okay we're going to call the February 6 2025 corpin Planning Commission meeting to uh begin I'll start with roll call um brummond is here commissioner harres here commissioner kazaki here commissioner Lind here and commissioner Yang is absent um at this time I'd like to invite all of you to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me I pledge 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 it's a nice uh new backdrop I'm noting makes a great picture backdrop when you have those uh Awards handed out um okay at this time I would just like to ask staff or the Commissioners if there are any amendments that need to be made to tonight's agenda Madam chair staff has no uh amendments to tonight's agenda okay and if the Commissioners don't have any amendments then I will uh entertain a motion to approve the agenda a motion to approve second all those in favor I anyone opposed okay and at this point in time we will open up the floor to the public to participate in what we call the open form Forum this is an opportunity for the public to address the members of the commission with any item that's not currently on tonight's agenda and uh I would go over the rules of decorum but I feel like both uh all of our participants are here for items that are on the agenda tonight so if there's no one here then I will make a motion to close the open Forum I'll second all those in favor hi anyone opposed okay and then at this point in time we are going to look over the commission meeting minutes from December 5th which was the last time that we had a meeting if there aren't any um changes that need to be made or any items to address then I will entertain a motion to approve those minutes entertain or make sorry uh entertain but I'll make I'll make I'll make the motion I'll second all right all those in favor I I anyone opposed okay all that business out of the way brings us to tonight's new business and each of our new business items is a public comment opportunity but we're going to begin with the is it I'm saying it correctly if I say space garage conditional use permit okay perfect and we're going to start with a staff report and then we'll move into the public public hearing thank you madam chair yeah uh item 6A tonight is the public hearing for the spai garage conditional use permit uh the request itself comes from Jordan spai um and he's requesting approval of a conditional use permit for an accessory building that exceeds uh a building sidewall height of 10 feet in the sidey yard of his property at 7090 jubert Lane the property itself is um currently zoned rural residential and guided um rural residential the structure itself is um planned to be placed in the sidey yard and exceeds all of the required setbacks um the applicants requesting um the structure be 2,27 2,720 square fet where um 2750 F feet is allowed so just under um 30t of that maximum um the proposed sidewall height for this application is 18 F feet which exceeds that 10 foot limit but can be allowed through a conditional use permit um the building overall doesn't exceed the overall overall structure height limit of 35 ft in the res rural residential district um the applicant is proposing White Steel panels for the siding um that may be approved through a um certificate of compliance um and from the looks of it everything looks like it would be approved we just need the applicant to um confirm that the siding has been applied with a factory applied um color coding system that protects against any fading or um degrate degradation um and the proposed even overhang length of this structure is 2 feet um and the minimum is is uh one foot requirements uh staff recommends the following conditions of approval um the structure cannot be used for commercial or accessory living purposes without first obtaining the necessary City approvals um and um a condition of approval should also include that the applicants confirm that that uh those siding panels so that we can um confirm that for the certificate of compliance so at this point staff recommends that the commission open the public hearing and take testimony and uh we we recommend approval of the draft resolution thank you Dwight okay at this uh point in time we will go ahead and open the public hearing regarding the SPI garage conditional use permit um I would like to give the applicant we do have the report but if you wanted to uh address the commission you're certainly more than welcome to but you don't have to um that's up to you and otherwise anyone else I'm guessing um there isn't going to be anyone speaking on this issue do you did you want to say are you're good with the application it I don't know what want to say but I can talk no you no requirement um because this will go um I I have anyway there's no requirement to speak um we will just ask you questions if the if there are any that come up we just would like to give you the opportunity app okay all right so then we will go ahead and I will make a motion to close the public hearing I'll second okay all those in favor I anyone opposed okay and so at this point in time this is an issue that we have had come up a few times but I do want to give you guys the opportunity to um ask any questions or um have any discussion so now's the opportunity if you uh have it otherwise if you don't let me know like if you're I would just ask staff if this is a common occurrence is there a desire at a maybe this a policy level change this this is actually one of our this has has been identified as one of the priorities for the commission to be addressed great yes no question good question what typically can occur in a