Police Department for reimbursement of staff, professional services performed by an Inver Grove Heights employee. Yes. Thank you. Mayor. Members of the council, just real briefly on the resolution that was attached to this memorandum, there was a typo for the rate of pay, which states $67.77. It’s supposed to state 6767.

10
00:03:35,270 --> 00:03:57,400
We want to make sure that’s clarified on the official resolution. So that is all that we have. And we would recommend approval with that change. Okay. Any other discussion on J. Can I take a motion for approval of J. So moved. Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

11
00:03:57,400 --> 00:04:18,670
And item M is an independent contractor agreement for public works consulting services. Yes. Thank you. Mayor. Members of the council. So we do have a proposed amendment to the contract.

12
00:04:18,670 --> 00:04:39,800
It’s a simple change when we referenced invoicing that instead of an invoice being sent to council for review and final review and approval, that instead of go to the city administrator, interim city administrator, which is our process typically internally. So this was, um, a template that we did not catch that being on that that particular section. So if we could have that noted and then otherwise we would recommend approval of that contract before we take a motion and consider that, I would just like to make a clarification.

13
00:04:39,800 --> 00:04:58,470
We have received a few questions since the agenda was posted. Um, as it relates to reference to the Central maintenance Facility in the memorandum, there’s reference to Mr. Echols, um, taking lead on that project management when he is brought on to help us with some of our other projects.

14
00:04:58,470 --> 00:05:14,070
And the clarification would be that, you know, as counsel, of course, is familiar, just reminding the public that we as a body you have not met to discuss this since I believe it was February is the last time we met to discuss, um, and there has not been any additional conversation or discussion related to that. Um, to the central maintenance facility.

15
00:05:14,070 --> 00:05:31,530
But we do recognize this is something we certainly need to be revisiting. And what Mr. Echols will help us with is provide a variety of options for council to consider as you want to move forward and look at next steps.

16
00:05:31,530 --> 00:05:59,000
So that I just wanted to make sure there wasn’t a misunderstanding, that there was something that was already decided in terms of what was coming up next. It’s just simply to get it moving and get back to you. So, okay. Thank you for that clarification. Um, is there anyone in the audience that wanted to speak on item five? M. The agenda on the monitors is that. You have.

17
00:05:59,000 --> 00:06:17,930
Copies of agenda out the back, out in the back table. Good evening. Hello. I just wanted to say, I think it’s great that you’ve arranged to have Mr. Echols, um, consider coming back. He did such a great job in 21, 22, and I think he and Mr.

18
00:06:17,930 --> 00:06:36,700
Markowitz will make a nice compliment to each other as we get through the central time. So I was very happy to see that. Thanks. Thank you. Yes, we are excited to have Clay come back on board. He was instrumental with the Pavement Citizens Pavement Management Task Force. So we’re excited.

19
00:06:36,700 --> 00:07:03,270
Um, on that note, I also had um, there was a, a resident that commented on the central maintenance facility regarding the land, the the direct quote from the resident. Um, was from a world report in 2015.

20
00:07:03,270 --> 00:07:30,530
It was articulated, um, that is a horrible location to build a central maintenance facility due to salt storage and topography that leads into the lake. Um, and so I spoke with public works staff, and they did go back and look at that 2015 World Report. The report does not mention anything about topography or location for the Central Maintenance Facility being appropriate. The report from 2015 mentions the fact, and this is a quotation from that report.

21
00:07:30,530 --> 00:07:54,470
The proposed site plans would have an impact on the pervious land areas. However, large percentage of the proposed building area additions would occur in areas that are already impervious. They’re bituminous. The preferred site option would add approximately 39,000ft of impervious site area, which could be treated in a number of different methods.

22
00:07:54,470 --> 00:08:23,270
And then it goes on to say in quotations, the existing site has significant changes in elevations on the north and the west sides. This characteristic, along with the existing physical accommodations, dictate vehicle routes and potential areas for proposed building additions.

23
00:08:23,270 --> 00:08:45,630
That being said, the majority of the site is relatively flat and well suited for potential construction, so it appears that that report was taken out of context and that the statements were incorrect. I was able to unable to find any other documentation that could back up the statement made by that resident. So I just wanted to clarify that. So there is not misinformation out there. Um, with that, could I have a motion to approve five M.

24
00:08:45,630 --> 00:09:08,230
So more? Yes. Oh, well, I just wanted to make another comment on M question, I guess for staff or the council with Mr. Echols looking at the central maintenance facility and the other projects, 117th Street and the monopole and all those things, is there a priority list or a work plan for him as he’s working through stuff?

25
00:09:08,230 --> 00:09:33,230
Yeah. Mayor, Council member. So, uh, much of that will be managed like the 117th project, and many of the other projects will be managed by the interim public Works director. Um, Paul Markowitz. So the projects are that the Clay Echols will be focusing primarily on initially and then as needed, assistance is arises. Right.

26
00:09:33,230 --> 00:09:51,330
Will be going back and taking another look at the central maintenance facility process. And also our meter replacement program, which is that’s a lot going on with that, a lot of moving pieces. And we also have some work with our water treatment plant that needs some attention, that his expertise will certainly avail itself.

27
00:09:51,330 --> 00:10:07,270
In addition to advisory role, you know, as things move forward. But those are the three primary projects at this point. Otherwise are being managed primarily by our interim public works director. Okay.

28
00:10:07,270 --> 00:10:34,470
So because someone had asked me if suddenly this was moved to the top of the list of things for the public works folks to work on, and I just I didn’t know. So it’s just one of many. Yep. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Is there a second? Excuse me. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Did you have a question on the consent item? Not kind of move the meetings or whatever.

29
00:10:34,470 --> 00:10:56,630
The central facility you’re talking about or maintenance facility. Is that the big maintenance for the big maintenance project that started at 90 or 60 million? Can you come up to the podium just so that everyone can hear your comments? I think they can all hear. Well, this is sorry, this is televised.

30
00:10:56,630 --> 00:11:17,070
So we have to have everyone at the podium. Lost. And I say I might be months behind or whatever, but, uh, when was it? This summer. We took, uh, we took a thousand signatures on this maintenance facility. That’s what I’m asking. Is that what you’re talking about? Now? Um, no, we haven’t talked about this since February of this year.

31
00:11:17,070 --> 00:11:34,730
Well, but, I mean, the maintenance facility. Is that on the goal or not? On the goal? It’s. I mean, the central maintenance facility is not being discussed tonight, but you could discuss it during public comment, if you like.

32
00:11:34,730 --> 00:11:56,230
Well, because it’s kind of going to tie into this data center stuff. I believe we’re going to talk about that tonight. But, uh, yeah, that’s. I. Wasn’t able asking the question, so when is this when you say you haven’t talked about it since February or whatever, we took them. Thousands of them. Thousand signatures, and everybody was expecting a vote.

33
00:11:56,230 --> 00:12:17,470
Maybe during the elections or, you know, what I’m saying, to put it on the ballot or whatever. So there is still talk of building this 60 million, $90 dollar facility. That’s what I’m asking. I. Mean. I heard a 90 million figure. That’s what the oh, excuse me, that’s what the figure started. That’s what we walked around all in to Grove Heights for.

34
00:12:17,470 --> 00:12:36,600
It was $90 million to build a facility. This is a good time to clear up misconceptions. Okay, well, so. Um, Administrator Heidegger can answer. Your own work, sir. So thank you. Mayor. Um, members of the council. So, um, it’s a good question. And I think there has been some confusion.

35
00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:56,430
I just want to clarify that the council did take, um, action. It was, um, in 2025 related to potential bonding for the central maintenance facility, but no action has been taken since then. And the petitions had been received. And council made a decision in February early this year to pause the project altogether.

36
00:12:56,430 --> 00:13:13,370
And what they need to do now is at some point revisit this discussion, which could include options that are, you know, whether it’s re scoping or moving forward with the existing project. There’s a lot of options they have to reconsider, but they have certainly not. It’s not moved forward at this point.

37
00:13:13,370 --> 00:13:35,230
Okay. But am I close. And a number though I say I brought up this 90 million because I believe there were thousands of us signed on this $90 million thing, and it was. So is there an estimated cost on this or I mean, it’s may be moving along.

38
00:13:35,230 --> 00:13:51,930
So what would that number be today? Madam mayor, members of the council, as the project had been proposed, but currently is I just want to reiterate is on pause. Right.

39
00:13:51,930 --> 00:14:06,970
Council needs to consider their next steps, whether or not they continue with the project as presented was, as I recall, $52 million was the estimated cost for the project that had been brought to council for consideration. And again, I want to reinforce it’s really important at this point.

40
00:14:06,970 --> 00:14:24,330
Be clear that council has not made a decision to move forward with that particular project, and, um, primarily listening to what the residents had brought forward with this petition, knowing that it needed to take a pause. And so it’s they need to resume their conversations, but. They haven’t. Let’s say I’m not sure.

41
00:14:24,330 --> 00:14:41,100
So all the legals and all the ups and downs or whatever, uh, I just thought I’d bring it up because, you see, we have this other issue coming up or whatever. And, uh, it’s an awful lot of money. So if you do have further questions, though, about the Central Maintenance facility, come up during public comment. Yeah. Well, I figured there again.

42
00:14:41,100 --> 00:15:02,700
I mean, we all want to play by the rules and stuff or whatever, but I mean, now we’ve got a good audience, you know, it’s on the thing you’re talking about it or whatever. So why not, you know, comment on it now. Thank you. You know. So we have two public hearings. The first one is Clerk Hernandez, and it is a temporary two day liquor license for the Church of Saint Patrick’s.

43
00:15:02,700 --> 00:15:21,970
Yes. So, Mayor and Council, Becky Kiernan, your city clerk. Um, this evening I bring forward and ask council to hold that public hearing and consider approval of an application for temporary two day liquor license for the Church of Saint Patrick for the premises located at 3535 72nd Street East. Um.

44
00:15:21,970 --> 00:15:45,900
They have applied for a temporary two day license for their September 19th and 20th um, in conjunction with their annual Fall Festival. Public hearing is required and notice of Such was published on August 7th of 2026, and staff recommends approval of the license. Following the public hearing. Okay. Thank you.

45
00:15:45,900 --> 00:16:13,630
Um, does council have any questions for clerk Kiernan? Okay. Um, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on the temporary two day liquor license for the Church of Saint Patrick’s? The public hearing is open. Okay. Seeing none, I would take a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All in favor? Please say aye. Aye aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

46
00:16:13,630 --> 00:16:47,270
And then what is the will of the Council? Make a motion to approve.. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. And our next item is the second reading of a proposed change to the city code one six a dash five appointment procedure. And we have our HR director.

47
00:16:47,270 --> 00:17:19,300
Norwalk. Good evening. Hi. That’s it. Thank you. Um. So this is the second reading we are looking to change. Um, the the city code to basically update it. Um, there are some language issues in there. Outdated. And some areas are overly restrictive.

48
00:17:19,300 --> 00:17:43,800
How do I switch to the next slide? Sorry. just the arrow arrow down. Got it. Sorry. I’ll get this. Um, the first one is the non-discrimination EEO statement. Um, in city code, it is listed as affirmative action. We don’t actually have an affirmative action plan, but we do have a commitment to equal employment opportunities.

49
00:17:43,800 --> 00:18:08,600
So we wanted to clarify that, um, and it’s also missing some protected categories in there. So, um, that is one of the updates. The other update is related to the rejection of applications. The language is a little bit confusing as it’s worded.

50
00:18:08,600 --> 00:18:34,100
It makes it sound like we are doing pre-employment screenings during the application process. That is actually not the case. Um, we don’t do pre-employment screenings until after after an offer is made to a preferred candidate. Um, so that is another one of the notable changes.

51
00:18:34,100 --> 00:19:00,100
And then for pre-employment physicals, the current language requires all hires to pass pre-employment physical, which is, quite frankly, unnecessary when, um, we have office staff and several of the jobs don’t require physical fitness. Um, so the city is incurring expenses that are really unnecessary by by continuing to do so. Um, besides, it makes it sound like we are not willing to offer accommodations to disabled individuals, and that is absolutely not the case.

52
00:19:00,100 --> 00:19:20,870
And then with the criminal background checks, um, some of the current language could become a little bit problematic based on a pending Minnesota Supreme Court case.

53
00:19:20,870 --> 00:19:37,930
So we really wanted to just shorten what was in there and simply reflect that we are committed to follow all applicable laws so that we don’t have to keep coming back up as laws change or, um, as things change. And then the current um, language requires all re hires to complete another criminal background check.

54
00:19:37,930 --> 00:19:57,670
But what we’re finding is seasonal employees who might work ten months out of the year and then, um, they are off, and then we rehire them two months later, we are spending money on another, um, criminal background check for them.

55
00:19:57,670 --> 00:20:23,900
Um, so the new language talks about very specific criteria in which we would waive the criminal background check, and that would be that they’ve just had one recently. Um, and then the last item is just removing language that is really very broad and could be problematic. And it is related to familial status and discriminating along that basis. So we are just recommending that we remove that. Um, and so we actually have two recommendations.

56
00:20:23,900 --> 00:20:47,800
First is to waive the third reading of the ordinance so that we can start the cost savings sooner versus later. And then the second action is to adopt the ordinance amending the city code. Okay. Thank you. Does council have any questions for Patty? Okay. Um, with that I would open the public hearing.

57
00:20:47,800 --> 00:21:16,570
If there’s anyone that has any questions or comments on this second reading of the proposed changes to the city code, please come forward. Seeing none, I would look for a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. Um, any discussion? All right. Um, all in favor? Please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

58
00:21:16,570 --> 00:21:36,330
What’s the. Oh, for the public hearing. To close the public hearing. Sorry. Is there any further conversation from council? Um. And thoughts on waiving the third reading? Can we do them both together? Do we have to do them separate.

59
00:21:36,330 --> 00:21:51,770
Under the code? You need to first make a motion to suspend the rules, waive the three reading requirements, and allow adoption with one reading that requires a 4/5 vote to pass. And then if that passes, you could make a motion to adopt the third and final reading, or the second and final reading of the ordinance. Then I’d make the motion to waive the third reading.

60
00:21:51,770 --> 00:22:14,170
Okay, is there a second.? Second? All in favor? Please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. And then I would look for a motion for waiving the third reading and adopting the ordinance. Correct. And that was the the motion that passed was to waive the third reading and allow suspension the rules.

61
00:22:14,170 --> 00:22:31,270
So this is just a motion to approve the second and final reading of the ordinance. Thank you. I’ll continue and make that motion. Second, go ahead. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you.

62
00:22:31,270 --> 00:23:00,600
And thank you, Patty, for the cost savings and just for being concise and looking through the language. Um, with that, we will move on to regular business. We have item A, which is consider a request for a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development for 53 units. Single family development known as Blackstone Vista, fourth edition. And we have our senior planner, Benjamin Schneider.

63
00:23:00,600 --> 00:23:20,330
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and members of the council. So tonight we have a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, preliminary plat and preliminary preliminary PUD request for plat to be known or would be known as Blackstone Vista, fourth edition. So just a little background on the property. Have an aerial showing where it’s located.

64
00:23:20,330 --> 00:23:47,000
It’s a right across the street from Vista Pines Park, just north of highway 55 and near the intersection of highway 55 and Argenta Boulevard. The property is currently guided for medium density residential and zoned agriculture, and it’s 12.8 acres in gross acreage. The developer is proposing 53 single family lots, and I already mentioned the request.

65
00:23:47,000 --> 00:24:05,700
And so we’ll kind of go through each of these land use requests one by one. So first we’ll talk about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. Uh, the project is proposed at a density of five units an acre. That is less than the range for medium density residential, which is 8 to 12 units an acre.

66
00:24:05,700 --> 00:24:27,030
So therefore, the developers requesting, as we say, downgrading the property from medium density to low medium density residential, and that has that range of 4 to 8 units an acre. Uh, so they kind of going over the main rationale from staff’s perspective of why we’re supporting this, uh, the site is has very steep grades.

67
00:24:27,030 --> 00:24:46,130
Uh, for all intents and purposes, there’s a ravine in the middle and there’s a grade changes of roughly 50ft. So due to those site conditions, it would be very difficult to build a townhome type development, which is what the site’s currently guided for.

68
00:24:46,130 --> 00:25:03,270
Uh, so staff does believe there’s a rationale there that because if you have single family homes as opposed to townhomes, you can have more of a gradual, you know, adjacent lots. You have 1 to 3ft of grade change as opposed to wider building pads. And now you’re talking, you know, 8 to 10ft or so of changes in grade.

69
00:25:03,270 --> 00:25:23,000
So and that also just gets to the point where it might not even be economically feasible to develop that kind of product at all. So again, we do feel that’s one rationale. Uh, secondly and sort of related is in the comprehensive plan, there are general goals about developments incorporating the site conditions of of an area.

