The commission delved deeply into the implications of the development on the city’s comprehensive plan. The plan designates the area for low and medium-density residential use, conflicting with the proposed densities. This discrepancy raised questions about utility projections, household growth, and the broader impact of potential developments moving westward. Commissioners highlighted the necessity of revisiting utility and road network plans in response to ongoing interest in adjacent parcels.

A significant topic was the infrastructure required to support the development, particularly related to water supply and treatment. The area along Creek Side Lane is slated for a future water treatment plant, planned for 2030, given the current facility is nearing capacity. The commission discussed the need for a new plant to ensure water quality, emphasizing coordination with landowners and developers for land rights. The impending activation of well number six in the Marsh Hollow development, pending a permit amendment from the Department of Natural Resources, was also underscored as important to addressing water supply needs.

The commission expressed skepticism about the development’s density, noting it falls short of the Met Council’s Imagine 2050 plan, which requires a minimum of four units per acre. The proposed plan offers about 3.42 units per acre, raising concerns about whether the density aligns with long-term regional planning goals. The absence of parks or community gathering areas within the development was highlighted by the Parks and Recreation Committee, who recommended integrating trails, sidewalks, and park areas or offering cash contributions for park development.

Access points and traffic management also dominated the discussion. The proposed development currently relies on a single access point, raising concerns about its feasibility given anticipated traffic volumes. A traffic impact analysis was suggested, and negotiations with neighboring property owners for additional access were deemed necessary. Stormwater management plans were also scrutinized, with commissioners noting the need for clearly marked stormwater areas in development plans.

Commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed reduction in R1 standards, including lot area, width, and setbacks, and the absence of guest parking for townhomes. They noted plans to create a public through street in the townhome area and adjust road curvature for traffic calming.

The meeting also touched on the city’s broader infrastructure capacity, questioning the feasibility of accelerating the timeline for the second water treatment plant initially scheduled for 2030. Commissioners raised concerns about budget implications and the potential need for developers to bear some costs associated with expedited timelines.

In addition to the main development discussions, the meeting briefly addressed the addition of new art in the council chambers and ongoing dialogue regarding cannabis ordinances. The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn, passing without opposition.