accessory structure um typically storage or um if it's a personal Workshop or things of that nature but if it begins to be used for like a commercial use or for um a a place to stay or a place to to live in and that's where it starts to require those additional approvals from the city um for either one of those can you have toilets in an accessory structure we do yeah like we have a barn with a bathroom in it yeah okay um and so like a lot of folks with an accessory I mean I won't speak I guess for them and and this I will allow you to address the reason you'd like water out there if you want but it certainly isn't an uncommon thing in accessory structure I'm just asking a question yeah yeah you're you're allowed to have one within your accessory structure it's when we start seeing the kitchenet or the bedroom or things like that where we we start to have those sort of triggers of um it might start looking more like an accessory dwelling unit than it does just an accessory structure as far as the height it it exceeds the height it's going to be white I I kind of looked around does an accessory building have to match the main building color-wise or does it not matter an accessory dwelling unit has to match the aesthetic of the principal structure but accessory unit or access accessory structure itself doesn't so the Height's not a problem for Neighbors it didn't look like it was going to be really visible from any of the Neighbors when I looked at it so I I assume it's not an issue with no I most of them were before I did this yeah okay okay so at this time then I would like to make a motion to approve City file 24- 046 uh for the spa garage conditional use permit no second all those in favor I I anyone opposed okay and then that'll be a recommendation that goes on to council and this will go on their agenda next and um it will likely be in a consent agenda but the staff can answer any questions for you if you have any regarding that later or now we we can chat offline about it okay you for anything else no no thank you so much for coming we appreciate your time and at this point in time we're going to go to our next new business item which is the Northeast District design guidelines zoning ordinance Amendment um and we're going to begin with a staff report thank you madam chair um next slide this is request from hemple Development LLC for a zoning ordinance text amendment to three standards in the Northeast District they came in front of the council in March of last year and identified these issues uh I think at the time they and staff were hoping that commercial industrial ordinance updates would be done before they came in with a formal application but for a variety of things related to staff workload that hasn't been completed so they are proceeding with this request to make three Chang es one to the building material standards in the industrial district uh two to the parking setbacks along common uh lot lines and three to landscape Islands uh and I'll talk about each of those but I wanted to note that if amended it would apply to all the properties in the Northeast District if you recall the Northeast district has a set of Standards that's a little different from in the rest of the ordinance for example we adopted higher standards for landscaping to kind of use that as a test that if it worked well we would apply that in the future across the city so this was sort of a test for a number of things so uh again it would apply in the Northeast District only not the remainder of the city next slide so the first is an issue of building materials when the Northeast standards were adopted in 2022 um the standards indicate that only pre-cast panels are allowed as a pre-cast panels are only allowed as a class three material which is an accent m material but the image in the ordinance has this image from Brooklyn Park calling it class one material which is pre-cast and that's a very standard material in an industrial district and I think that was a mistake in the ordinance I think the ordinance language was really focused on commercial and residential and erroneously didn't provide the exemption or exception for the industrial properties um the pre-cast material itself comes in a variety of styles and I included in the packet all the different textures and finishes that you may find for pre-cast in talking with other staff members we've developed an ordinance that only allows the smooth finished concrete panels rather than uh some of the other um ra or aggregate materials that you do see in town we do have other tilt up materials in corkran and um one could argue about whether those are appropriate or not in fact just south of here we have other pre-cast material south of this site but we felt like in the Northeast District the new higher standards it would be appropriate to keep it limited to the pre-cast um smooth finish that is what uh hemple is proposing for their their building and so the draft language would allow smooth finished Concrete in the i1 district only um other pre-cast material Styles would still be allowed as a class three material though next Slide the second issue is about parking uh it's less clear on the screen than I had hoped uh the image but the applicant's asking to amend the code to allow shared parking with a zero setback so in a multi-building development this example is Arbor Lakes and Maple Grove right on uh uh 494 I4 I use that because I think you're probably all familiar with it you can see the buildings back back up to each other and they share a parking zone or a loading zone in between buildings and there's no green space between that there's no