70
00:25:23,000 --> 00:25:46,470
And so again, given those grades, rather than doing extraordinary measures to completely flatten the site, uh, the developers proposing to, again, kind of work with those existing grades and build a product that kind of works for the built environment.

71
00:25:46,470 --> 00:26:05,200
And then lastly, our, our other main rationale is that actually going less dense in this case is more appropriate for the local road network, typically with medium and high density projects.

72
00:26:05,200 --> 00:26:29,670
Uh, you’re going to have an, a direct access off a much busier road such as Argenta Boulevard, but in this case, to access the site, there is more traversing that cars would need to do in order to reach the site. So, uh, from staff’s perspective, it does make sense to have less development if with the same, uh, net acreage, if there was a medium density product, the minimum amount of units would be 85 units, and they’re proposing 53. Uh, so and we have gotten some comments from residents about traffic concerns.

73
00:26:29,670 --> 00:26:51,270
So, uh, really going from medium to low medium might help sort of alleviate some of those concerns. I’ll just briefly touch on the rezoning, uh, with the comp plan amendment to that’s being requested to low medium density, the corresponding zoning district is R3A. And then they also need a PUD for the northwest area requirements.

74
00:26:51,270 --> 00:27:11,930
And there’s also flexibilities being requested as a part of that PD that we’ll talk about in a bit. So just here’s the site plan that was submitted. Uh, shown again, 53 single family lots. Um, on the western part of the site, we have a large out lot. A that would be a stormwater basin, infiltration basin.

75
00:27:11,930 --> 00:27:31,670
And the project also is including a lift station, which is going to be crucial for future sanitary connections for potential future developments to the west of the site.

76
00:27:31,670 --> 00:27:49,600
So that’s another key feature of this, uh, another outlet on the south edge is proposed to be a private dog park for the residents. In the long term, if the kind of exception triangle here that’s owned by a different property owner, if that were to sell, then, uh, that outlet C and the remnant plot B could be developed. They show a ghost plat showing an additional 13 units.

77
00:27:49,600 --> 00:28:09,400
And then finally, just as a general requirement that they’re satisfying, they’re proposing a six foot sidewalk on one side of the road. So going over the development standards, uh, lot area and lot with, uh, we have the median numbers there, and they’ll need some flexibility for that, which again, we’ll talk about more in depth in a minute.

78
00:28:09,400 --> 00:28:26,770
Uh, they satisfy impervious surface and building coverage standards. Uh, parking requirements are met by the virtue of them being single family homes with garages. And then below here is the table for natural area and open space, as we require in the northwest area, we require 20% of developable land for natural area and open space.

79
00:28:26,770 --> 00:28:45,130
And then out of that requirement, half is is in the code to be undisturbed. So they’re exceeding the general open area requirements as far as the undisturbed open space. They’re falling short of that. So that’s another flexibility we’ll talk about in a minute.

80
00:28:45,130 --> 00:29:08,600
And then they’re also meeting the requirement for contiguous open space of at least 75% of that. Uh, here’s an image of the landscape plan. Uh, so touching on tree preservation, uh, they are required to mitigate 3821 caliper inches based on the tree removals that they’re proposing. Uh, the Planning Commission had comments on trees.

81
00:29:08,600 --> 00:29:28,670
And so kind of based on that feedback between the Planning Commission and this meeting, the developer did update the landscape plan to add an additional 20 trees. And they’re also, rather than planting the minimum two and a half caliper inches for the new trees. Uh, they’re showing trees now starting at four caliper inches. Uh, so getting more more mature trees to start with.

82
00:29:28,670 --> 00:29:51,270
But that being said, they still are falling short of the tree mitigation. So as is allowed by city code, uh, they would pay a fee in lieu, uh, for the remaining uh, caliper inches and independent of tree preservation, our landscaping ordinance requires one tree per lot.

83
00:29:51,270 --> 00:30:07,330
Uh, the lot has 421 trees, and 53 trees are provided so far, exceeding the landscaping requirements. And then just to touch on the parks piece, this did go to the Parks and Recreation Commission. And they did recommend cash uh, in lieu of dedicated land. Uh, one of the main rationale being that there’s the Vista Pines Park right across the street.

84
00:30:07,330 --> 00:30:26,100
Uh, and so based on this unit count in the proposed zoning district, that cash fee in lieu would be 2000 and $12,000. Okay. So now we’ll talk about the PD flexibility request. There’s a total of six. Uh, this slide similar to the staff report.

85
00:30:26,100 --> 00:30:47,800
We’re going to analyze the first three of these because they’re all more or less a function of one another. So again the minimum lot size the R3A zoning district has the minimum area requirement of 5445ft. Uh, 29 of the 53 lots are less than that lot size.

86
00:30:47,800 --> 00:31:03,970
Then for lot width there requires 100ft and 52 of the 53 lots are going to be less than that. The most common lot with being 36 to 37ft wide. And then finally the side yard setback. The northwest area for this zoning district requires 20ft of structure separation.

87
00:31:03,970 --> 00:31:24,000
In this plan, they show ten feet of structure separation or in other words, a five foot side yard setback. So kind of again, giving some rationale for sort of all these, uh, requests here, uh, as we talked about earlier, uh, a detached housing product is more conducive for the conditions of the site.

88
00:31:24,000 --> 00:31:45,670
So really, from staff’s perspective, they’re they’re proposing a product that has going to have a similar feel as a townhome community. As far as still having units that are closer together than a, you know, more of a typical single family neighborhood.

89
00:31:45,670 --> 00:32:06,270
Uh, so they’re, again, kind of using that product and we don’t really have a need to zoning district in our current ordinance that, uh, can accommodate that product without some flexibilities. Uh, so and that’s kind of one major thing. We’re looking at. Another piece is that the neighborhood, similar to the Peletier Reserve neighborhood, which this is the same developer as the existing Peletier Reserve neighborhood on the other side of our Gentle Boulevard. Uh, there will be restrictive covenants for detached structures.

90
00:32:06,270 --> 00:32:20,530
So when you have smaller lots, that can be one concern. Is always there going to be room for sheds and that type of thing. Well, since we know that they’re going to have that restrictive covenant anyways, it becomes less of a concern that there’s, uh, maybe smaller lots than what the code otherwise would require.

91
00:32:20,530 --> 00:32:39,270
Um, and then just as a similar note, the R-3 zoning district, it does allow for single family homes, but the standards are certainly more catered to townhomes. So, for example, a 100 foot lot with the intent of that is more for, you know, singular townhome buildings that need that wider lot.

92
00:32:39,270 --> 00:33:00,200
So while 100ft going from 136 might sound extreme, there’s there’s reasons why that zoning district has the 100ft. And again, it’s much more intended for a townhome type of development.

93
00:33:00,200 --> 00:33:20,330
Uh, and then also the Pelletier Reserve development, as I mentioned, uh, there are pockets of that development that have very similar lots as far as the width and the size and the side yard setback of five feet. So we have previously approved these types of lots, and they have been built. And to date, staff hasn’t heard any specific issues about those lots. Uh, next flexibility request is yard setback.

94
00:33:20,330 --> 00:33:37,670
Seven lots need flexibility from the 30 foot requirement on this image. Here we I highlighted the seven lots that need the setback. And then adjacent to the sort of the red outlines you’ll see some green.

95
00:33:37,670 --> 00:33:55,000
And that green represents, uh, open space in the case of the lots to the right, uh, that that open space is a very large, uh, outlet for stormwater management of the existing Blackstone Vista neighborhood. So again, in that in that case, we’re less concerned about the rear yard setback being 30ft when there’s not going to be another home. Also abutting that from the rear side.

96
00:33:55,000 --> 00:34:10,470
And then similar, the two lots in the middle, uh, the the rear of those lots are going to be the, the backyards of the lot six, seven and eight there. And like I mentioned earlier, there’s going to be a restrictive covenant for structures. So this space is largely going to be open space.

97
00:34:10,470 --> 00:34:29,130
And the landscaping plan shows several trees. So in a similar vein, uh, it’s going to be, in all intents and purposes, open space. So overall, we don’t have, uh, too much concerns with this flexibility.

98
00:34:29,130 --> 00:34:54,870
And it’s also worth mentioning that 24 of the 53 lots actually exceed the rear yard setback requirement. So the next flexibility request has to do with deck setbacks. This applies to just the lots that I’m highlighting here in red. And so these lots all abut highway 55. Uh, but I show the measurement here even just from the lot lines to the edge of the road itself.

99
00:34:54,870 --> 00:35:15,000
It’s 170ft, and they’re they’re asking for flexibility to allow decks to encroach up to 30ft, uh, from the property line, because there is a 50 foot setback for major roads like highway 55. So with this flexibility request, without it, these none of these homes would be able to have any decks because the building pads go right to that 50 foot mark.

100
00:35:15,000 --> 00:35:35,300
Uh, but in this case, even if this is granted and the most extreme depth deck is built, that deck is still going to be about 200ft away from highway 55. And there’s also about 30ft or so of grade change from these property lines to the road. So staff’s in support of that request.

101
00:35:35,300 --> 00:35:58,500
And the last flexibility request, like I mentioned earlier, is that undisturbed open space, uh, 13.4% of the required open space is proposed to be undisturbed. Uh, in this case, the the main area of the site where there’s the the biggest space that could be undisturbed is that western edge with the large stormwater and the lift station.

102
00:35:58,500 --> 00:36:19,070
Well, since staff is requiring those stormwater features and that lift station, it does limit their ability to have undisturbed open space and then also as a rationale, they’re exceeding the general open space by nearly half an acre. So staff’s also in support of that request.

103
00:36:19,070 --> 00:36:34,630
So this all these requests did go to the planning Commission for a public hearing on August 5th. Earlier this month, the planning Commission, there was five members in attendance that evening. They voted three two to recommend denial of these requests.

104
00:36:34,630 --> 00:36:55,800
Uh, so I’ll kind of go over what their concerns, as well as the concerns we received via email from residents. Um, so I’ll kind of go through these concerns one by one. So kind of the first sort of sentiment was the number of flexibilities, you know, having six of them in total.

105
00:36:55,800 --> 00:37:18,400
Uh, as I’ve kind of touched on before, uh, given the challenges of developing the site with what it’s currently guided, uh, it would from staff’s opinion, it would be difficult to propose a product that meets all of our our competing standards. Uh, and again, they’re they’re proposing this detached townhome, quote unquote product that meets the spirit intent of what the site is currently guided for. Um, so can that.

106
00:37:18,400 --> 00:37:38,230
So, yeah, there is flexibility is needed. But also as I just went over when you isolate each flexibility request, staff does believe they’re all reasonable. Um, and again, the rationale for this type of development is the topography. And then just having less dense development makes more sense for the local road network.

107
00:37:38,230 --> 00:37:56,770
Um, there was also a very specific sentiment about the five foot yard setbacks. Um, so like I said, they’re striving to have a similar townhome feel. It’s also worth noting that in our standard single family districts, we do allow a five yard set.

108
00:37:56,770 --> 00:38:17,400
Sorry, five foot setback, but for garages to side property lines. So in this case it’s just having that setback on both sides. And as a city we have been approving these five foot yard setbacks.

109
00:38:17,400 --> 00:38:35,130
Uh, in the other Pelletier reserve developments, as far as tree preservation, again, there was some concern about the trees being removed, but staff would just like to emphasize that the fee in lieu is a code compliant, uh, option in our code, when there’s not sufficient space to plant trees. And when you look at the landscape plan, there’s no obvious places for them to really plant any more trees. And also, like I mentioned earlier, they’re even going above the minimum requirements for that initial diameter.

110
00:38:35,130 --> 00:38:56,870
Uh, so again, we believe that that is appropriate. And then traffic I’ll touch on this again. And also this I will say it was a common sentiment from the residents that emailed, uh, there is concern of traffic and but with the less dense development of this is probably kind of that sweet spot of

111
00:38:56,870 --> 00:39:15,070
having the least amount of units, but enough units for the developer to make the project financially viable. Uh, so we do believe that, uh, this project does address the concerns, while in an absolute sense there will be more traffic, uh, staff has no concerns about the capacity of

112
00:39:15,070 --> 00:39:29,930
the roads and the ability to handle the traffic. And as it relates to the park, we did get some of those comments. It does look like, based on photographs, that there’s been some street parking along this to Pines Park. There actually isn’t supposed to be parking along that street.

113
00:39:29,930 --> 00:39:51,330
Uh, so that’s just kind of an educational piece, uh, for those residents. So here I have the recommended, uh, motions from staff. Uh, I will note that the Comprehensive Plan amendment requires a 4/5 vote. So it would we would advise you to first vote on just the Comprehensive Plan amendment.

114
00:39:51,330 --> 00:40:12,600
And then depending on that outcome, you could do one motion to approve the ordinance for the rezoning and the preliminary planning committee. So with that, I will stand for any questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, this may be under the park’s purview, but is there adequate parking or what is causing the parking on the streets? Madam mayor, members of the council, it’s a good question.

115
00:40:12,600 --> 00:40:29,670
And I would ultimately defer to the Parks Department as far as if there’s if they are satisfied with the parking and if they need to, because one thing they could always look at is expanding the parking. If that was ever a desired need.

116
00:40:29,670 --> 00:40:51,000
But I also will mention that this development is going to be walking distance to the park. So we wouldn’t anticipate much more parking as it relates to this development, because most residents will likely kids will likely walk there. So yeah. Um, do you know if there’s no parking signs there or. I, I do not believe there are no parking signs.

117
00:40:51,000 --> 00:41:11,970
I’m not 100% sure, but I don’t believe there are currently. So how would folks know? Yep, yep. Yeah, I think that’s, um. Yeah. Valid. We. Yeah. We don’t think there’s any ill intent. We don’t think we don’t think residents are just, you know, doing that knowing that it’s not.

118
00:41:11,970 --> 00:41:37,000
That’s kind of outside of this discussion, but that seems like an important part to, um, figure out if you could pass that on to parks, that’d be great. Thanks. Um, any questions from council? Yes. I have a bunch. And if anybody watched the planning Commission, I was. I hope I wasn’t the only one that was confused by that meeting.

119
00:41:37,000 --> 00:41:58,730
Um, the goal of the developer was to down zone to lower down density. Right. And that appears to be what the planning Commission wanted. But they turned down all this stuff, which means the developer could come with a higher density plan and we’d have to approve it. Correct. Because that’s what it’s zoned and guided for. Yeah.

120
00:41:58,730 --> 00:42:14,730
Councilmember scales, if the developer or a different developer down the line, if they were to come in with the with the project that met the density, uh, now they could still need flexibilities. And so technically there would be discretion there. But but there would be that much more kind of scrutiny from the city’s perspective.

121
00:42:14,730 --> 00:42:30,870
Because generally, if you have a development that meets the density and even if there’s flexibilities but they’re they’re reasonable flexibilities, uh, the best practice as a city would be to support that development.

122
00:42:30,870 --> 00:42:53,730
Which obviously we found recently, we don’t have as much power to design the city as we thought we might have had in some areas. Um, one thing I’ll say, as I watch that is I think the Planning Commission could have helped us a little bit with explaining a little better about zoning guided use. Uh, you know, what was really going on here? Maybe that the infrastructure was built to handle a higher density.

123
00:42:53,730 --> 00:43:10,130
The roads were meant to handle a higher density, and I don’t think we got that across very well. Um, so I think, I think I even went back because I’m one of these planning geeks or whatever you call it.

124
00:43:10,130 --> 00:43:32,130
I went back to the 1980 comp plan, and the 80 comp plan had this medium density back then. So I am actually applauding anybody that would try to put lower density in, you know, instead of trying to put the higher density in that space. So, um, I think that’s all I have for now. I’m sure I’ll have something else, but I was perplexed by that meeting.

125
00:43:32,130 --> 00:43:51,230
You may have missed the comments about the trees. Any other questions from council? Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, for the landscaping plan, can owners plant trees if they want to? If they have one tree on their lot, can they plant a second tree? Do you know what the HOA rules will be?

126
00:43:51,230 --> 00:44:08,870
Yeah. Councilmember Takashi, I’ll let the developer speak to like, what the HOA rules are, but the landscaping plan does show it because like I said, it goes much beyond the one tree per lot. And so it does show on each of these lots more than just the one tree.

127
00:44:08,870 --> 00:44:28,070
There’s lots that will have, you know, three trees or four trees. Um, so that the developer will have to meet that plan now, in the future, a homeowner could plant additional trees or additional shrubs. You know, they ultimately can do what they wish with their with their property.

128
00:44:28,070 --> 00:44:48,370
But as far as kind of the initial planting, they’ll need to match the landscape plan that is submitted. Okay. Thank you. And, um, is it possible, like, I don’t know what it would take. Uh, and I see our police chief here, but, um, maybe a review of the roads.