setback from them that's very very common we allow that in the code in the GMU the general mixed use District which is the district along um County Road 30 but only there and um I'm not sure why that is uh we do recommend that we allow the zero setback where it's a master plan develop vment with a common lot line separating two or more parking lots uh and so we've provided language and the draft ordinance for your consideration this evening next issue is related to uh parking lot Islands there you parking Bay so our ordinance requires uh and this is again something new in the Northeast District in the Northeast District we require parking lot Islands every 15 spaces and on the endcaps of parking lots we didn't exempt uh loading areas those areas are typically less visible they're screened by buildings and they're they exist for truck trailer maneuvering and those islands can make that very difficult for those large vehicles to maneuver in that zone and so we are suggesting an exemption just for those truck trailer parking lots for those truck trailer Bays any passenger vehicle parking lots are still subject to those standards um and if you look at the images again this is a different image in Brooklyn Park again shows a zero setback for parking but also you can see that passenger vehicles are required to have landscaped Islands but again not in those truck vehicle things so the two images were just different cities to show an example that's really industry standard um and we think it's appropriate um as requested by the applicant to make those modifications to the Northeast District standards and the next SL um again for those reasons we do think it's appropriate if the this would go to the council at their next uh or at their meeting at the end of the month and if approved the applicant would modify their development application to reflect the new ordinance language and we expect their formal development application to be in front of you next month at your March 3rd uh Planning Commission meeting so next slide this is a public hearing uh we do recommend that you open the public hearing and take comments but we do recommend approval of the draft ordinance as included in your packet and the resolution with the findings of fact happy to answer any questions and the applicant is here as well Madam chair thank you uh at this point in time we will open the public hearing um regarding this uh zoning ordinance Amendment to the Northeast District design guidelines um if you would like the opportunity to address the commission you're more than welcome to but you're not required um happy to answer question but perfect thank you and at this point in time uh is there anyone else who is here to address the zoning ordinance amendment I don't see anyone else so at this point in time I will entertain a motion to I'll just make the motion it'll be faster to um close the public hearing second and all those in favor I anyone opposed okay and at this point in time then we will uh open it up for a commission discussion questions who would like to go first is there any history of why these ordinances were done this way that would yeah would cause us to say no we don't want to change it yeah when we adopted the Northeast District standards we were trying to adopt a higher level of design and I think this was really just looking more at the mixed use and Commercial areas in the Northeast district and really not um working through all of the issues related to an industrial project and so when this project came forward they identified a couple of issues that they they requested and as we met at the staff level at our development review committee staff has no objection to the changes and believe they're appropriate for an industrial user like this and one other question um sharing the parking lots was one of the requests does that just mean there's more uninterrupted asphalt parking lot there without buffers in between basically in those in those truck loading Bays then there is a lot line that runs down the middle of that truck loading area but rather than having a green space in there to separate the two that uh would be used by both and and as part of any development proposal they would need to have a cross access uh easement and maintenance agreement to ensure that that area is maintained by both lot owners and it just makes it easier to maneuver the large trucks in that very common on these multiphase projects both for commercial and Industrial when so when more than one when there is a developer developing more than one of the Lots but it's not going to be the same company necessarily as what they're talking about when they meet in lot lines I do have to say like uh it feels rational um I really really really struggle with the the because part of what the intent that went into the Northeast District design guidelines was not just like a standard but overall it was supposed to take greater care of the environmental factors so like the impervious surface portion so like I understand it makes sense um not to require sort of a buffer space where you know that that lot line is going to be um utilized like the bays are going to be facing each other and they're going to be utilized for the same purpose I'm just wondering then um does it make any sense to to ask for a greater environmental um component somewhere else um within that larger development um having been a part of the Northeast District design guideline uh implementation process like when we were considering it we were hoping that there weren't going to be any issues where like uh applicants came in and then issues came up but I think it's sort of how it goes right you feel like okay here's where we missed or here's where we missed um but I do remember that overall that that was just one of the greatest goals um in kind of requiring some of those higher design guidelines so that would be um I don't have a proposal right which I wish uh that I did um in terms of what that would potentially look like um but again I understand the rationale of because in using a truck bay like that it makes a lot of sense but I do struggle with the fact that it's just going to be a massive impervious surface are there drainage issues with it not having any kind of a permeable surface I don't think there's drainage issues other than the fact that however that groundwater is being collected it's not in the ground so but in terms of like I don't think that they would design the the unit in such a way that you would have standing water I'm pretty confident that they would do a phenomenal job um to make sure that all of that water went somewhere um it it's just you know that it's it would just be paved but again I don't have a a fantastic proposal CU I'm trying to remember what other um requirements there were in particular in the commercial District cuz I think some of them were to hit so many boxes in terms of environmental and so that's where I'm I'm having a hard time fitting this one piece into the bigger picture let me highlight some of those some of your questions so you're absolutely right one of the things was to make it more uh sustainable development and so one piece in the Northeast district is that developers have to provide at least three resiliency options and those could be zeros scaping um rain Gardens and bio retention systems Landscaping with Native species uh green rooftops uh EV parking uh Urban Gardens alternate energy and some aesthetic design related to plazas and so uh I can tell you that this applicant is Meeting those standards um and he can probably remember off the top of his head I haven't really started the review I know they have EV charging stations I know we've got rain Gardens I know we've got native plants um uh in the Landscaping components um we also have a requirement in the Northeast district for a chloride management plan which is something new that you're probably very familiar with Madam chair um that we don't require in the rest of the city to manage chloride going into our waterways and part of that means thinking about snow storage as part of the design to limit salt use in a parking lot so you don't put the snow pile in the Southeast corner where it's going to melt across the parking lot and require more salt is one of the things that's in that uh for example um the uh couple of other things in the that are unique to the Northeast District are some of the storm water management uh requirements they just go a little bit be above what we require in other areas and that we work through with our engineering team um and uh we do require native plantings in the Northeast District we don't in other areas we also encourage and I know this is near and dear to your heart um um uh moving away from Kentucky Blue Grass and providing more uh natural lawns in the Northeast not required but um we do incent that in the Northeast District um and then just some additional parking standards related to landscape buffers and so while we do miss that in this Zone uh between the two buildings if you adopt that change we're making up for it because we're requiring landscape parking lot islands in the Northeast District that we do not require in other districts so um for the passenger vehicles that would remain thank you so much I really appreciate that um big picture is this an example of a of the shared space between the two buildings yes yeah I can't remember that picture let yeah because it shows the two large buildings and then it looks like it's separated into almost three components and the is that off 610 I was that's a rendering of this project yeah nice rendering yeah so normally the way it is now there would have to be some kind of a buffer in this center part yeah where you see that white line sort of which is a drainage um would that be a problem to maneuver the trucks around it looks like there's a fair amount of space there even if you put a buffer in the middle there well I think uh when you have those large tractor trailers and the amount of uh turning radiuses it does get challenging back um and it's unusual to have that in these types of developments is there any way that you can increase um the natural vegetation at the ends of the parking areas just a I mean it's one thing to have all the asphalt that is you're draining the water into a a culvert system or um sewer system but if you if there's some way you could conceal it from the from passerbys I think that would help with me um if you go to slide um 38 I just want to I I think you can I want to make sure I understand what you're asking um so along the streets both on the North and the South and again we're not reviewing this development proposal yet but there is landscaping and bming along the street that's going to provide yeah I guess what I'm not I'm not talking about the front I'm talking about the sides at the end end of those large parking areas two things there will be Landscaping along the street that's going to screen that but if you're asking could we put an endcap island on those parking zones in the middle I think the answer is yes the idea was not to have it every 15 stalls which makes it very difficult but they're showing an endcap if you look at the image on page 38 the White's desperately trying to pull it on the