129
00:44:48,370 --> 00:45:13,200
If traffic is an issue or becomes an issue, or people feel like there are serious concerns if this gets built, what might it take for the city to review? Putting in stop signs at intersections or better pedestrian safety measures? I’ll say. Yeah. Councilmember Takashi, I won’t want to put words in the Public Works Department’s mouth as far as that. But at a high level, they they’re always evaluating that type of stuff.

130
00:45:13,200 --> 00:45:31,000
And a lot of it is generated by a hearing from residents. Uh, as far as but they’ll take that and they’ll take that. And then also just what the various standards are in engineering world.

131
00:45:31,000 --> 00:45:49,900
And if they believe that an additional stop sign or something like that is needed, you know, they they have their own, uh, process for determining those type of things. So okay. And then, um, a question about the right turn only on our agenda could you address that a little bit. Um, is that an accurate? I think we’ve all seen emails from folks. Yeah.

132
00:45:49,900 --> 00:46:11,330
Councilmember Prakash, so it is correct that to that that access from 72nd to. I’ll just just so we can get an image of it here. So the access from Argenta Boulevard to 72nd Street, which then turns into Archer Trail, that is what we call a three quarter access.

133
00:46:11,330 --> 00:46:33,370
So, uh, drivers will be able to take a left turn and a right turn into that road. But to leave there, that will be a right turn only, uh, so. So, yeah, that is correct. That it is right turn only to go on to Argenta Boulevard. So if people are heading north, they can’t go left there. They would go through the development, the existing development.

134
00:46:33,370 --> 00:46:55,770
Councilmember Takashi. That’s correct. They if at least that would be one option, they could go to the north to access 70th Street from Archer Trail. And again, this I think would be to reiterate the point that this is a downgrading proposal. So compared to what it’s currently guided for, there would be less traffic with this proposal.

135
00:46:55,770 --> 00:47:16,030
So and just one last question at the moment, um, was there do you have the tree inventory? Was there a tree inventory done at some point? Uh, yes. There. I don’t believe it got included in the packet, but they did submit a tree inventory that showed all the trees that they were removing. So.

136
00:47:16,030 --> 00:47:40,630
So not last question. So do you know, I mean, Planning Commission had referenced the heritage. You know, bur Oaks and things like that. And I’m wondering and looking at it, I’ve seen other tree species and I’m just wondering what percentage are some of the larger species.

137
00:47:40,630 --> 00:47:58,730
Councilmember cash I, I don’t have that information readily available. I would probably be able to when the developer comes up here, I could take a quick look at that and, and give you that answer. Um, but I will say at a high level is that again, our code ultimately does allow for the tree removal.

138
00:47:58,730 --> 00:48:20,030
And even if it’s a tree that are highly desired, like there’s not a whole lot of discretion the way our ordinance is written to say that you can’t remove XYZ tree. So great. And there is higher penalties for removing when we calculate the mitigation required. If you remove a heritage tree, the formula penalizes you for that more than other trees. So okay, thank you.

139
00:48:20,030 --> 00:48:45,600
Any other questions from council? Okay. Um, is the applicant here? And um, if you have anything you would like to add, please come up and welcome. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Mayor and council. My name is Mark Anderson.

140
00:48:45,600 --> 00:49:03,800
I’m a civil engineer and site designer for the Blackstone Vista project, and I’m representing Builders Lot Group this evening. Um, thanks to Mr. Schneider for doing a very complete and thorough presentation and staff report. So there’s just a few comments I’d like to to make, and then I’ll stand for any questions that you might have.

141
00:49:03,800 --> 00:49:29,930
Um, so as he discussed, we’re comparing the PUD flexibilities to the R-3 dash, a zoning which is primarily geared toward an attached townhouse project. And so it indicates you can have four attached units on a 100 foot lot and so on. We believe our project is a better, um, housing development for this site than attached townhouses. Uh, for a few reasons.

142
00:49:29,930 --> 00:49:51,930
One, it allows more green space on the development between the homes, open space, and more space for trees. Uh, it also provides privacy between the homeowners. They don’t have a common wall. They’ve got ten feet of space between their homes. Um, it also has already indicated will generate less traffic than the current land use.

143
00:49:51,930 --> 00:50:13,370
And it provides also a higher level of architectural variety variety in in the home development itself. And we added some pictures to the supplemental information since the Planning Commission meeting to depict some of the home homes that are on the Peletier project was developed by Builders Lab Group, as well as compared to some of the attached row homes in the northern area of

144
00:50:13,370 --> 00:50:34,530
Blackstone Vista. So, uh, those homes, when they’re detached, also have a higher value. So I think, uh, each of these items lead to a better overall development for the last remaining parcel in Blackstone Vista.

145
00:50:34,530 --> 00:50:59,530
And really, the reason it is the last remaining parcel is because there are a lot of challenges. And those same challenges would exist for attached townhouse project. With respect to grade flexibility, tree removal and access to the property. Um, the last item I’ll mention is it.

146
00:50:59,530 --> 00:51:22,670
It does hinge on a 4/5 vote for the land use amendment, and the attached townhouse project would also need that same amendment. Uh, we computed how many detached townhomes would fit on this site at about 73 units, it would be 5.7 units per acre. So, um, would not meet the eight units per acre minimum density that it is currently guided for.

147
00:51:22,670 --> 00:51:47,130
Um, so aside from that, we stand for any questions and would love to address any that you might have. Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Anderson. Mayor, if I may? Yes. Thank you. Um, just maybe a bit of a clarification. So, um, I appreciate the down zone. Um, in this particular location, um, I’ve seen the topography.

148
00:51:47,130 --> 00:52:04,770
I’ve seen what they’ve had to do a short distance away in terms of retaining walls and that type of thing. It’s, uh, it would be that those walls would be pretty ugly for the neighborhood, in my opinion. But if you could clarify, um, the 5 to 5.

149
00:52:04,770 --> 00:52:25,400
7 that you mentioned, I didn’t quite get that, that the if it weren’t down, if it weren’t down zoned, we’d be 8 to 12. And are you saying that you could get you could get an additional, uh, half a unit, a little over half a unit per acre. If you went to the current guidance? Um, councilor. Yes.

150
00:52:25,400 --> 00:52:45,670
To address that, the current land use is 8 to 12. The current project is five units per acre. And my comment for 5.7 units per acre would be if it was an attached town. They were a project. Okay, so you can get a few more units by having common walls. Um, but it’s a lower home value.

151
00:52:45,670 --> 00:53:04,470
It’s less green space, less architectural features and so on, but still requires the land use amendment. So, um, but the only way to get 8 to 12 units per acre on this parcel is to put in an apartment building, which I know the neighborhood that we spoke to at the neighborhood meeting, um, they were not interested in

152
00:53:04,470 --> 00:53:26,870
having an apartment building there. Okay, that was my next question. How would we get to 8 to 12? Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor. Um. Any further questions for Mr. Anderson? I have one question. Thank you. Um, so, uh, thank you for bringing this forward. Appreciate it. And working with staff on what they’re doing.

153
00:53:26,870 --> 00:53:48,600
I’m just wondering if you had any consideration or thoughts you’re getting a potentially getting a lot of, um, variances or asking for a lot of variances and considerations. And understandably, given the site.

154
00:53:48,600 --> 00:54:10,470
And I’m just wondering if, um, you’ve thought at all about is this a time when maybe the city and maybe this is a staff question, but is this a time for us to look at a variety of price points within this development? So 2 or 3 units that are lower than the, I think, at Planning Commission, it was 480 to $650,000 or something.

155
00:54:10,470 --> 00:54:31,270
Have you looked at all that or considered the possibility of including some lower price point homes in here? Melvin might want to speak to this a little bit on pricing, but I think, um, I think the answer is for the proposed project that we have.

156
00:54:31,270 --> 00:54:52,670
Uh, the price point is actually less than the Blackstone Vista homes to the north, which are larger homes on larger lots. So this this project does offer a lower price point. And can you tell us what that is. For these for this project. For the existing project. Yeah. Um, for the proposed project here.

157
00:54:52,670 --> 00:55:21,500
Um, I think Melvin indicated 450 to 650 for their homes based on the selling points and the Peltier project, a very similar style. Homes. Okay. And Melvin looks like he’s back there. Feel free. Any other questions for Mr. Anderson? Okay. Good evening. Good evening. Council mayor. Um, yes. Speak more to price point. So there’s an article that I read earlier today around the metro market.

158
00:55:21,500 --> 00:55:46,870
The median house value for new construction today is 403 to 409. That’s the that’s the median house price. Now what changes that is cost that we don’t control or builders don’t control. It could be permitting costs. It could be variations in materials, those kinds of things.

159
00:55:46,870 --> 00:56:06,700
It also could be um, the individual homeowner selections to what what they’re getting. But in today’s world, it’s very difficult to get house values under that, which is that’s what we’re all challenged with. Yeah, I would think even 400 would be a starting point for towards something more affordable. I understand there are a lot of things out of your control. Yes, we understand.

160
00:56:06,700 --> 00:56:35,170
But that’s not planned in the financials of this project is what I’m hearing. You were to compare Inver Grove Heights, for example, to, let’s say, um, Rogers. Land values there are lower, which actually is one of the main indicators that that that drives home prices.

161
00:56:35,170 --> 00:56:53,700
So you get out in Rogers or Saint Michael’s, even those markets are still sitting in the same price point. So starting prices are going to be in the low fours. We’ll probably see homes in this in this development somewhere in the four and a 3:45 25.

162
00:56:53,700 --> 00:57:18,170
But overall, those home prices based on based on homeowners selections will likely go a little bit higher. They’re going to add decks. They’re going to they’re going to add, you know, finished basements and those kinds of things. So so price is not always driven by the builder or by the developer. Homeowners are also involved in that okay. Thank you. Yeah. Anything further from council.? I don’t have anything okay.

163
00:57:18,170 --> 00:57:41,130
Thank you. Thank you. Uh, is there anyone from the public that would like to comment or have questions on the Blackstone Vista fourth edition? Please come forward. Good evening. Good evening.

164
00:57:41,130 --> 00:57:59,770
I’m not a great public speaker, so I appreciate your patience as I do my best to meander through my concern here. Um, and I guess I’ll just start with clarifying to make sure that I understood the previous gentleman’s presentation. So my understanding that for all the details he provided, that fundamentally, what we’re looking at here is a hope to decrease the residential density of this development. Is that correct? That is correct.

165
00:57:59,770 --> 00:58:17,530
Okay. And so that kind of lies at the heart of my concern. So for a community like Inver Grove, uh, we already have a very low average density, I would say for our developments. And that in of itself is not particularly a problem.

166
00:58:17,530 --> 00:58:36,600
However, overall, um, if we don’t have a good mix of density for our developments, especially in terms of residential areas, you can put yourself in a bad position in terms of long term economic planning, because low density areas are very, uh, low in terms of economic productivity compared to the cost for maintenance and utilities.

167
00:58:36,600 --> 00:58:55,270
So my concern is that if we continue to push the trend in the direction of ultra low density developments, we could find ourselves down the line having a very difficult time balancing our budget due to the decreased tax levy ability and also the decreased economic productivity of those areas. Right. Less residents, you have less people spending money.

168
00:58:55,270 --> 00:59:14,930
Therefore, the velocity of money drops, which decreases our economic or sorry, our ability to levy taxes effectively. So I guess it’s just not only a concern for this development, but also just development in the future as we move forward, as we’re already a community with a relatively low economic, uh, sorry, not low, low residential density.

169
00:59:14,930 --> 00:59:33,130
Um, this would be yet another development looking at about a quarter to a third acre per property, which is pretty much around where the average is. That’s very low density. It very much forces the higher density areas to subsidize those utilities costs.

170
00:59:33,130 --> 00:59:58,730
And in the long term, it’s not very, uh, economically stable for a suburban community. And that would be my main concern. Thank you. Planner Schneider, is that, um, it was my understanding that this development was primarily designed the way it was because of topography. Correct.

171
00:59:58,730 --> 01:00:17,570
Madam mayor, members of the council, uh, I would say that’s one of the big driving factors, but that and also the feedback they had heard from the neighborhood about traffic concerns. Okay. So again, wanting to down guide for that reason as well. Yeah. Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this item for Blackstone Vista fourth edition. Hello. Good evening. My name is Cassandra Fry. 7920 Alberta Way.

172
01:00:17,570 --> 01:00:34,100
I don’t even know if you need that because I haven’t heard that from anyone else tonight, but I just wanted to talk about a couple of the things that were mentioned at the Planning Commission meeting, because I was there.

173
01:00:34,100 --> 01:00:53,970
Um, and I don’t there’s been a lot of focus on the traffic concerns, and I don’t think that was really emphasized that much at that meeting. However, two of the issues were the the heritage trees. They were very concerned about. I think the one of the quotes was that some of these trees predate the Civil War.

174
01:00:53,970 --> 01:01:17,330
Um, and so just replacing them with, um, 12 foot B and B trees is not going to replace these trees that are there. So again, I’m just kind of voicing what was brought up at that meeting. Um, I’m not even concerned about this particular rezoning request, but I do think it’s important that it’s noted what was discussed at Planning Commission.

175
01:01:17,330 --> 01:01:36,330
And one of the main concerns was about the PUD requirements and the accommodations being made on them. And their thought process as what I took it as is. Why do we have these PUD requirements if we continue to make accommodations, what is the point of having them? And, um, it may not be this development as which I said, I see no problem with it, but why are we continuing to make these

176
01:01:36,330 --> 01:01:58,200
accommodations? What’s the point of having these rules? Or, um, guidelines? So so thank you. Thank you. Uh, planner Schneider, can you speak to that at all? The PUD accommodations and kind of sticking with the standards? Yeah, sure. Thank you again, madam Mayor. Members of the council.

177
01:01:58,200 --> 01:02:22,200
So I can kind of address that overall sentiment. A couple things. One is that the city are active zoning code and not the comprehensive plan, but the actual zoning ordinance. Uh, the last time we did a major overhaul of that ordinance was, I believe, in 2004, uh, so 20 or so years ago.

178
01:02:22,200 --> 01:02:38,730
So as we go into the this is kind of a plug now for the 2050 comprehensive plan that we’re kind of kicking off here. Uh, we’ll go through all that comprehensive planning process, but we’ll establish goals. We’ll look at, uh, more current market conditions, you know, things like that. And just what the community likes to see.

179
01:02:38,730 --> 01:02:58,530
And after we eventually adopt that comprehensive plan, uh, kind of that next big step for, for staff in the city is to look at our zoning ordinance and see what potential standards we would want to change to better mirror what the goals are in the 2050 comprehensive Plan.

180
01:02:58,530 --> 01:03:21,400
So all of that is to say that it is possible, especially this is a general planning kind of thing, is if you if we have developments where we’re continually seeing very similar flexibility requests repeatedly, that oftentimes as a as an indicator that we should look at potentially updating the what the rules are, because again, market conditions change.

181
01:03:21,400 --> 01:03:36,000
Uh, communities change. Uh, so I guess that’s one thing I would say. And then the other thing, and this was planning commission, kind of raised the sentiment about, you know, we used to not grant as many flexibilities.

182
01:03:36,000 --> 01:03:53,330
And now we are you know, some of it is what I just mentioned, but another piece of it is when you look at Inver Grove as a whole or any city as a whole, developers are going to first pick the sites that are easiest to develop. So as more and more of the northwest area is getting developed, what’s left? Are these more challenging parcels.

183
01:03:53,330 --> 01:04:22,170
So, so inherently that is going to mean more flexibility regardless of what the the underlying zoning ordinances might be. So yeah, I would say I haven’t seen this many accommodations, you know, being, uh, needed really. Mhm. Um, anyone else from the public that would like to speak on this, please come forward. Good evening.

184
01:04:22,170 --> 01:04:38,200
Good evening. My name is Candace Johnson. I’m one of the residents in the Blackstone Vista neighborhood, and I just wanted to highlight a couple things and then maybe ask a question of something I didn’t quite understand. But one of the things you asked about the parking.

185
01:04:38,200 --> 01:04:56,330
I I think there’s four parking spots with one handicapped spot currently at the park, so there’s not enough. I don’t think the people parking on the street are residents. That was mentioned a couple times that the residents that are living further away come in park. Certainly that could be possible for some. There’s evening basketball games and things like that which a park should bring, which we love.

186
01:04:56,330 --> 01:05:13,530
But that’s who’s probably parking on the street. Um, and then with the traffic currently, when you turn out of the neighborhood, it is required to go right. People illegally go left a lot already. And so just FYI, I don’t think that’s going to get any better in this case.

187
01:05:13,530 --> 01:05:32,870
An otherwise the alternative is to go through the neighborhood. Um, also the corner before you get to that outlet is a bus stop and a very busy crossway where kids cross all the time. Um, so I think that’s also a concern that I just wanted to highlight. Um, we’ve talked a lot about the trees.

188
01:05:32,870 --> 01:05:52,030
I walk almost every night. The trees are beautiful. I would love them to stay. I would also mention I am often woken up by coyotes. We’ve seen foxes. I’ve had deer in my yard and I back right up to those trees. Um, so I think also some just consideration of where those animals going.

189
01:05:52,030 --> 01:06:12,070
If we’re developing every green space, I think it’s, you know, okay to pay a fine, but that doesn’t replace homes of these animals. In the end. Uh, I think oh, and my question, it sounds like there is a really steep grade in this land. We kind of talked about it as a neighborhood.

190
01:06:12,070 --> 01:06:35,530
How is it going to be graded? What’s that going to look like? It sounds like it’s not maybe feasible to do medium density. And so we’re. Is it possible that this space just really isn’t a great space for residents? I would ask that that’s considered.. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Did you want me to respond to that.

191
01:06:35,530 --> 01:06:59,030
Or if yes, if any information would be valuable? Sure. Thank you. So again, thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. So with the with the tree component, again, we can appreciate that the trees have existed here for a while, but ultimately there’s we’re we’re balancing that with private property rights.

192
01:06:59,030 --> 01:07:20,870
And the site is guided for development. Um, so unfortunately, unless an extreme scenario where the city would purchase the land and put in a conservation easement or some, some hypothetical like that outside of something like that, you know, there is there’s a right to develop.

193
01:07:20,870 --> 01:07:38,470
Again, that’s not saying you have to approve this exact proposal, but just generally speaking, uh, the property owners have a right to develop their land. And it is common that a lot of other neighborhoods, not just in this area, but just in general throughout the metro, a lot of homes that people currently live in at one point were these wooded areas.

194
01:07:38,470 --> 01:07:56,570
So again, we can absolutely appreciate the the concerns. But as far as kind of what the rights are and what our code says, as far as what’s allowed. Again, we can’t really say no to this development on the on the basis that they’re removing these trees, regardless of how we might feel about the trees. So I understand.

195
01:07:56,570 --> 01:08:13,100
Mayor. Yes. Uh, Mr. Schneider, could you, um, I’m a little confused as to the location of the right turn only. Can you put the mouse over? Can you see the mouse here? Okay. Yeah. Over there. Okay. That’s. I knew that. Okay. Perfect. Thank you, thank you. Mayor.

196
01:08:13,100 --> 01:08:35,700
Okay. Is there anyone else from the public that has a question or comment? Good evening. You’re welcome to state your name and address. Uh, Ben. Walsh. Uh, I live in the neighborhood. Uh, seven two, seven one Archer Trail.

197
01:08:35,700 --> 01:08:58,400
Um, I mentioned this in an email that I sent, but, uh, the city did spend $50,000 about five years ago to do a small area plan for this, almost specifically for this property. Um, and how to fit a higher density, um, neighborhood there. Uh, so, I mean, that should be utilized. You know, we spent that money already, um, at least be considered in this property.

198
01:08:58,400 --> 01:09:25,130
Um, you know, that mentioned the use of future, uh, roadway changes that would accommodate alternate access points to this area. So, um, that’s all I wanted to say. Thank you. Tell us about the small area plan. So, yeah. So he’s correct that, uh, a small area plan was drafted, was drafted.

199
01:09:25,130 --> 01:09:42,330
However, it the council did not elect to vote to adopt that plan. So while while there was a plan produced, it was not adopted. The council did not vote to adopt it. And so that I just wanted to put that out there as why we weren’t talking about it in the staff report, or because it was not an adopted plan.

200
01:09:42,330 --> 01:10:05,230
Um, but yes, the plan that he’s referencing did it actually contemplated a 240 unit hypothetical development. And yet to have that sort of development, uh, there would be likely road improvements needed. Frankly, road improvements that would be much different than the the current site and would be very costly.

201
01:10:05,230 --> 01:10:30,870
And again, as staff, we were looking at that plan and it’s I don’t think we’re too surprised why the council decided not to adopt it, because it did seem a little a little pie in the sky, for lack of a better term. So okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Good evening.

202
01:10:30,870 --> 01:10:47,200
Good evening. Uh, I guess my name is time. My name is Zain. Uh, I just wanted to amend my statement in the sense that I realized it might have come off as a little bit on the theoretical side of things.

203
01:10:47,200 --> 01:11:07,530
Um, and I just wanted to state that in terms of the impact that residents should be concerned in terms of this development strategy going forward with our community, is that ultimately what happens to us is we suffer subsidizing these economic developments in the long term through higher property taxes and higher sales taxes, as the velocity of money decreases due to the low density? Uh, there will be budget shortfalls that will have to be accommodated

204
01:11:07,530 --> 01:11:19,500
through higher taxes on our community. And that’s something long term. I’d like to avoid. I’m quite young. I plan to live in this community for quite a long time, so I’m just trying to think a little more ahead on that stuff.

205
01:11:19,500 --> 01:11:46,970
And so I would urge the community to be more concerned about these types of proposals due to those tax implications that will really harm our community in the future. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Further discussion from council. Um, a motion. What is the will of the council? Yes. Good question for staff. Okay. Thank you. Um, so a couple of things.

206
01:11:46,970 --> 01:12:07,200
One is the feasibility, two things. Let me ask the easy one. First, the pedestrian the county is planning some kind of pedestrian. I’ll call it a flyover or something for 55. Do you could you tell us or show us on the map where that would land and what impact that might have? Yeah. Councilmember Takashi, it’s a good question.

207
01:12:07,200 --> 01:12:30,230
So again, hopefully you can see the my mouse here. So the I’ll kind of start where it’s easier to see. So we already have this regional trail here and it already winds in an essentially ends right around here. So the the the what you’re whoops the overpass you’re talking about. It would more or less connect.

208
01:12:30,230 --> 01:12:53,230
And then this is what their plans show right. Where the trail currently ends. So but as far as after it crosses the highway, then the rest of the trails already established. Right. Okay. So and then the other thing is about, you know, multifamily, like I, I don’t like to see the down zoning.

209
01:12:53,230 --> 01:13:17,100
I think we have enough down zoning in the city. But in earlier conversations that we had, you and I had, um, about the feasibility of actually putting higher density on this property. Can you explain why? I mean, I was hoping there could be development on the east side and the west side of that ravine. Um.

210
01:13:17,100 --> 01:13:34,730
You know, to concentrate it and save those at least some of the trees that are there. Yeah. Councilmember Takashi, as far as that kind of the overall feasibility piece, if, when, if you have a steep grades and you have to if you’re building structures that are much wider

211
01:13:34,730 --> 01:13:51,730
or larger than a single family home, you have to bring in a lot more fill and do a lot more grading to even make the pad possible. To put those type of structures and that level of grading.

212
01:13:51,730 --> 01:14:10,470
When you when you add it up, it can get very, very expensive. Um, so that’s just kind of the general feasibility piece. And I one comment I’ll say to you about the high density is, again, I’m speaking from a staff perspective. Uh, there’s several other areas in the city where we are in strong support of higher density.

213
01:14:10,470 --> 01:14:26,100
And again, those are sites where well, I mean, even on this image here, the Stewart townhome development that’s currently being built in this area, that is an example of a development that had direct access off of Argenta Boulevard. So and that and that’s in our high density threshold.

214
01:14:26,100 --> 01:14:54,200
And then we also the other item this evening will be the final plat for an eventual apartment building. So again we we do support high density residential. But we also want to support it in areas where it will be successful and and feasible. So. Okay. Um thank you. Any other questions or a motion. Thank you. Somebody else. So.

215
01:14:54,200 --> 01:15:25,100
Uh, we’re into council comments right now. My apologies. What is the mayor, if I may, what is the order of the motions look like? Staff I’ll get that screen right back up there. Sorry about that. So, yeah, you’ll want to vote just on the Comprehensive Plan amendment first, because that requires the for physical.

216
01:15:25,100 --> 01:15:49,130
And clarification, if we approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment, it’s for this project or does it live with the property? We’ve been through this. Can you counselor. That’s a good question.

217
01:15:49,130 --> 01:16:09,900
It will it will stay with the property even even if the developer were to walk away for some unforeseen reason, the guiding would remain. If the only caveat being the council has to approve it. But yeah, it would stay with the land. And what’s the lowest density of the low to medium density per acre? Four units an acre. And they’re proposing five units an acre. Right. But going forward, someone could come in at four units per acre. Theoretically, yes.

218
01:16:09,900 --> 01:16:35,570
Okay. Thank you. Mayor. Yes. Um, hearing. Every. You know, all the comments and reading all of this, I think this is actually a. good compromise. I actually went and did my own. Little field. Trip because I couldn’t figure out I’m not a very good map reader.

219
01:16:35,570 --> 01:17:07,530
And I went out and given where the location, um, and the neighborhood around. I actually. I think it’s a good compromise. I could not imagine having an apartment building there. Um, there’s 53 homes and I’m in favor of single family ownership. So I think this is a good compromise. So I will make a motion.

220
01:17:07,530 --> 01:17:40,570
Um, to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the designated land use of the subject property from MDR to L, MDR. Any further discussion or a second. Second. Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. And then, uh, is there a motion to approve the ordinance and the resolution? I will go ahead and make that motion.

221
01:17:40,570 --> 01:18:06,400
Any further discussion or a motion? Uh, second. I’ll second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye, aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And you have our next two items as well.

222
01:18:06,400 --> 01:18:27,530
Um, item B is consider approving a final plat for Glen Lynn Reserve and a final PUD for the first phase of Glenn Lynn Reserve. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Members of the council. So as I alluded to, this item is a final plat. Um, and the first phase of a final PUD for a 33 single family unit development and a 196 unit apartment building.

223
01:18:27,530 --> 01:18:50,770
Uh, so the council approved the preliminary pudi and the preliminary plat, and associated rezoning and comprehensive guide amendment, uh, requests on their May 26th meeting.

224
01:18:50,770 --> 01:19:10,870
Uh, so tonight, the developers coming with the final plat and also the final PUD for the first phase of the project, which would be the single family lots, and then they’ll start doing some rough grading of the apartment site. So for this request, the strict scope of review is ensuring that the final plans match the preliminary plans and that the conditions are met or or will be met at the time of recording the final plat.

225
01:19:10,870 --> 01:19:28,870
And staff has reviewed that and the plans do match. And as far as the development agreement, staff is still drafting that and needs time to send that to the developer. So likely on that September 14th meeting, will have the development agreements that will be associated with this.

226
01:19:28,870 --> 01:19:47,030
Um, so yeah, we’re going to keep this relatively brief and we’ll touch on the fact that I forgot to add the slide here, but the Planning Commission did vote three two to recommend approval of this.

227
01:19:47,030 --> 01:20:21,600
Uh, the two members that voted no, even despite staff saying that they should not have done this, they, since they did not support the preliminary project, they wanted to voice their voice and say that they didn’t approve this. But again, we’re purely looking at if it matches the preliminary plans and in this case it does. So we would highly recommend. Approval. Any questions from council? Okay. Um, is the applicant here or um, anything they want to add if they are. Hi. Welcome back.

228
01:20:21,600 --> 01:20:40,600
Good evening again. Mayor and council. Yeah. Anything further you want to add? Not at this time. Just available for any questions. Okay. Council, do you have any questions for Mr. Anderson? Yes. Um. Thank you.

229
01:20:40,600 --> 01:21:01,070
Um, when do I know this plat doesn’t include the apartment building being done? Now, do you have an anticipation of when the apartment building would come and how large it would be? Um, then do you recall the number of units? 196 units. It’s been a little while since we’ve talked about the apartments, so. Thank you. Um, we don’t currently have a timeline.

230
01:21:01,070 --> 01:21:22,530
Uh, it will be available on the market, so the easy answer is kind of when the market drives the demand for that apartment, um, there are interested parties, and Melvin has indicated that. But nobody at this time is is signed up to build it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

231
01:21:22,530 --> 01:21:49,630
Uh, is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment or have any questions on the final plat for the Glenn Lynn Reserve, or the final PUD for the first phase, please come forward. All right. We will move on to council discussion. Um, and a motion. What is the will of the council on this item? I think it matches. I’d make a motion to approve.

232
01:21:49,630 --> 01:22:13,130
Any further discussion. Second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right. And with that, we’ll move on to consider approving the final plat and final PUD for a 46 unit townhome development known as Dawson’s Woods. Thank you, Madam Mayor.

233
01:22:13,130 --> 01:22:35,670
Members of the council, this is going to be a very similar presentation. Uh, on June 22nd, the council approved the preliminary plan and preliminary PUD for the plat known as Dawson Woods, for 46 townhome units that are owner occupied.

234
01:22:35,670 --> 01:23:08,100
And similarly, the Planning Commission voted three two to recommend approval of the final PUD and the final plat, and again, similarly, the plans match the the final plans match the preliminary plans, and we anticipate that development agreement being on the agenda at the next council meeting. So with that, I will stand for any questions. Okay. Any questions for planner Schneider. Okay. Um, and is the applicant here for this item? Hi. Hi. Good evening.

235
01:23:08,100 --> 01:23:27,270
Madam Mayor and council members, Hayley Sievers with Pulte Homes. Um, I don’t have anything to add, but I can answer any questions you may have. Thank you for being here. Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you.

236
01:23:27,270 --> 01:23:50,870
Um, is there anyone in the audience that would like to comment or have questions on this 46 unit townhome development known as Dawson Woods? Hello. Good evening. Cassandra Fries, 7920 Alberta Way. Uh. So I. Am here regarding. This matter. I was at the meeting. They believe it was two months ago.

237
01:23:50,870 --> 01:24:07,900
Um, and first, I want to just express how disappointed I am that we were not allowed public comment for this matter. I don’t know if we were just thrown into the mix with the data center issue. And because public comment was not, you did not want public comment on that matter, that you didn’t allow it on this one. Um.

238
01:24:07,900 --> 01:24:21,830
It is up to the presiding officer for every individual item. So some items are taken with public comment and others are not. Are you? You’re the presiding officer. I am tonight. Yes. Okay. So you had decided to not take her comments on the matter as well. Okay.

239
01:24:21,830 --> 01:24:43,170
So I don’t know where we are with this, but I guess I will just say the same thing that I did about the other item. Um, passing along what I took from the Planning Commission meeting was that two of the members, uh, voted against it because they did not approve it the first time.

240
01:24:43,170 --> 01:24:59,800
Two others who voted for it this time had stated simply that this is just a procedural vote. I have to vote because it’s just simply saying that it is the same as the original proposal. So they weren’t approving of it or saying that they are fond of this idea, but they were just voting to say yes.

241
01:24:59,800 --> 01:25:20,070
The original is the same as the final. Um, so I guess I’ll just take this time to say we. When we. Purchased our home, we did it because we were looking for this particular type of place to live. We searched for ten years from Apple Valley.

242
01:25:20,070 --> 01:25:41,130
When we were living in Apple Valley, we looked for ten years and I believe I’ve given this whole spiel before. Um, I think that if this was impacting one of you the way it will us, you would be taking it more seriously. Um, but because it’s not affecting you in your neighborhoods, it’s maybe not something you care about.

243
01:25:41,130 --> 01:26:00,870
Um, I really sincerely hope that the way that we can live in our home now does not change when we have such an increase in the number of residents. Um, of course, we still have the concern of traffic.

244
01:26:00,870 --> 01:26:26,600
I’m sure that there’s going to be a bus stop now, because with these 46 townhomes of four bedrooms, there’s not going to be an empty nesters, which somebody tried to say, oh, the developer has a history of building homes for empty nesters. That’s not the situation here. Um, the the Eagan Apple Valley School District is particularly interested in putting these homes here.

245
01:26:26,600 --> 01:26:45,430
I also, um, was made aware that the the accommodations and fees are fines is not going to the city of Inver Grove Heights. That is going to Eagan. Um, and overall, I don’t see how this benefits our city at all.

246
01:26:45,430 --> 01:27:03,270
I’ve said before, when you, the people that live in that area, most likely will be doing their shopping in Eagan, it won’t be bringing commerce to Inver Grove Heights. Um, yeah. There’s a there’s a lot more I could say about why I, I wouldn’t approve this.

247
01:27:03,270 --> 01:27:24,030
I really wish it could have been a situation where we could talk about it, and maybe there would be some, uh, some flexibility or some meeting in the middle of what could be put there that could keep the green appeal of this area. And I’m also considered that this is a concern, that this is just opening the floodgates. And it’s going to be really sad to see, uh, this green area of Inver Grove Heights gone. So thank you.

248
01:27:24,030 --> 01:27:48,100
Thank you. Um, planner Schneider, can you kind of go over, um, what the purview of the Planning Commission is? Because I think that’s just a good, fundamental place to start as far as the things that they are asked to weigh in on. And, um. Yeah, madam mayor, members of the council.

249
01:27:48,100 --> 01:28:09,930
So at a high level, the planning commission’s role is to review development applications and review those development requests. Um, based on the land use guidance of our comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, those are the two main guiding documents and tools.