screen but you that's the image uh uh commissioner you were showing I guess what I'm talking about is at these ends right here is populated with as much vegetation as possible not so much over here but right here so just to clarify too because this is what's actually under consideration is a zoning ordinance Amendment we would have to find something that language if that was the direction you wanted to go language that made that applicable for all applications that came in rather than just this specific site because we're not reviewing the application for this project so I'm not saying that that can't be proposed I'm just saying think um a little bit more less specific and more General how would you fit that in if it wasn't this particular instance but if another commercial application or any uh industrial excuse me application was coming in and they're asking to have that zero setback where the Bays come together what language would you use to ask for larger screening or you know what so my point and again we're not reviewing the site plan so we so I want to be really careful about that um but this image which is their site plan shows endcaps of landscape islands in the middle um which will provide a little bit of screening and also control that parking area in the middle and so that is not in the code you could certainly add in the draft language you could add that in but thank you we cannot be reviewing their development application tonight the question is does it make sense to have landscape Islands when we have tractor trailers trying to maneuver and does it make sense to have an island in the middle separating two users that really are functioning functionally using the same spaces and and again I'm not talking about this and this I'm just talking about when you have this condition is at the end of this massive parking area is the vegetate this area yeah I think that's a site plan I don't think you can tie I don't think it is a site plan I think I think anytime you have a large parking area you should be able to conceal the end of that parking area and I don't think it's specific to this development I think it's it's it's anytime you have a large develop development like that with the parking lot oriented like that I think you can populate the end of it with vegetation you have two issues that they're asking about do you need to have a setback between the shared lot line that's question the shared lot Line is now you took the image away that's one question and the second question you need to have every 15 stalls the shared lot line is right through here correct yep okay um that's fine I don't I don't have any problem with that I'm just talking about the ends of those large uh parking areas and I and if if you give me a couple if you give me some time I could come up with General language that would address that but we're talking about it now and I'm letting you know what my thoughts are would this be some I don't know yeah absolutely would this be something that we would handle at the March meeting because I mean we're happy to be for landscaping off there well that's what I'm trying to say and I feel like the commissioner is maybe not hearing what I'm saying is that we're looking at the code and so we can't look at that site plan and I'm trying to figure out what the issue is if it's about Islands or setbacks and then we can modify or or not make not recommend approval of the chain right I think if I uh could try my hand at clarifying I think that there is not an issue with the the lack of islands every 15 ft I think that there isn't an issue with the shared um lot line for the zero setback in these parking Bays I think that uh the ask is that a language be added that when there is a zero setback um for the parking Bay that that we have increased screening over the um ends of the where those Bays sit that is my feeble attempt at coming up with language am I understanding it correctly because the ask is not for this site you're saying that whenever this issue would be under consideration that you would always like to see increased ve vegetation at the does that make sense I don't know how we do going to I don't think we're going to come up with language tonight I I don't know how you would um uh on the Fly I don't know how you would articulate that I think um if we had a site plan that we were looking at we could kind of look at that so I think maybe um it's I think it's bad language to say this but we could look at something different for the council you could say something like direct staff to uh develop language to require additional perimeter Landscaping um where the zero setback is waved screening or you only want vegetation I'm asking for a clarification if they wanted to screen some other way you just want it screened or you want increased V vegetation both okay so I don't know if that if going the direction of screening language makes it easier I don't I don't know but um yeah I think what I would suggest is the direction is uh where zero setback for the parking Bays request that the applicant shall provide additional screening at the perimeter of the site Beyond minimum ordinance requirements okay yeah that would be fine even though in that language again you cannot require that that additional vegetation be placed specifically where you want it that would have to be at per I understand okay go ahead well would it make sense for um well for changing it as a policy I was going to say for every is there a way to do a percentage wise like we're removing you know x% of what would be landscaping or whatever by not having the 15 stall requirement and no setback