250
01:28:09,930 --> 01:28:34,500
And they also are responsible for holding the public hearings that are required by state statute. And our city code. So all every development application that requires a public hearing goes to the planning Commission for that public hearing.

251
01:28:34,500 --> 01:28:56,330
Um, and so again, their purview is to review proposals against, like I said, the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance and provide a recommendation to the city Council on on what they, if they believe, set proposal meets those goals. So were you at that planning Commission meeting? I was, yes. Okay. And, um, uh, were there quite a few residents that wanted to speak on this item? Yeah. Madam Mayor, there there was there’s a handful of residents. I don’t remember the exact number. Okay.

252
01:28:56,330 --> 01:29:15,530
Um, but less than ten, but. Okay. More than a couple. Um, but they were allowed to speak. At the planning Commission. Yes. Yeah, absolutely. They were. Yes. Thank you. And then can you kind of just go over the benefits to the city? Um, sure.

253
01:29:15,530 --> 01:29:39,030
So this property is it’s guided low, medium density residential. And having guided that way for a while, and unlike the Blackstone Vista project we were talking about earlier, this project or this this site is immediately adjacent to, uh, Argenta Boulevard or Yankee Doodle Road. So it can accommodate a more of a townhome development.

254
01:29:39,030 --> 01:29:57,670
And as one of the gentleman that was speaking earlier, there are benefits when a site can support more dense developments. There is benefits to the city as far as tax base. And uh, in the case of townhomes and going back to the the Dakota County Housing Needs assessment, uh, that we had a joint session on with the commission and the council.

255
01:29:57,670 --> 01:30:16,330
Um, it identified that the city needs all kinds of different housing. So that is in the back of my mind. Yeah. We need all sides. Just so, so again, that this project is definitely going towards those goals.

256
01:30:16,330 --> 01:30:36,570
And while the the development fees and those things are going to the city vegan due to an agreement from 1997 that we have no power to change, unfortunately. But despite that, we do still get the property taxes of these homes. So there is economic value to that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for that bit of history as well as kind of discussing the planning commission. Um, um, okay. Council discussion on this item.

257
01:30:36,570 --> 01:31:01,130
I have a question for staff. Yes. Um, so now that we have the approval of the project to the north, do you recall what the traffic studies were for this project and whether or not that project, especially with the right turn, only kind of scenario, people heading to Eagan down Argenta Trail and then Yankee Doodle.

258
01:31:01,130 --> 01:31:21,930
Um, any impact, any ideas? Yeah. Councilmember cash, I, I think it’s safe to say that this development and the development to the north are far enough apart where there’s not going to necessarily be any direct impacts.

259
01:31:21,930 --> 01:31:41,270
And I’ll just say generally that the city engineer has, as practice reviews, all development applications. And one of the components of the review is traffic. And they, the city engineer has no concerns with the current road network as it relates to the development for this item and the previous proposed development.

260
01:31:41,270 --> 01:32:02,970
So so the combination it of course, the the first people in get the benefit of the doubt on traffic. It’s when there’s a tipping point from some development that then puts a project over the traffic capacity of a road, whether it’s a small road or large road. And I’m just wondering if that was considered given the recent proposal that staff had in front of it for the previous item.

261
01:32:02,970 --> 01:32:21,270
Yeah, I just I was reiterate again that the city engineer and the public works staff, they they review all of those components and I, I don’t want to speak in too much detail because that’s not my department.

262
01:32:21,270 --> 01:32:42,170
But I can say that they look at the overall road network and traffic impacts of developments and what the future guidance of various parcels are. And so okay. Great. Thank you. Yep. Any further discussion? Yes. I always go back to planning, but a lot of the city was planned 4050 years ago in the comp plan. And that’s where the design come comes from.

263
01:32:42,170 --> 01:32:58,670
We don’t get um, as a council, we don’t necessarily get the choice to design each individual lot. That’s during the comp plan planning time. That’s during that’s other times we don’t get to decide that. Well, on this corner. We want this on this corner.

264
01:32:58,670 --> 01:33:13,930
We want that we have to follow what the zoning and the guidance is. And I know that’s frustrating from a person who grew up on a farm in Inver Grove. That’s me on a farm here. I get it. Believe me.

265
01:33:13,930 --> 01:33:30,770
Um, it’s frustrating to see some of the areas built, but most of this has been designed, uh, 40, 50 years ago, and the comp plan has been pretty clear for all those years. We’ve made some changes and we make some changes as time goes by. And truthfully, most of what we’ve changed has been down, down zoning. And that’s really where we’re where we’ve really made the changes.

266
01:33:30,770 --> 01:33:50,770
I don’t remember too many times, I don’t remember anywhere. We’ve up upped it. So I think we’ve been making smart choices over the years to allow residents and property owners to do what they have a right to do.

267
01:33:50,770 --> 01:34:11,570
When I want to base it’s it’s based on our current guidance and and our, our plan, you know, for the future. So I think we’ve done a pretty good job as a city in following our guiding and changing it when we’ve needed to. Just a follow up to that is, I think I understand that the existing zoning for all these projects is there and we can make adjustments.

268
01:34:11,570 --> 01:34:35,700
And the concerns that we’ve heard tonight, you know, around tree removal and that sort of thing, I think goes to, um, having better tree preservation ordinance and be paying more attention to that.

269
01:34:35,700 --> 01:34:52,230
So I think if residents are concerned, they might want to think about how to come together on that issue around, you know, tree preservation, tree replacements, that sort of thing. I think that’s really where we get the most crux of all of this habitat destruction and trees, because it’s true. We’re, you know, we’re losing new trees or, sorry, older trees to new developments all the time. But there is a way for the city to rethink some of that.

270
01:34:52,230 --> 01:35:30,500
And I think going forward, that’s maybe what we should be prioritizing to mitigate some of this impact. Is there a motion or any further discussion? I’ll make a motion to approve the resolution for the final plat. Thank you. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.

271
01:35:30,500 --> 01:35:54,100
Thank you. Thank you for carrying the evening planner. Schneider. Um, our next item is a second reading of an ordinance amending existing interim ordinance. And that is community Development Director Zimmer. Good evening. Yeah.

272
01:35:54,100 --> 01:36:15,800
Madam mayor, members of the council, we’re going to defer that to our litigation counsel to give us some background on this. And then, um, we’re prepared to stand for questions. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Mayor, Council. Members. Um. That your previous, uh, city council meeting, uh, you had, uh, made a motion, uh, for the first reading of the ordinance amending the existing interim ordinance.

273
01:36:15,800 --> 01:36:44,670
Uh, that amendment of the existing interim ordinance is in relationship to a settlement discussions and proposal with the clever LLC. Um, plaintiffs, uh, you know, a lawsuit brought against the city of Inver Grove Heights. Um, they were included in the original interim ordinance, which was passed and adopted by the council.

274
01:36:44,670 --> 01:37:09,670
Uh, they then, uh, brought a lawsuit against us and Dakota County District Court. And as part right after that was we had settlement negotiations as part of that negotiation. Um, they had indicated they would be, uh, willing to work out a settlement, settle this case if they were excluded from the existing interim ordinance.

275
01:37:09,670 --> 01:37:32,200
Um, they agreed to enter into a declaration of restrictive covenants that would attach to the property and bind not only them, but further purchasers of the property. And then they would, uh, settle the case for $0 so the city wouldn’t have to pay for any potential damage claim. Each party would bear their own attorney’s fees and costs.

276
01:37:32,200 --> 01:37:51,770
Um, that settlement proposal, the formal adoption, is not before you, but rather we’re in this process of, uh, amending the existing interim ordinance. So you had the first reading at the last city council meeting, as I understand it, in your current city code, the reading has to occur at an official scheduled city council meeting. So that’s why the second reading is before you tonight.

277
01:37:51,770 --> 01:38:23,770
Thank you. Okay. Any questions from council? Okay. Um, is there anyone in the audience that would like to, um, ask any questions or comment on the second reading of an ordinance amending an existing interim ordinance? Please come forward and you’re welcome to state your name and address. My name is Oren. I live at 8451 Brewster.

278
01:38:23,770 --> 01:38:49,930
Avenue. I guess. maybe this is all been covered previously. But I’m a little unclear in the approval process, and it feels like, um, the key lever is suing us because the Planning commission gave its approval, and I was under the understanding, that would be the city council that would actually approve the project.

279
01:38:49,930 --> 01:39:11,800
Is that not the way it works? If you can clarify, I mean, who authorizes a project to go forward? Yeah. Um, Administrator Heidegger, can you kind of go through the protocol. Of how. that works. Or, um, whoever you would like to speak? Yeah, sure.

280
01:39:11,800 --> 01:39:31,170
Madam Mayor, I’ll start and then I’ll defer to the litigation counsel to to elaborate on it. But I can tell you that, um, the planning commission, of course, you know, considers projects and makes recommendations to the council.

281
01:39:31,170 --> 01:39:50,200
But the council had considered an ordinance, um, to prevent or excuse me, for a moratorium for a study that were to be a year long study on data centers. And during that period of time, there would not be any development of a data center. And within that moratorium, they included the application for this particular data center. The council has not yet taken action.

282
01:39:50,200 --> 01:40:13,130
Any other action on this particular application. Um, what’s before us now? And the council is now considering is whether or not to remove the data center from the moratorium that has already been passed by Council. And the council is weighing that, um, in the midst of a lawsuit and the implications and financial implications of that lawsuit.

283
01:40:13,130 --> 01:40:34,930
So this particular ordinance that’s being considered for a second reading is to remove the data center that had been included on the initial moratorium that was passed by council. So that’s the action that council had taken.

284
01:40:34,930 --> 01:40:52,070
They had not they have not yet taken any official action on the application itself. And that was due to a variety of reasons related to, um, there was an environmental assessment worksheet that needed to be done, and that continued our 60 day rule, which is a lot more probably than you want me to get into it at this point.

285
01:40:52,070 --> 01:41:10,200
But essentially, um, the decision for the major site application is not before the council at this time. It’s simply to look at the ordinance that has been already approved by council, amending that audience to remove the data center from the moratorium. Does that? Well, I think I understand where we are presently.

286
01:41:10,200 --> 01:41:35,830
Again, I think we’re I fail to understand is that it feels like the city Planning Commission then had the authority to move ahead and and say to key Lever, yeah, you can do your project if you check all the boxes. And that feels somewhat, I don’t know, backwards to me in the fact that you take an application.

287
01:41:35,830 --> 01:41:59,270
Um, you would make sure they comply with what you need or what you require, and then ultimately it would be the council that would say yay or nay. But in this case it’s feeling like they’re they’re threatening litigation and kind of leapfrogging the approval process.

288
01:41:59,270 --> 01:42:17,670
And, and I guess some of my other concerns are they say, you know, that they’ll provide jobs. And I think in most situations those jobs are temporary. They’re for construction. And I don’t even know the permanent jobs.

289
01:42:17,670 --> 01:42:38,770
If those are people, they would actually pull from our city or whether they bring someone in there from Florida. Um, you know, I think the impact of the electric usage and the water usage, I don’t feel like that should be a burden to city residents, that there should be something and maybe there is, but there should be something in the agreement that says if if they take above and beyond

290
01:42:38,770 --> 01:43:00,600
any incremental, uh, grid expansion should be borne, that costs be borne by them because they’re the ones who are adding the burden onto, um, the demand.

291
01:43:00,600 --> 01:43:26,270
And it certainly shouldn’t be the residents that have to pay more for electricity or water or even suffer through outages or, or what have you. Um, I just don’t think that it feels like we’ve maybe slowed the process down so that we fully understand the implications. In addition to that, I don’t know if we’ve given them any kind of tax abatements.

292
01:43:26,270 --> 01:43:47,000
I mean, um, I, I don’t fully understand what the motivation is to bring them here. What benefit do they really provide to the city if it’s if we’re saying they provide a commercial tax base that doesn’t place a lot of demands on our school system or on our roads? Um, maybe I don’t fully appreciate that, but I think that’s all information that would be helpful.

293
01:43:47,000 --> 01:44:08,870
And and in the end, I, I think through this whole process, I never felt like the residents were kind of kept in the loop from day one when they have these non-disclosure agreements. And it seems like they’re hiding behind a curtain to say, hey, we want to do this, but don’t tell anybody. Uh.

294
01:44:08,870 --> 01:44:31,270
Um, community Development Director Zimmer, can you kind of explain what the process with not just this, um, application, but all of the applications, they all go to the Planning Commission, correct.

295
01:44:31,270 --> 01:44:49,370
Um, and just how that process plays out and that, um, also, council doesn’t know, uh, who calls the community development department and asks, you know, like, we want to bring our business here. We are the last to know. Um, it’ll go through Jason’s department and then it’ll go to the, the planning commission. So can you just kind of expand on how that process works? And I know Ben Schneider did a good job, but if you could reiterate that.

296
01:44:49,370 --> 01:45:11,800
Can we also clarify the non-disclosure agreements? I got mentioned? Again, there are none. Let’s let’s just make sure that’s that’s clear. So lots. Of questions or good content. I think. Uh, just for clarification.

297
01:45:11,800 --> 01:45:24,530
When development happens in the community, typically a landowner, developer, anybody that’s looking to do a project in Inver Grove Heights, any city will look at the land use or the zoning code to identify whether or not their project can be done in the community.

298
01:45:24,530 --> 01:45:39,700
So if they look at it in the code says, yep, this type of project is permitted or it’s conditional or whatever the use are, then they would sort of come in, they would meet with staff, they would sort of start going through the process. They would make an application for development, and that would sort of trigger sort of a review process that happens both internally as well as publicly, between staff and the Planning Commission.

299
01:45:39,700 --> 01:45:58,200
Planning Commission gets all development applications that come in. Those are then reviewed from their perspective. Their task is to review any development according to city code.

300
01:45:58,200 --> 01:46:15,500
So the zoning code, subdivision standards, land use plan, any development policy that the city might have in place, they then based on those policies or the asks of the developer, then make a recommendation to the city Council for approval or denial based on all of the what they’re proposing to do in compliance with city standards, city development policy. That then goes that recommendation, then goes to the city council, and the council takes that under advisement.

301
01:46:15,500 --> 01:46:30,800
In addition to any comments that staff might provide, any in addition to any comments that they might or feedback they might receive from the community and then ultimately make the decision, the Planning Commission’s role is advisory, so they just provide a recommendation.

302
01:46:30,800 --> 01:46:48,870
The City Council then has full authority to, if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation of approval, the council could deny if the Planning Commission recommendation of denial, the council would approve. So council ultimately has final say on any application that comes before them from. Within the boundaries of the law. Correct within the boundaries of what zoning states or state statute might require. So the Council still has to has sort of the parameters about how they make decisions overall.

303
01:46:48,870 --> 01:47:06,400
Um, this project itself, um, Planning Commission reviewed it, made a recommendation of approval, went to council. The council is not acted on that application at this point. There’s been different factors along the way that have led to no action on that.

304
01:47:06,400 --> 01:47:19,870
The moratorium that was discussed, um, that the interim administrator discussed, there was the request to do an environmental assessment worksheet. So all those sorts of things pause any particular action on the item. So the way it stands right now tonight is um, which is part of the consideration is does the project stay in the moratorium or does it come out.

305
01:47:19,870 --> 01:47:35,270
And there’s different factors that the legal council has advised on. Um, and that’s a discussion of the council to decide whether it stays in or comes out based on tonight.

306
01:47:35,270 --> 01:47:53,000
If the action based on the data center, the moratorium that’s in place, the council would have to deny the application because of the project would fall under the moratorium. Mean the action project would not be able to go forward based on that current ordinance that’s in place.

307
01:47:53,000 --> 01:48:07,800
The consideration is for legal reasons, um, whether it comes out and then the council would have to take action on that application at a point here in the future about whether it gets approved and proceeds or whether it gets denied because of the moratorium. So we’re kind of coming to a point at which ultimate decision on that project will have to take place. Well, thank you for that explanation.

308
01:48:07,800 --> 01:48:31,570
I mean, I guess I still come away with the feeling that they’re telling us what to do. And and as a city, I would think we would evaluate potential projects and decide, is this something that we want to do? But it almost feels like, again, if if they come ahead of other proposals and they meet the boxes or they

309
01:48:31,570 --> 01:48:53,270
check the boxes, we just have to let it go forward and that feels a little bit out of control. Or I it doesn’t seem like we’re actively managing our resources as well as we might. Yeah. Madam mayor, yes.

310
01:48:53,270 --> 01:49:09,230
So the way zoning code works, as an example, is if somebody comes in, let’s say you came in and said, I want to start a restaurant, right? And you say, I want to put it on this property. And zoning code says that is a that land is guided for commercial uses. It’s zoned for a business. And within the sort of table of it’s a permitted use.

311
01:49:09,230 --> 01:49:23,130
Effectively, that means that you have the right or the ability to sort of open a restaurant on that site. As long as you go through the review process right from from the city’s perspective.