and for that then you increase your percentage buffering on the perimeter by x% but if it's a policy change that maybe doesn't work did that make any sense at all or was that okay yeah you're looking at trying to throw some equation on it instead of just measurable tool did you meet it or not I appreciate that right instead of just increased which is because I don't want I what I don't want is these you know an industrial what what I think our goals are is to minimize the and Ma minimize the environmental impact maximize the athetic and by doing that I think for us giving no setback or requirement there should be a give on Perimeter landscaping and maximizing the appeal and that's obviously happening but how do we how do we make sure that we we feel comfortable with what we're yeah I mean one thing I I think I have to think about this but you know what I think I hear you saying is and I think commissioner is talking about something else but you're talking about if we eliminate the island requirements let's make up that green space Elsewhere on site I think is kind of where you're going and I feel like that's a measure that we could do um that's maybe measurable more so than add more landscaping or something but I don't know exactly yet I have to sort of think about think about it but I think we should do that but I I like that idea and I think it's probably feasible um it's weird because this is the one industrial site and I can tell you that they have about 20% and card cover on this site so it's a lot of green space on this site so okay um yes you know yeah normally we like 30 33% her coverage too typical but you're not always building a cork just kid um but I like that um something measurable could be applied um regard like to site like because sites are going to vary in their size and um so I think that a measurable is the is the direction to go um but then I think the other part of that is there probably is impervious surface limits already in here and so we also want to make sure we're not being redundant I think that's important um that's true so so I hear what the commission is attempting to do and um I think um I think we're I'm hearing this idea I like the idea for the island piece to wave the islands to make up that green the island square footage of Green Space Elsewhere on site feels I me I know you just threw it out there but feels manageable I want to work through that before the council meeting but that feels manageable I also think we could just um if there's a zero setback for parking bays at additional screening at the perimeter of the site Beyond minimum ordinance requirements probably something we could flush out a little more um specifically because I know we like to have numbers that we can check is the loss of setback right like whatever would have to be like is I'm I'm wondering if because we're at a zero setback is whatever number that's usually used to measure that is that somehow help in a measurable regarding that's the same thing as the island you could apply that to both if you wanted to make that recommendation yep I don't I don't think that it oh go ahead no I don't mean I was just going to say I don't know that we have to um because we're also rational understanding that this really is how it functions so I don't know that we need to stack that's what I'm trying to say but I feel like um if we could somehow get a measurable amount out of one of those it would it would yeah and I think based on what we're trying to do what's important is where it goes like the perimeter visibility to the road Etc whatever we decide that is like how do we maximize the impact of that GI I'm going to try to play architect on have an idea well I just want to point out so this is my best attempt if we were if we were doing a typical industrial building with with a landscape buffer in the middle trucks need 120 ft to kind of maneuver to back into the building so by doing the shared truck Court we actually reduce the previous area because they're moving back and forth or the imper are I'm sorry um so if we if we did the landscap we have to actually either you know there have to be 120 ft 120 ft 240 ft versus the shared truck which can maneuver 200 ft so it actually by by sharing it you are because you're putting your buildings closer together the trucks I mean they're Crossing property lines and um sure but it's less impervious so it's actually less impervious overall and we appreciate that you guys are doing that do you feel confident that that is something that every proposal comes in to do or is it something that we have to spell out just wondering yeah and do we feel like that loses aesthetic um well I mean you'd actually have a larger area then right with just a landscape Island down the middle or something like that or you know the if you did the land I mean the the landscape stalls would be that's really challenging for trcks especially in the winter with snow falling and depending on how full your docks are or your bays are I think I think I'm all for Less impervious surface overall and you said you're already at like 20% versus a lot of these developments what is corrons do they have a a maximum impervious surface amount we do and in the industrial district it is pretty high so and he's below that already not the industrial district it's a 70% maximum impervious surface coverage that includes the tops of the buildings and gas parking lots and everything so and and I think with the 20% you're talking about just the parking area yeah no your site in building his site oh cuz there's a big Wetland area here is that and some Upland that's not being developed so compared to some other industrial sites that were on the screen I think they'll be lower but the the code would allow 70% impervia surface coverage again we're not talking about his project um but I think the point is well taken that if you put the island between the two buildings you have more green more impervious surface eliminating the island actually reduces impervious surface which is what you said was important it's just a bigger area it's an unbroken area that's right right it's a great point I'm just bringing up that it looks different but if we you know back to the facts of what we care about like that makes sense I mean that's a great point I wouldn't have known that so yeah I do appreciate it I just don't know that I have full confidence that everybody comes in with a plan that doesn't try to maximize so I'm wondering if it's still just worth thinking about something for the maybe that maybe we could write in something he said there they need 120 ft so whatever his area is here maybe when you have a shared one there's a maximum footage between buildings that we could write into there that that keeps them from making it bigger than it needs to be yeah I mean truck turning radiuses are standard regardless of who the user is I think he said 120 ft for that that's a pretty industry standard yeah I mean sometimes you can get down to 110 but get a little tight yeah you want to you don't want to make it difficult especially with snow and does anyone else have any other I just have a question on do we does the design guidelines have different policy if it's um a single user or multiple tenants do we have different guidelines on design standards based on that or no no okay not for these issues we're talking about tonight okay I didn't know for example like Business Park when I hear that I think communal spaces that all tenants would use resources things like that and if I didn't know if we call something I know this is industrial zone I'm just wondering if we brought out any design guidelines difference between if we're hosting five companies in there or one so no we do not okay I think the smooth surface better looking the better love that and I guess my only point of clarification on that is that just in the commercial or is that in all um zoning so so as we've drafted it the U tilt up pre-cast smooth face is only allowed in the i1 industrial district it would be allowed in the other districts in the Northeast District as a class three or complimentary material but not as the primary material thank you okay if no one else has any other comments I don't want to cut anybody short but I want to respect our time um then what we're in effect doing is we are making a motion to approve City file 24- 047 with the um uh language directing staff to look at language for um a how do I try to consite a measurable um additional landscape around the perimeter for the lack of parking islands and potentially um increased vegetation or screening uh around the zero setback is that adequately okay so I have made that motion I second it okay and all those in favor say I I anyone opposed okay thank you thanks so much see in the and at this point in time we get to move on to um any other business that staff might have or uh any updates from our Council liaison no updates there no updates from from staff open you guys get questions for me counil what um the summary Dwight you have in the in the uh packet with quick trip and everything else was outstanding thank you lot of lot of good information I did want to ask about did I miss it or is there the St Thomas Apostle concept plan is that it doesn't go through planning for a concept plan that only goes to city council oh and then it comes back once it's a yeah once it's a formal application they'll come back got it Lindsay Lindsay you can stop in and talk to them they've got sure pretty good rendering and drawing of what they're hoping to accomplish yeah I know they've been they had the festival y got it it hasn't it hasn't changed much so I did want to know what the council's feedback was and I can go back and listen so I don't want to drain the the the time but go ahead on the Loa their subdivision yes how did it go thought um they I believe you can correct me if hon they have submitted a application for comp plan change yeah they've right now submitted just the comp plan Amendment to reu the property from existing residential to conservation residential um and if that gets approved then I believe their plan would be at that point to come through with the actual plat uh from the subdivision yeah it say 22 plots on 10 acres instead of the three or four or whatever that they could go after they're they' told us me too that they are trying to get on the low end of so yeah yeah the density of that would be two for the conservation whereas the low density residential would be um three to five three to five the existing the existing density that would be allowed with the existing residential is just what's there now yep I I see the the the pathway here I'm just was curious how how the informal feedback session went okay if there is nobody else who has anything for council member wearing Camp then we will I'll adjourn tonight's meeting all right meeting adjourned we have to have a Madam chair I think we have to have a motion oh I'm sorry guys this is the second time I've done that too I am like she's ready toi I will make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting I can't just make that decision on my own nor would I want to but if you all agree I a second all right all those in favor uh anyone opposed all right thank you