312
01:49:23,130 --> 01:49:38,700
Um, so the data center aspect in our current zoning code says the data centers are identified as a permitted use on the property that they’re proposing. So the property on Carman Avenue is guided industrial. It’s zoned industrial. And with the land use table, it says data centers are a permitted use in that zoning district.

313
01:49:38,700 --> 01:49:52,970
So that effectively means that they came in and said, we’re proposing to do a data center on this property, and then we review that project and what they’re proposing to do against city code.

314
01:49:52,970 --> 01:50:05,400
And if they meet all the minimum standards of city code, because that’s how things are based, they effectively would have the ability to move forward with regards to a project. So it’s no different if you open a restaurant and wanted to build a house, as long as you meet the standards that are established by code and your properties are permitted. Use for conditional use.

315
01:50:05,400 --> 01:50:19,500
If it’s a conditional use, the city can establish conditions, right? So that’s kind of typically the way it works. It’s not like somebody comes in and says, I want to do this. And we say, yep, go ahead. It’s all based on the black and white letters of the law in terms of city code. So everything is reviewed based on what we say we allow or don’t allow. Okay.

316
01:50:19,500 --> 01:50:36,070
Well, well thank you. I’ll pass it on to others who are interested. Thank you for your answers. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Please come forward. You’re welcome to state your name and address. Hi. My name is Jessica. I actually live on Carman Avenue.

317
01:50:36,070 --> 01:50:58,570
Me and my significant other recently bought a home last year in Carman Avenue, and we were really excited to live there and to be a part of the Inver Grove community. Originally from the state of Louisiana, and we moved to Minnesota believing that you guys would be different from what we’re from. Where companies kind of rain free.

318
01:50:58,570 --> 01:51:18,200
I don’t know if you guys are familiar, but we have a place called Cancer Alley because people get cancer where I’m from, so I don’t I live so close. I live like within a mile. I believe. Um, and we want to have children here. We want to have a family here. And we want to keep living here.

319
01:51:18,200 --> 01:51:39,470
And we kind of trusted that you guys would be a better place than where we’re from. And so I guess it is kind of upsetting to see this happen because it’s not a restaurant. It’s a data center. It’s something we have no idea about. No idea the environmental impact, no idea what it’s going to do to us.

320
01:51:39,470 --> 01:52:00,870
And we’re just the experiment, right? We’re just the people that you guys wait and see what happens. Maybe in 20 to 30 years, we’ll know that it hurt us. So like, I guess it’s just really upsetting to hear that you’re letting the corporation bully us because you’re afraid of a lawsuit.

321
01:52:00,870 --> 01:52:19,000
When I’m afraid for the lives of my future children, I’m afraid for my life. I’m gonna live here for a very long time. So I guess that’s just upsetting to hear this, because maybe you guys don’t live close to this data center. But I will, and I wanted to bring my family here and to start a new life here.

322
01:52:19,000 --> 01:52:44,030
So that’s just all I have to say about that. Um, I don’t know if you guys can literally comment legally about it. This is just our opinion. And sometime that’s against, you know, legal things and stuff like that. Um, but I just wanted you guys to hear that. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Good evening. Hi.

323
01:52:44,030 --> 01:53:05,400
My name is Julie Allred, and I moved here in the mid 80s and raised my kids in Inver Grove. And I’ve been in the same townhouse since 1998 and I’ve never had power outages like I’ve had in the last 3 to 4 years, not just for hours, but for days.

324
01:53:05,400 --> 01:53:32,070
And our power grid can’t handle it. With all the new construction, all the beautiful homes you’re building, all the hundreds of townhomes, and then the power grid can handle it. In this week alone, three of my neighbors, three of my Co. Yeah, residents listed on Facebook that they had power outage outages. So obviously we can’t handle the grid that is.

325
01:53:32,070 --> 01:53:51,270
And now you want to put a data center in the middle of it. We have two senior centers, two senior apartments within a block. We have two daycares. We have a learning center. And they’re all close to that proposed site.

326
01:53:51,270 --> 01:54:07,330
And another thing is that the funds that are generated by this data center, we are wondering, we talked about it with that lady right over there. Um, we want to know where the money’s going to go.

327
01:54:07,330 --> 01:54:33,000
Is it going to go for housing? Is it going to go for our education? Is it going to go to feed or hungry? These are all things that are important to us. As residents. Inver Grove thanks. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening to you as well. Mayor and council staff. My name is Tim, living in Brooklyn Heights. Just have a follow up. I appreciate your explanation of sort of the process.

328
01:54:33,000 --> 01:54:51,000
I think within the general sense, there’s a lot of confusion on the process. Planning Commission. I sat through that and as you said, things were checked off based on what the city had outlined could be checked off. So as an applicant, I say, here’s my roadmap. Boom, boom, boom.

329
01:54:51,000 --> 01:55:08,600
And then what I understand you said as well, that past came to the council councils that says it’s not a goal yet. I think is what you said. Then the council said, we better get informed or the planning commission said we better get informed because there’s a lot of activity or maybe city residents that may share concern.

330
01:55:08,600 --> 01:55:33,070
Uh, you had mentioned earlier, I think you’re the proprietor. I’m not sure what you’re professional as the designate for for conversation to or input of last meeting that we had here.

331
01:55:33,070 --> 01:55:52,900
Um, my question to you in a, in a general form is the moratorium was passed, um, you had outlined last time, it’s a $20 million hangover, potentially, if we if the council rejects it based on the moratorium being passed after planning Commission said yes. So if it’s removed, can the council then deny? My question is, can they deny the applicant for moving forward of this data center? Because there seems to be some confusion right now. It’s moratorium city is being sued for 20 million.

332
01:55:52,900 --> 01:56:11,500
It’s going to cost me 60% more of my property tax. If if this is pulled out and the applicant, can that be denied in regards to what’s being discussed here, I mean, can this council then deny that? Right as you pull out the pull, the applicant from the moratorium piece of it, do I understand that correctly?

333
01:56:11,500 --> 01:56:34,470
Attorney Kubitschek, could you weigh in on that place? Certainly, mayor. Council. Um, the before you tonight is second reading of the amending the interim ordinance. And that what that would entail is that the clever project would be removed from the interim ordinance, so it wouldn’t be subject to the interim ordinance.

334
01:56:34,470 --> 01:56:57,930
Um, as staff has indicated, the their application, which went before Planning Commission, already would come before the council at a later date. Um, for review. And at that point you would be reviewing it to approve or deny it as part of the settlement. They would this case would only settle if you ultimately approve it.

335
01:56:57,930 --> 01:57:16,870
If you if you do this amendment, remove them from the interim ordinance. And at the end, you ultimately deny their application. Litigation is still going to go forward. Um, and with regard to the the the damage amounts, you know, what’s being shared with us, we haven’t gone through full blown discovery.

336
01:57:16,870 --> 01:57:37,970
And I don’t want to get into all the litigation discussions because I know, uh, Glover’s got their attorneys, uh, listening to our meetings and watching the proceedings. So I don’t want to handcuff myself. If we do end up in litigation.

337
01:57:37,970 --> 01:57:56,070
But you know, what’s being told to us is, up to this point, they’ve incurred, you know, close to $20 million if the project is completely denied their build out, do they anticipate the total worth of the project to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars? So that’s why we had the initial letter that came to the city. It was $150 million, um, that I think was an inflated number, but they probably disagree with that.

338
01:57:56,070 --> 01:58:18,400
But there’s certainly the the damage numbers are larger than just the 20 million. So to clarify, if I may, on my end, the applicant comes it’s signed off by the planning Commission. Applicant clears warehouse spends X amount of millions of dollars clearing ground before their application has been signed off on.

339
01:58:18,400 --> 01:58:36,800
Do I understand it correctly? Because the council hadn’t. Said that would be a question for community development, Director Zimmer. Yes. So I think the question is they cleared the property, they demoed the building and cleared the property. The property without their application being accepted or approved by the council.

340
01:58:36,800 --> 01:58:52,070
So to answer that question, um, any property owner has the right to demo a building on their property. Sure. They cleared it before having an approval. So they they do inherit the risk associated with having demoed the property, not having the approval in hand. Okay. So we’ve got blind.

341
01:58:52,070 --> 01:59:10,900
I say I hear no, I’m going to go buy this property. I’m going to spend X amount of million with the anticipation of being able to build a data center, planning Commission says you’ve checked the boxes. Council hasn’t approved it.

342
01:59:10,900 --> 01:59:34,170
Council, as of April 26th says we got a May 11th says we got to find out maybe what the residents think about this, move forward and not move forward past the moratorium. Applicant says, I’ve got you by the short here because I spent 20 million or I spent millions of dollars clearing this space, and now they’re going to sue. And the city somehow is responsible for them taking the initiative to clear property before they got the application approved.

343
01:59:34,170 --> 01:59:52,470
Administrator. Yeah. Members of the council, I’d like to defer to our litigation counsel to maybe outline more the basis of the lawsuit before us and for a better understanding. And I will let you go.

344
01:59:52,470 --> 02:00:12,270
My my question is because there’s so many there’s so much cloudiness in reverse because I’m, we’re forward against it or it has somebody that’s coming into neighborhood say, I’m buying this this block and we’re tearing it down. But now, if council hasn’t approved it. Attorney Kubitschek is going to weigh in on that question that you have. I appreciate. The. Mayor council.

345
02:00:12,270 --> 02:00:33,930
Um, there’s no doubt that, you know, they came in, they spent some money purchasing the property, doubling the building. Um, my understanding and what they’ve certainly alleged in the litigation, and it’s been talked a bit about tonight, is that when they looked at the city code, they looked at this property, they looked at what was permitted on the site, and you heard conversations

346
02:00:33,930 --> 02:00:53,670
regarding permitted uses, conditional uses. You know, there’s also introduces they looked at city code. They interpreted it to say our use is a permitted use. That means if we’re permitted, we get it. And so they felt confident based on how they’ve alleged in their complaint, that they could spend that money.

347
02:00:53,670 --> 02:01:18,870
Um, and so part of the litigation is they are the claim is challenging the current interim ordinance saying we are permitted use. You don’t have the ability to stop us. Okay. Um, and they’ve also asserted other claims, one of them being a regulatory taking claim and the regulatory taking claim is that your government action, i.e.

348
02:01:18,870 --> 02:01:42,030
, the passage of the interim ordinance, has stopped our project. It’s stopped our investment backed expectations, and we’re entitled to these, you know, 20 million, $100 million.

349
02:01:42,030 --> 02:02:00,070
And it’s based on that whole premise, is based on the fact that when they look at the code and the code says they’re permitted use, even though it’s gone to planning Commission and will ultimately end up before a city council, they’re saying we’re permitted use. You don’t have the ability to stop us. Thank you. So just again, I appreciate your insight. I’m not that side The table. So if I understand.

350
02:02:00,070 --> 02:02:16,830
The permitted use restaurant or whatever, somebody with a permitted use of property with permitted use, they can come in and dictate to the council or to the city if it’s permitted. They meet that requirement. Permitted use, they can come in. And so the five of you all have nothing to say about it.

351
02:02:16,830 --> 02:02:36,970
Is that the way? Do I understand it correctly? Well, we can’t deny a restaurant just because we don’t like them. Restaurant or some other form. Of. center. Any any. Permitted use equals permitted use if they meet that requirement. Council then is pulled out of the equation. I think generally mayor and council I think generally I mean obviously there’s some nuances, but generally that is accurate.

352
02:02:36,970 --> 02:02:59,030
Okay. So I always track back why, why who why who why. And if something’s as we look to property around if it’s permitted use then residents. It doesn’t matter to residents in certain cases it doesn’t matter to council who we elect in certain cases. That’s what it sounds to me as it’s boiling down to permitted use.

353
02:02:59,030 --> 02:03:18,700
They, they they fix that piece themselves and now they’re able to drive their truck, drive their train because there’s no control or no issue, no no influences that our staff here has to. That’s why I’m hearing you say. That’s my comment, that yes, we can’t break the law. Yeah. It’s a it’s a permitted use.

354
02:03:18,700 --> 02:03:37,900
Okay. So then as we roll back, do we have other properties that we’re concerned about in the city that a beer market is permitted use that somebody else could come in and roll the same type of proposition, a $20,000,150 million ask is a good ask when you’re able to identify that space in something being designated permitted use.

355
02:03:37,900 --> 02:04:04,100
So thank you. Appreciate it. Last, it’s not even noted on here as far as the AI piece, this is the agenda sort of hidden I got in here. I’m thinking I thought I’d sell it someplace, but D doesn’t even make mention to the whole conversation. Thank you. That was good. Mitch. Good evening. Heights residents. A couple.

356
02:04:04,100 --> 02:04:28,530
Weeks ago. I asked you, Miss Mayor, I says, uh, who took. The money or who who signed the. Permit or whatever to give them this? Okay. To go ahead with this thing? And you told. Me we go back to this ordinance of 2017. Which you. Didn’t realize was sitting on the books, supposedly.

357
02:04:28,530 --> 02:04:47,300
And through all the lawyers and all the lawyer, you know, whatever the one gentleman says, they came in, they looked at our books, they looked at our ordinances. They cleared the land or whatever. They come, oh, we’re going to meet all the regulations. Where’s all these studies that we all know? What study has been done on? What’s our.

358
02:04:47,300 --> 02:05:02,730
Ground, our water levels. They say, oh, this is not going to use as much water. But what I’m saying is we don’t break the law. And here they are.

359
02:05:02,730 --> 02:05:26,200
How about it hits you upside the head and take your wallet? And what are you going to do about it? That’s that’s where we’re at right now. Who dropped the ball on this? I called a couple of offices in the state legislator and stuff or whatever. I called the Washington on this, and, uh, attorneys, I mean, I’ve listened to your spiel. You’re the law. You know, the law.

360
02:05:26,200 --> 02:05:48,230
Like you just explained all of us. And we’re still kind of shaking our heads. Have you went for any. Have you contacted? Where? One little entity. What are we, 44,000 people. Our population.

361
02:05:48,230 --> 02:06:06,200
And we got an outfit like you say, this big Texas outfit or whatever, they’re going to come in and sue our pants off. Have you people asked for help outside of this? Do you? You know, you just said, well, we can’t give it up. To what this company, they’re watching the meeting right now, you know, like I’ve said it numerous times up here already, this is across the nation.

362
02:06:06,200 --> 02:06:26,470
So we just we’re next in line. Let us say hit you upside the head and take your wallet. Have you asked for any help? Does your as a lawyer or whatever you can go to nobody else.

363
02:06:26,470 --> 02:06:45,130
I mean you have whatever group you’re in or whatever you have outside help. You can ask for. Have you talked to any you know, the EPA, have you talked to anybody? What are these studies? All they met their studies and and their land, their permit gets you know, they say they sign off on it. What studies have been done.

364
02:06:45,130 --> 02:07:11,300
Everybody’s up here crying the blues as I am. How does this just happen? A 2017 ordinance. And here we are socked with a a threat of $150 million lawsuit. And for what? A piece of land sitting down a road three miles from here. It ain’t right.

365
02:07:11,300 --> 02:07:37,000
You know, you can you answer that question for me as an attorney? Do you seek I mean, yes, you’re talking with other attorneys or whether can you go higher? I mean, it spreads out or whatever. I mean, where does it end? Where is it going to end? Any answers goes back to 2017 ordinance. And here we sit.

366
02:07:37,000 --> 02:07:56,600
And how many, how long we been at it. What what’s the process of. And then we’re going one week after another one two, three weeks and boom that’s it. You lost. Answer maybe.

367
02:07:56,600 --> 02:08:23,270
Have you can you seek outside help or have we have we can knock out an upper government to help us on this or whatever is or is you a city hall taking us on all by yourselves and we and we pay. That’s that’s the that’s where I’m at. Thank you. We’ve heard all the explanations.

368
02:08:23,270 --> 02:08:45,130
I can you tell me, uh, as a lawyer now, are you under the crunch that you can’t say anything or what you’re going to do? Because it sounds like whatever you do or don’t say it, there’s decisions already been made. Mr. attorney, I mean. Madam Mayor, I would just ask that the gentleman please address this question to you so you can direct. Whatever request.

369
02:08:45,130 --> 02:09:05,600
Excuse me, excuse me. We’re all in the same room together. This is the fourth meeting I have attended and basically heard the same thing over and over and over. I’m trying to flip it over. They got their use for the permit, and they’re going to build a data center. Whether they sue us or not.

370
02:09:05,600 --> 02:09:34,130
It sounds like the data center is coming. No, we’re on the second reading. Well, the second reading, okay, but I’m just asking a question. He’s the attorney says we don’t want to give it away. Give what away? It sounds like it’s coming. Okay. I mean, nobody nobody wants. Everybody’s glum face. I mean, everybody said it.

371
02:09:34,130 --> 02:09:54,430
We’ve heard it. For. What have we going on a month, a couple of months, three months on this. And it’s going to end in, what, two weeks or whatever. Thanks. I mean. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? Everybody else is in a quandary. Right. I would.

372
02:09:54,430 --> 02:10:18,470
Zain Zanzibar 7181 Karman Avenue. Uh, I find myself immensely frustrated and disappointed, uh, with this current issue, it seems we find ourselves constantly debating these procedural nuances regarding this data center issue and the reality, if we get at the heart of it, is that this community, at least in my view, has clearly expressed

373
02:10:18,470 --> 02:10:34,130
their will that we do not want this. So regardless of whatever procedural failures occur or whatever needs to be done at this point, our question to you is how is our elected officials? Are you going to enact the will of the people who you are supposed to represent? Right? Sure.

374
02:10:34,130 --> 02:10:44,970
They’ve got all these threats, whatever. And the more you go through the procedural nuances, as far as I can tell, this sounds like a slap suit. This sounds like something to put fear in our hearts and make us put our hands up and give up.

375
02:10:44,970 --> 02:11:03,400
That’s what it sounds like, because it doesn’t make any goddamn sense as far as I can tell. Excuse my language, but you’re talking about how we haven’t even fully approved this, and they’re suing us for costs that they incurred, right? Isn’t even fully approved. We could give them their their bid on the moratorium, and you would still technically have a right to deny it. Right.

376
02:11:03,400 --> 02:11:17,670
They haven’t been fully approved to build this. Yes. They own the property. Yes. In theory, based on the permit, they could build this, but you haven’t approved it. So how in any sense does it make sense that they’re going to sue us for this? It’s just not good enough.

377
02:11:17,670 --> 02:11:40,100
In my experience, when we get constant explanation and no one’s the more understanding it, it’s because someone’s guessing. We’re just talking with procedural, uh, jargon and not getting at the heart of the issue. Everyone in this community, whether you check with your neighbors, online forums in these meetings, this is not what we want.

378
02:11:40,100 --> 02:12:07,230
It is not our expectation of you as our elected officials. Yet we continue. To, um, just defend our staff. They do not speak in jargon. They’re trying to explain this in terms that everyone understands. And I apologize if that’s not coming through, but they’re they’re not trying to to speak it in a way that folks don’t understand that that is not the intention of our staff.

379
02:12:07,230 --> 02:12:24,000
Okay. Well, once again, fair enough. But what are we going to do about this? No one in the community wants it. It’s clearly been expressed. And I feel like you know that because it seems you specifically have taken moves to suppress, suppress dissent in regards to this issue, denying public

380
02:12:24,000 --> 02:12:41,530
comment on it consistently. Oh, I can’t talk to anyone in my community who is not very upset and sees this as a asinine failure on our elected, elected officials part. And once. Again. None. Of. Us maybe they’re trying their best when they clearly have not done a very good.

381
02:12:41,530 --> 02:12:58,430
Job, put into effect. What’s that? None of us were up here in 2017 when this was put into an ordinance. Okay, well, you’re in power now, correct? The responsibility now. That’s why we put in. A town. You are not the will of the people, are you? Police here? Put in a 12 month moratorium.

382
02:12:58,430 --> 02:13:14,470
What you are now considering exempting them from. And that is the issue we’re discussing. Correct. So it’s pretty clear we don’t want them exempted. Not until we have at least a lick of understanding in terms of what this is going to have an impact.

383
02:13:14,470 --> 02:13:32,670
We are sitting here watching across the country, community after community, being brutalized by these data centers, water supplies, poisoned, utilities increasing by hundreds of percentiles. I do think we need to be careful with histrionic language because it makes things really sound worse than they are at this point. There’s a river in Tennessee that’s been poisoned. You can’t drink from it anymore.

384
02:13:32,670 --> 02:13:46,600
There are plenty of communities that have seen, like I said, their utility bills doubling, tripling for electricity and water. It’s not histrionics. It’s the reality we are faced with. Whether you want to subvert that or not.

385
02:13:46,600 --> 02:14:03,530
Do you have a question for staff? The question is, is what are you going to do? The people have made their perspective clear. You may not want to. Hear some of them. Yes, some of them. Not all 36,000 people are. Again, you point to a single one have given an affirmative, affirmative. I. People have not.

386
02:14:03,530 --> 02:14:26,770
Many e-mails that are afraid to come here because of the abuse and vileness that comes to this meeting. So, like you were saying jargon. Those folks. Are conics real quick. Good Lord. All right. Madam Mayor. Madam mayor, can I can I take a second? I. I would I understand the frustration. I’m there with you.

387
02:14:26,770 --> 02:14:43,670
but no one has given us an option that we’ve been able to use. So. And I’m going to simplify it because I’m a simple man, that that’s just as simple as I am.

388
02:14:43,670 --> 02:14:58,630
If you have an empty lot next to your house and it is zoned for residential and a builder comes in and says he’s going to build a home on that lot, we as a city don’t get to say he can’t build his home. It doesn’t matter what the residents say. You don’t want another home there. You want an open lot. You don’t get that choice.

389
02:14:58,630 --> 02:15:15,530
It is a permitted use in a zoning district that allows it. So he gets to build his house. That’s where we are with the data center. That’s as simple as I can say. That’s where we are with the data center. We have a choice of we can fight it, which I’ve tried to do.

390
02:15:15,530 --> 02:15:35,870
I think this council has tried to do. We’re getting to a point where I don’t know what the option is left. Tell us what it is. It isn’t just fight, fight, fight because that’s millions of dollars to our residents. And if everybody wants to sign up and add 64% to their property taxes, that’s what the minimum is.

391
02:15:35,870 --> 02:15:55,470
That’s the beginning. That’s not the end. That’s the beginning. So we need some solutions. And I don’t know if we have them right now. We’re right back to where we started from. Okay sir we need to give no you need to give other people a chance to speak. With anybody. You want to step up. I’m sorry. We’re going around.

392
02:15:55,470 --> 02:16:13,130
I’m presiding this meeting, and you need to give other people a chance to speak. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Thank you, thank. You, thank you so much. Thank you for allowing. Comments this evening. I really appreciate it.

393
02:16:13,130 --> 02:16:30,730
My name is Heather Thornton and I’m a long time caller, not a first time speaker at Inver Grove Heights in our city Council, and I’m really glad that we actually just brought up the cost to the residents, because I wanted to look into that myself because we talked about it two weeks ago to better understand how it might affect me.

394
02:16:30,730 --> 02:16:48,870
My friends who live in Inver Grove and um, I actually was really surprised if we took out a 20 year bond for $20 million, since that’s a number that we talked about two weeks ago. I made a lot of assumptions and coming up with these numbers, but I think that it’s important for us to understand what that means in terms of annual property taxes.

395
02:16:48,870 --> 02:17:12,100
And if you have a $300,000 home, that equates to $68 a year. And if you have a $750,000 home, that equates to around $200 a year. I thought that it would be this huge incremental cost to my property taxes, but these numbers are not the gargantuan numbers that I thought that they would be.

396
02:17:12,100 --> 02:17:31,530
For a $20 million lawsuit for Inver Grove Heights. And I think the people, as they weigh in deserve to have that information and what the numbers might really look like so that we can give you our opinion about the direction that the council may go.

397
02:17:31,530 --> 02:17:48,130
Uh, secondly, um, knowing that you have the option to vote tonight to continue with a third reading of the ordinance and still gather information over the next two weeks, something I’d like for you to consider, please.

398
02:17:48,130 --> 02:18:07,400
Is the electrical grid in this area? I have a friend who lives a block and a half from the data center, a block and a half last week alone, she lost power. Not once, not twice. Three times. She was out of power for 11 hours on Saturday. Oh, man. It’s a good thing it wasn’t hot that day because she would have just been really, really uncomfortable. Wait a minute. It wasn’t 90 degrees on Saturday.

399
02:18:07,400 --> 02:18:25,930
She was still out of power for 11 hours. It’s crazy. A block and a half from where this is going. I am not really sure I believe anymore what Xcel has been saying about the grid in that area. Being capable of supporting a new five megawatt data center with possible expansion to be bigger. So that makes me a little bit concerned.

400
02:18:25,930 --> 02:18:43,530
Possibly you could use the next two weeks before the next vote to investigate a little bit more about the possibility of an AR specific to this area of Inver Grove Heights.

401
02:18:43,530 --> 02:19:02,700
To understand the electrical ramifications, along with water and some other things, but specifically the electrical, to make sure that we are able to support it in this area. Again, a block and a half from the site on the Inver Grove Heights site, three times last week, 11 hours on Saturday. Lastly, if this was a fast food restaurant and everybody walked away from it with food poisoning, we’d shut the restaurant down. Thank you for your time.

402
02:19:02,700 --> 02:19:29,730
Thank you. Is there anyone else that hasn’t spoken that would like to speak? I just want to add. Is there anyone else that hasn’t spoken that would like to speak? Good evening. Good evening. My name is Carrie Lundberg. I’m a resident of Inver Grove Heights. First, I’d like to say thank you for public comments tonight. Uh, we’re.

403
02:19:29,730 --> 02:19:47,530
At. A critical juncture regarding this proposed data center. And the core of the issue comes down to one question. How do we know this project will actually be safe and manageable for our community? Right now, we don’t because we don’t have the data.

404
02:19:47,530 --> 02:20:08,870
That’s why I’m bringing up the alternative urban area area wide review. Uh, it’s a UAA or a formal environmental study. Again, I previously brought it up on July 27th in the city Council meeting. I think it’s necessary before moving forward on this project. The developer claims that adding a row of shrubs will fix noise, but Minnesota state acoustical standards are clear.

405
02:20:08,870 --> 02:20:34,070
Vegetation does not legally or practically qualify as noise mitigation unless it’s a dense, 100 foot deep buffer of mature evergreen trees. A few hedges are visual screening, not sound barriers. What a proper noise wall work may be, but what constitutes a noise wall? The developer’s definition, our definition, the council’s definition.

406
02:20:34,070 --> 02:20:53,730
They’re probably all different in environmental study evaluates exact decibel levels and defines real, enforceable mitigation options. So we are not guessing. It’s not just about noise. A formal study answers crucial technical questions, such as how much power will this facility pull? And what binding steps must be taken to prevent massive carbon emissions.

407
02:20:53,730 --> 02:21:14,470
The Minnesota State of Appeals ruled in June 2026, in a Faribault case, that cities cannot gloss over data center energy use or air emissions and their environmental reviews. How will light trespass impact neighboring properties? What specific fixtures, buildings or angles are required to stop it without an official? Without an official study? When we ask for better protections, a developer

408
02:21:14,470 --> 02:21:37,400
can simply say, we don’t have to do that. A formal state environmental study changes that dynamic. It legally identifies substantial impacts and mandates mitigation. Maybe there was a concern about the requirement to evaluate multiple options in an hour, but a data center proposal alongside a no build scenario fully satisfies an requirement

409
02:21:37,400 --> 02:21:57,930
for two development scenarios an gives us the framework to look into long term community impacts from site restoration and decommissioning costs to public infrastructure burdens and local tax incentives. Ensuring our tax payers aren’t left holding the bag. We don’t have to be.

410
02:21:57,930 --> 02:22:23,770
We don’t have to be environmental scientists to get this right. Ars are conducted by qualified environmental engineering consultants using state mandated methodologies and formulas, giving this council objective legally defensible facts to rely on an environmental study isn’t is the only mechanism we have to ensure this project is safe, fair and properly condition for our residents. Please require a full study before taking further action. Thank you.

411
02:22:23,770 --> 02:22:50,470
Thank you. Good evening. Sorry. No. Go ahead. Good evening. My name is Bill Thornton. I’m an. Inver Grove Heights resident. I’ll be. Very brief. Uh, just to add. to what Carrie was saying about the our, uh, because we don’t know if this is safe.

412
02:22:50,470 --> 02:23:10,730
Uh, it’s very important that we get that data, but also, as it relates to the moratorium and the work that has to be done over the next several months, uh, to understand the impacts of data centers and where it makes sense to put them in the city, where it would be safe, uh, doing this work relative to this site may sound a bit silly, because I think we can

413
02:23:10,730 --> 02:23:34,730
all agree if we had our druthers, we wouldn’t want this facility in this site. However, it’s an incremental cost, and that data could be brought to bear on this decision. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Hi. I checked behind me this time. Um, okay. This is a very difficult situation.

414
02:23:34,730 --> 02:23:54,630
I understand, I sympathize with your situation, with your positions. I would not want to be sitting in your chairs. Um. There are a couple of things that I wanted to clarify. And a couple questions.

415
02:23:54,630 --> 02:24:17,570
Uh, so, for one, it’s going to be limited because I know you’re limited in what you can say because of the legal whatnot, etc., but, um, playing out some hypotheticals. If we were to not remove this proposed project from our moratorium and lawsuit plays out. Um, I realize there’s going to be infinite possibilities for settlement with damages as at a huge spectrum.

416
02:24:17,570 --> 02:24:36,570
But, um, let’s say it goes to the point where a judge has to make a decision. They decide that we acted incorrectly. Does the data center still get built, or do we just pay what they have essentially lost revenue and then they go away? Attorney Kubicek, can you weigh in on that one?

417
02:24:36,570 --> 02:24:57,670
Certainly, mayor. Council, as I understood the question, it’s if it goes before the court. The court rules on the legal issues and the court rules against us. In other words, the court rules against the interim ordinance.

418
02:24:57,670 --> 02:25:16,070
Um, then arguably not only would the city end up with the data center, but then they the proposal is going to seek damages for the delay from when they applied until the court actually rules. So you both get a data center and have to pay damages. Okay. So if we keep fighting with the expectation that we’re not going to win, we still get the data center anyway, but also we lose a bunch of money.

419
02:25:16,070 --> 02:25:45,400
That’s not ideal. Um, wow. Same situation. Um, does that impact our moratorium that we’ve passed in any way? Attorney. Kubicek. Mayor, Council members. Um, they have two specific. They being the project proposer in the litigation. They have two specific counts related to the interim ordinance. One is called, uh, you know, as applied.

420
02:25:45,400 --> 02:26:03,530
So it’s specific to their application. Uh, they also have a second one is more of a facial challenge. So it applies to the entire ordinance as a whole. So not in one scenario. They want it the court to find it just doesn’t apply to them.

421
02:26:03,530 --> 02:26:20,130
And another claim they wanted to say this interim ordinance is illegal as a whole. So it would strike it down for anyone so that, you know, if there’s another data center proposal out there, once that gets stricken down, if they could find a spot where it was permitted, they could try to force a project through, um, you know, arguably, again, that’s all timing and

422
02:26:20,130 --> 02:26:39,570
hypothetical, but there are two specific challenges. One, specifically to the project proposer, one seeking to strike down the entire interim ordinance. Okay, so if we lost, there’s a possibility our moratorium would be stopped and we’d have to do brand new litigation to get that. Okay. Got it. Um, okay.

423
02:26:39,570 --> 02:26:53,230
Thank you for clearing that up. I just want to put it forward. Um, obviously it would suck if we lost a bunch of money, and we still get the data center in the same spot.

424
02:26:53,230 --> 02:27:16,070
But if they’re arguing that they are taking a financial hit because of the investment they’ve already put in on this site, if we were able to convince them to change locations, I would be happy to eat. The increase of property tax. If it helps move it further away from residences. I hope that I speak for a lot of our residents, but obviously I can’t.

425
02:27:16,070 --> 02:27:37,600
So for myself, um, we don’t have to walk away from this unscathed. I’m willing to take a like a black eye. Just a little bit of a beating if it means that we can do what’s best for everyone else. Thank you.

426
02:27:37,600 --> 02:28:00,370
Is there anyone else that hasn’t spoken that would like to speak? We’re just going to be allowing one one time up at the podium, and then council needs to move on with the rest of our business. Hello, I’m Stephen Miller, a resident of Inver Grove Heights. Uh, I wanted to bring up something that someone who wanted me to bring something up but remain anonymous.

427
02:28:00,370 --> 02:28:21,270
They brought up the well going with along with this idea of moving, proposing a different location for the data center. They wanted. They brought up the idea that the in the past. How around the certain area around the. Ridge Valley road. Boulevard and Cliff cliff road that were houses removed.

428
02:28:21,270 --> 02:28:46,770
But maybe even closer to the location would be having it near to the Pine Bend refinery, as that is more of a excluded exclusion area. Where? Not many hot, not much housing is currently from. I know, but also I wanted to bring up my concerns on the energy usage as well as this.

429
02:28:46,770 --> 02:29:13,730
This past month there was a statewide service outage due to the data center in in Minneapolis around the six different on the six around 2:00. And so I’m big concerned about our if this one gets put and put in, what could that also do to our other systems besides what power issues we might have? Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

430
02:29:13,730 --> 02:29:41,670
Is there anyone else that hasn’t had a chance to speak? Please come forward. Good evening. Mayor and Council. My name is Kelly. I’m an Inver Grove Heights resident. Um, just a couple. Of things. Um, now that we’re approximately two months. from when the moratorium was first voted on.

431
02:29:41,670 --> 02:30:00,870
Um, unless I misunderstand, I don’t think this amendment resets the clock. So we’re now at ten months for working on the moratorium, which I think is really important. Um, you know, it’s a really unfortunate thing. I personally would prefer not to see the data center in that location for many of the reasons that have already been set forth.

432
02:30:00,870 --> 02:30:22,730
But property law and zoning law is very clear, and the property owner is holding the cards. Um, you are voting to confirm that they’ve checked the boxes. You’re not voting on the project because they’ve checked the boxes. So I think someone said, we’re right back where we started from. We kind of are.

433
02:30:22,730 --> 02:30:44,630
And, um, along those lines, I would like to see, um, an estimate of what the cost of the last two months has been. Um, and I would encourage you to share that information at the third reading if there is one, both hard and soft costs.

434
02:30:44,630 --> 02:31:07,000
External counsel and house counsel staff time the consultant for the EAW. Um, I’m just curious to know what it has cost the city to end up back where we started. Um, so I would encourage you, I’ll reach out to the city clerk if you’re not able to share it at the meeting. Um, I think the environmental studies were a good, um, idea to pursue.

435
02:31:07,000 --> 02:31:27,270
But again, whatever those studies show, um, cities kind of bound by what the state regulations and federal regulations are concerning water pollution and all of those things.

436
02:31:27,270 --> 02:31:47,300
So, again, more time spent, more money spent, but where are we going to end up? And, you know, the sad reality is, is if only someone had thought at some point, what does Inver Grove do about data centers before a pending application came to the city? Whether it’s a resident staff or a city council member? Um, that would have been the time to do the moratorium and exclude the current application.

437
02:31:47,300 --> 02:32:12,570
Um, and just the last thing I’d like to say is, um, I’m not okay with my taxes going up to end up right where we started. I’d rather my taxes go to do things that are going to improve the community. Um, and, um, you know, not for something that’s just going to bring us back where we started. Thank you. Thank you.

438
02:32:12,570 --> 02:32:37,070
Good evening. Um, my name is Maryann. McArdle, and I’m a resident of Inver Grove Heights. This question may have been answered tonight. It wasn’t answered at previous meetings that I’ve been to, but my question is related to the ordinance that you keep referring to from 2017. That was what allowed us to be where we are right now.

439
02:32:37,070 --> 02:32:59,530
Am I correct in saying that. Um, I have to hear the rest of your statement. I’m not sure. Was there a ordinance in 2017 that enabled the data center to check all the correct boxes? Administrator. Yeah. Um, madam mayor, members of the council, my answer would be yes.

440
02:32:59,530 --> 02:33:17,630
I’m going to defer to our community development director to make sure I’m accurately answering that question. Yes, Mayor, members and mayor, members of the council. Yes. The current zoning code that’s in place was adopted in 2017. That does include data centers and everything else that’s currently in code. Okay. Minus any particular updates that may have happened during since 2017 to today.

441
02:33:17,630 --> 02:33:36,470
Thank you. Okay. So my question is, is there things in the works now that are going to stop data centers from another data center to come to the Inver Grove heights? We are in the middle. Um, at the beginning actually, of a 12 month moratorium.

442
02:33:36,470 --> 02:33:55,670
I understand that, but I want to know after the 12 months is over, two years from now, if another data center wants to come here, are they going to be able to or is there going to be ordinances or whatever it is that you call it, you call it that will say, no more data centers and Inver Grove heights.

443
02:33:55,670 --> 02:34:12,870
I can’t predict what the federal, state or ourselves are actually going to do. Okay, ten. More than that. But but it wasn’t the state or the feds that got the one here. Now it was the city.

444
02:34:12,870 --> 02:34:37,770
So my question is, is the city going to work on something? And is that the planning commission? And I’m sorry, sir, I don’t know who it was that you work with, but if we have ordinances in the city, we can. We say this ordinance excludes data centers anywhere. Yes. So just so I will reiterate, I cannot predict what the city is going to do in ten months. We are using this last ten months of the 12 months of moratorium to answer that question.

445
02:34:37,770 --> 02:34:57,370
Okay. And I’m sorry it’s late, but I need to get clear on this so I can come here and talk to you all about it. But you are not the people to talk to about what’s going to happen in in ten months. Is that correct? Is there another group. Of people. Up that decision. In regard to what.

446
02:34:57,370 --> 02:35:17,470
The stopping data centers from coming here? I don’t see that you are the folks that do that. Madam mayor, I mean. Yes. If you wouldn’t mind, maybe perhaps we could have staff help respond to that. I’ll defer to Jason. Um, or. Attorney Kubicek, please weigh in. Thank you. Mayor, Council members.

447
02:35:17,470 --> 02:35:37,570
Um, you do have an interim ordinance. And what we’re talking about tonight is just the second reading to amend it to exclude this particular project. That interim ordinance is still in effect. Um, for the remaining, I think it is probably close to ten months to review data centers. And there is a process. You have committees. It goes. Planning commission.

448
02:35:37,570 --> 02:35:53,400
There’s public hearings. And this is where people weigh in on do they want data centers? Do they not want data centers? Where do they want data centers? Where does it fit? When you look at your comprehensive plan, where does it fit? When you look at your zoning ordinance, what changes

449
02:35:53,400 --> 02:36:10,630
do we need to make to our comprehensive plan? What changes do we need to make to our zoning ordinance? That is all of the discussion process that occurs moving forward. In this process. And you want public involvement.

450
02:36:10,630 --> 02:36:29,670
That’s why you’ve got that interim order, the interim ordinance, to talk about it, just like you would when you earlier tonight, you had other comprehensive plan amendments you’re looking at or updates in the future. Again, a public process. Um, and then ultimately there’s going to be recommendations that are made.

451
02:36:29,670 --> 02:36:43,530
There’s going to be recommendations made by this, this committee, recommendations made by the Planning Commission that’s going to come to you. And then there will be a decision made. And I think it’s fair to say you don’t know what that decision is going to be, because you don’t know how the process is going to play out.

452
02:36:43,530 --> 02:36:59,130
Certainly there’s we’ve heard a lot of public, uh, opinion so far. This whole process. They don’t want data centers or they want them in different locations. That’s what’s going to come out during the interim ordinance process. And that’s what it will ultimately be before you to vote on.

453
02:36:59,130 --> 02:37:19,430
So I guess a simple answer to your question would be the the planning Commission. They, um, or they statutorily have to have a public, um, comment period. And that would be one of the avenues that you could use to voice what you would like to see in that ordinance. Okay. And I appreciate that.

454
02:37:19,430 --> 02:37:42,730
But one thing I would like to point out is that Inver Grove Heights is, in my opinion, my own opinion, very poor at communicating with with the residents. I understand that there is a website, but I could probably pick five of my neighbors right now who do not access the internet, and I think it would behoove you and all of us if we could get

455
02:37:42,730 --> 02:38:03,030
written correspondence about what’s happening and when the meetings are. We did put the data center in the insights, which is delivered to every postal address in Inver Grove Heights. Um, again, I think a letter about a specific issue would be welcome. It would be welcomed by me. Okay, okay. I appreciate your time.

456
02:38:03,030 --> 02:38:29,630
Thank you, thank you. Is there anyone else that has not had time to speak? Okay. Uh, council deliberations and a motion discussion. What is the will of the council? Mayor, I have one question. Yes. Uh, Director Zimmer, can you tell us about an AR AR.

457
02:38:29,630 --> 02:38:49,930
And if it would apply in this situation? Uh, Council member Gleave and members of council, I would. I have to review. I know Corey had sent some information before. I’d have to look at the context of that. Typically hours are done to sort of evaluate sort of different development scenarios in a particular area. They don’t study just one particular topic or project.

458
02:38:49,930 --> 02:39:05,030
Um, other elements of what’s being discussed or proposed that we that could be looked at. As part of that, I’d have to explore that. But typically things like, um, the state rules around it sort of dictate and guide in terms of the different things that are effectively evaluated with that.

459
02:39:05,030 --> 02:39:18,200
So I know there are some I know there’s been lots of conversation about electricity grid. That’s not something that falls underneath that purview. That’s a private entity that’s run by Xcel. They make the decisions based on what a project can or can’t handle from those sorts of things.

460
02:39:18,200 --> 02:39:31,530
So there are a whole list of evaluation evaluators that are sort of gone through when it comes to sort of any environmental study, that sort of established by Minnesota rules.

461
02:39:31,530 --> 02:39:50,330
So I’d have to go back, and I’m happy to chat with Corey in more detail on on that aspect of it, just to get a broader understanding of what the context is looking at for that. But typically it would not be done to just study a particular topic. It’s usually to look at development scenarios, whether it’s industrial, residential, different things, and then explore what are the environmental impacts, potentially as a result of that, traffic impacts and sort of give recommendations as it relates to those different

462
02:39:50,330 --> 02:40:15,200
scenarios. Okay. So is that a petition driven thing or is that a council staff or how does that work? Council member and members of council. So hours are typically done either by a developer because they’re looking at doing a larger development, or they can be driven guided by cities.

463
02:40:15,200 --> 02:40:37,630
Um, there is no petition element related to doing an AOA. According to Minnesota rules. That’s only a petition to do an environmental assessment worksheet, which was previously done. Okay. Thank you. And follow up to that. How long will it take you to get all the information you just mentioned? Uh, talking two days, two months.

464
02:40:37,630 --> 02:40:55,270
On, completing an hour? Well, just what it would whether or not we really have the ability to do an hour. And. Yeah, um, probably just a couple of days, I’d probably just revisit what the Minnesota rules are.

465
02:40:55,270 --> 02:41:24,600
I’d probably talk to the consultant that we’ve used as it relates to ours previously, just to sort of talk through that component so that we can provide as much information as we can to those that have asked for it, as well as the council. Thank you. Okay. I’m looking for discussion or a motion or both. I just a discussion point.

466
02:41:24,600 --> 02:41:48,800
I think the I think there’s really a need for a second power source to come into this property. And I think we have to push for that. Power supply would reduce a second power supply. Excel has said they would bring in a separate line. Um.

467
02:41:48,800 --> 02:42:16,330
For this project, but if there’s any kind of, you know, car accident hits a pole, an electrical pole and takes out the electricity, or there’s a storm there going to be a lot of times when those backup generators are running and, um, I think to reduce the length of time those generators are running in the air, pollution associated with those having a second power source would be a real boon. Um.

468
02:42:16,330 --> 02:42:36,600
And, and potentially without talking with Excel infrastructure folks, it’s hard to know if it would have any impact on the consistent outages. I mean, I think the electrical outages in that part of town have been years long. They we’ve heard about these and, um, I would really appreciate it.

469
02:42:36,600 --> 02:43:05,030
I don’t know if our litigation attorney can go back one more time. I, I know there’s a not a lot of interest in moving differently on the settlement agreement by the people that are suing us. But I think if we could push for a second power line source, it would be really important.

470
02:43:05,030 --> 02:43:26,500
Um, and I mean, I appreciate that the the applicant has said they would do more plantings and they would raise the wall, um, etc., around the generators. But I also think they could put the generators indoors and help reduce some of the noise and air pollution. That way. Um, it’s we’re in a tough spot.

471
02:43:26,500 --> 02:43:51,970
I mean, I think everyone in this room recognizes we’re in a tough spot and we should have somehow. Um. Maybe we just admit that we were caught off guard. And I don’t know if that hurts our case or builds our case. You know, to the people watching in Texas.

472
02:43:51,970 --> 02:44:26,470
But, um, there’s this particular this particular moratorium wasn’t aimed at this particular applicant. It was aimed at all data centers. And so it’s not really they fell into it by virtue of the timing of their application. But we definitely were not looking at singling out this particular data center. So I just wanted to put that out there. I have a quick question to, um, Councilmember Takata.

473
02:44:26,470 --> 02:44:47,270
Are you referring to having a redundant line for Excel? Two lines? Yes, yes. They said they were going to bring in a separate, if I’m not mistaken, they were going to bring in a separate line to deal with the five megawatts of energy they need. And I think having a second redundant line, I mean, that’s just like common practice.

474
02:44:47,270 --> 02:45:49,300
That’s a standard practice. I would think for many commercial entities, manufacturing anything, partly because it’s expensive to run generators and partly because, um, it can disrupt production. So. Okay. So I’d be looking for a motion or further discussion. All right. We’re all gonna sit here. I’ll make the motion.

475
02:45:49,300 --> 02:46:06,230
We have put up a fight. I think we’ve done a admirable job of giving it our best, best shot. And we got to get to the third reading so we can discuss it one more time. Try to see if we can come up with some something. Um, I don’t know what that’s.

476
02:46:06,230 --> 02:46:39,330
Something is, uh, I just don’t don’t know what what it is, but, um, I’ll make the motion to move the second reading.. Any further discussion or a second. I’ll second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? I. Motion carries. Um. With that, we will move on to public comment.

477
02:46:39,330 --> 02:47:03,200
Public comment provides an opportunity for the public to address the council on items that are not on the agenda, and comments will be limited to three minutes per person. Please come forward. Hi again. Um, first of all, in this public comment, I would like to thank you for all of the public comments.

478
02:47:03,200 --> 02:47:19,730
It was incredibly helpful and educational to everybody in this room and probably everybody listening online to hear, especially the back and forth discussion such like the and it’s not just get up and like talk for three minutes, but be able to ask a question and have it answered and just have a little bit of insight into the technicalities that

479
02:47:19,730 --> 02:47:40,570
all of you deal with day to day. Uh, beyond that, regarding the DOS. Creek was. It doesn’t. Woods days if it’s something that was on the agenda, you’re going to need to submit it to the clerk. The public comment is just for items not on the agenda. It’s not about Dawson Woods. Um, it’s about traffic.

480
02:47:40,570 --> 02:48:02,370
Say, Dawson Woods. Well, I mean, the intersection that it’s going to be built next to. Okay. Um, so I understand there’s traffic concerns because of Dawson Woods and whatnot, but I actually live at the intersection and take the turn onto Yankee Doodle slash Argenta frequently.

481
02:48:02,370 --> 02:48:28,100
Um, I know traffic studies might have said that it’s not an issue with traffic with density, but that’s kind of a blind corner. Uh, and when you’re turning left off of 77th Street West or right off of Argenta onto Yankee Doodle, um, it is tough to see if there’s a car coming from the West. Um, I think a roundabout there would probably help a lot.

482
02:48:28,100 --> 02:48:52,600
Okay. Otherwise it’s mostly a safety thing. Just because it’s hard to get up to speed before someone going 50 at that intersection is going to be on top of you. So not about Dawson Woods, but it’s relevant. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Good evening again. Good evening again. This I said.

483
02:48:52,600 --> 02:49:11,300
Mention this earlier, but I appreciate what you all do. That’s first. So I didn’t mean to repeat myself, but thank you. Second is, as kids get back to school, the sidewalks are plenty full of scooters.

484
02:49:11,300 --> 02:49:27,900
And maybe there’s a training course that the kids or the parents should have with the kids on how they manage their scooters. And we don’t want to have young kids getting bumped over. So as a heads up and I enjoy walking on the sidewalk, so I’ve started to wear a helmet on the sidewalks. I think we. Understand. Mayor, appreciate what you all do. Your energy. Thank you. Mayor, if I may. Yes, sir.

485
02:49:27,900 --> 02:49:46,500
You said scooters, right? Like motorized. Electric. Electric? Well, we have to probably go to staff to determine what the definition of a scooter. Is. But it could be anything on two wheels with kids on top of it. And they’re motorized. Motorized? Motorized. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, mayor. Whatever it may be.

486
02:49:46,500 --> 02:50:11,530
Our PD is actively looking into that in solutions. Thank you. Anyone else on an item that is not on the agenda? Okay. With that, I would look to Attorney Nason to lead us into a closed session. Thank you. Mayor, members of the council. I’m looking for a motion as follows.

487
02:50:11,530 --> 02:50:33,530
I hereby move to move into closed session pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 13.05, subdivision three. Be attorney client privilege regarding litigation in the matter of faith and capital versus city of Inver Grove Heights. And balancing the purposes served by the attorney client privilege versus those served by the Open Meeting law.

488
02:50:33,530 --> 02:50:52,130
The need to receive confidential legal advice from the city’s litigation counsel related to the pending legal action, including legal advice related to possible litigation strategies and the need for absolute confidentiality, outweighs the public’s right to be present in an open meeting. For this discussion. If passed, the closed session will begin immediately in the mayor’s conference room.

489
02:50:52,130 --> 02:50:52,130
Once the closed session is completed, this meeting will reconvene and then be adjourned this evening, again looking for a motion, a second and a vote. Thank you. Is there a motion? I’ll make a. Second. Any discussion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank