All right. And we're going to call to order tonight's uh Corkran Planning Commission meeting, June 5th, 2025. Uh I'm going to start with roll call. Uh Commissioner Lind here, Commissioner Zachman here, Commissioner Hargreaves here, Commissioner Kaziki here, and Commissioner Brummond is here. And then I would like to invite you uh 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. Okay. And at this time, we'll ask staff or any of the commissioners if there are any changes that need to be proposed to the agenda for tonight. staff has no changes. Okay. And if none of the commissioners have any changes um to request as well, then I will make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. I'll second. Oh, you can have it. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. Okay. And at this time, I just want to deviate from the agenda uh slightly and allow um our new recognize our new commissioner um who's filling out to the planning commission and allow uh Commissioner Zachman a moment to introduce himself. Yeah. Hi, uh Jay Zachman. I've lived in Corkran for four years now. Um and just excited to be on the commission and you know, look forward to learning and contributing. So, thank you. We're glad to have you. So, welcome. Um, what we're going to do next is open the floor for the open forum. The open forum is an opportunity for any resident to approach um or be heard by the planning commission for any item that is not on tonight's agenda. Uh, it's not usually an opportunity to debate. Um, and you want to make sure that you're recognized u by the chair before you go ahead and make comment. And usually when we comment, we want to make sure we go up to the podium um so that we can make sure that members of the public listening on Zoom and then also for recording meeting minutes can be heard. Uh is there anyone who's here tonight for the open forum because comments are limited to inperson comments? If not, then we will go ahead and move on to the next agenda item, which is the meeting minutes from May 1st, 2025. There were only three of us present. Um, but you all did receive the meeting minutes. So, does anyone have any comments or corrections to the meeting minutes? Okay. If not, then I will make a motion to approve the meeting minutes from May 1st, 2025. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. And anyone opposed say nay. Okay. And that gets us to tonight's new business. Um we have two items before us tonight. And we're going to start with the first one with it is Aeron's Noling Open Space and Preservation Preliminary Plat. And we're going to begin with a staff report. Thanks, Madam Chair. Yes. Uh item 6A tonight um the Arens Norling OSP preliminary preliminary plat conditional use permit and variance. Um this is a request from Rob and Seth Norling. Um the subject property is um 6700 Pioneer Trail which is I get my pointer out. Um this parcel here with an existing home on it as well as uh the farmland surrounding it as well. So a total um site size of 38.69 acres. Uh the proposal would be to um plat seven residential lots and three outlots which would be constructed in two phases. Um so when the final plat comes in um it would be phase one and then um a second final plat would come down the line for phase two. So right now the preliminary plat is all seven residential lots. Um the property itself is currently zoned rural residential and guided rural egg residential uh and is located outside of the 2040 uh Musa boundary. It's actually just north of it. It's bordering on uh Pioneer Trail to the south there. Um going into the preliminary plat analysis, uh this is an open space and preservation plat. Uh so the OS and P plats are um opportunities where development rights could be increased uh in through the exchange of uh a paved public a paved public street to serve the development and uh 50% of the gross acreage which 50% of that gross acreage needs to be upland is preserved as open space under a temporary conservation easement until municipal services like sanitary sewer and water are available to the site. Uh again, seven residential lots are proposed uh ranging in size from uh one and a half acres to 3.2 acres. Um this would include six new home lots and then one lot for the existing home on the site. Um that's not going away with this application. Uh with the OSMP plat, there is no minimum lot size, but um each each lot has to be um able to um support two septic sites. Um and then all would be served with the newly installed roadway. Um the applicants are proposing three open space uh out lots, two of which uh appear to be continually being farmed and then one would be uh containing a storm water pond uh which would total 28.61 acres of open space. Um current uh the applicants plan to um continue to retain ownership and and farm the land. Uh however with all open space and preservation plats there is a restrictive covenant required. Uh this this restrictive covenant would um restrict who is a able to own the land until those municipal services are available. So um the code outlines you know it could either be um owned or dedicated by the it could either be dedicated to the city if the city were to accept it. Um otherwise the open space outlots could be sold to um one uh to a family member who lives in the development. Um or it could be dedicated to a homeowners association uh which comprises of a majority of the homes within the development and then you know once the municipal services are available to the site then it could be sold to a developer at that time. uh with the setback requirements for the rural residential district. Um all of the principal structured uh principal structures on each of the lots appear to be accommodated with this proposal. Um the one uh the one area where it seems to be uh non-compliant would be the existing agricultural building that is within the minimum setback area of three property lines. Um, two of those are existing uh setback conditions and are legal non-conforming setbacks. However, uh the setback from the uh from the east property line where my cursor is would be a new uh non-conformity that would be created as a result of this platinum would require a variance. Um and that's going to be discussed further in this um presentation. Uh the design guidelines for the OSNP are all satisfied except for uh a 100 100 foot perimeter buffer along Pioneer Trail. Um the applicants are requesting a variance from that condition as that uh would as that would conflict with the existing agricultural building on lot 2. Um and that's also discussed further in the variance section. Uh I apologize for the small text here but um there are um going through the spe uh going through the design objectives um a number of them have been uh have been satisfied with this application. I won't go through all of them but jumping down to the ones that aren't applicable to this specific application. Um, one of the requirements is that uh the development locate neighborhood recreational open spaces such that they are integral such as they are an integral part of the neighborhood. Um, that's not applicable with this application as they are not proposing any uh recreational open spaces. Um, one that has not been satisfied but could be satisfied through um a condition of approval would be providing covenants to create an architectural theme um that can be figured out on the back end as a condition of approval. Um, and then a couple uh conditions that need some additional information is um the the size of the garages on the houses um just to confirm that they don't dominate the streetscape as well as uh landscaping the common areas and and right away along the streets with native vegetation. Um this the new roadway um as a part of this development would be constructed off the Pioneer Trail which would require compliance with the rural collector street road section. Um this is also a variance that's being requested by the applicant and will be discussed further uh later on this report. uh and a ghost plat was provided with this application which shows a future public street from Pioneer Trail uh that would uh serve a future subdivision once those municipal services are available to the site. A condition of approval for this ghost plat would be just to revise it to show uh future connections to the north where there is an existing roadway easement on on the north side of the development there. Um, heading into the conditional use permit, the applicants are requesting a conditional use permit to allow an accessory structure uh or agricultural building on a site that's less than 10 acres with a footprint of 4,0 square ft as well as a sidewall height of 13 feet and 6 in. Um, staff finds that the standards of the conditional use permit are satisfied. However, we do recommend that two conditions of approval be added to that, which are that the siding and roofing be replaced or repaired to comply with the standards outlined in section 1060.050, as well as um a condition that in the event that the outlaw is no longer farmed or if the accessory structure is no longer used for agricultural purposes, then the footprint of that building needs to be reduced to the byite limit or removed from the property. Um and then going into the variances, there are three variances that are being reviewed with this application. The first one is an exemption from the 100 foot perimeter planted buffer zone along Pioneer Trail. Um there is a practical difficulty in complying with this as the exist existing agricultural building is within that 100 foot buffer. Uh and that would take up most of the front yard for the residential structure. um and it would be difficult to comply with these standards because of those reasons. So um staff recommends approval of that specific variance uh and recommend a proposed condition that uh that the buffer area still be planted in areas where it wouldn't uh conflict with existing structures. So at least still some sort of buffer there. Um the second variance is an exemption from the engineer design standards from the public road. Um specifically the applicants request that the street width be reduced and the aggregate base for the public road um be reduced as well. Um staff didn't see the practical difficulty with those uh with that request and uh that wasn't demonstrated through the application. So um staff doesn't recommend approval of that specific variance uh request. And then the third variance would be a deviation from the 100 foot agricultural setback agricultural building setback to allow a 45 foot setback. Um this is a practical difficulty as the new road being constructed is going in between an existing agricultural building and an existing home. So the alternative was either place it closer to the home and have the home be non-compliant with the setback requirements or have it conflict with existing underground utilities. So, um, staff believes that this is a reasonable request for the variance of the reduced setback for the agricultural building. Um, and then we just added a condition of approval again upgrading the siding and roof on the structure to comply with the building material standards just to mitigate that reduced setback along the new roadway. Uh so at this point, staff recommends that you open the public hearing and take testimony. And staff recommends approval of the draft resolution with conditions of approval as outlined in the staff report. Specifically, uh the draft resolution approving the preliminary plat and conditional use permit as well as the draft resolution approving two of the variances and then denying uh a third variance. Thank you, Dwight. Um all right at this point in time we will open up the public hearing and this is an opportunity to speak uh specifically to this um agenda item. So specifically to the uh OSMP preliminary plan conditional use permit and variances requested. Is there anyone who's here to and I will give the applicant uh time as well um separate from the public hearing if you'd like to speak um on your application. But if there anyone here who would like to uh come and make public comment regarding this business item. If not, then I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I'll make the motion to close the public hearing. I'll second it. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. Okay. And at this time, um, we I'd love to give the applicant the opportunity to address the commission if you want, or you can just be available for questions during the deliberation. That is entirely up to you. All of that. Sure. All right. Thank you. If you could just come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Yes. Uh, my name is Rob Norling. I am the owner of 6700 Trail. Um, just kind of a little bit of backstory to kind of what we're trying to create here. My family has owned this property for about 100 years. Been paid property taxes for about 100 years. The only reason we're really doing this is because we decided to have four children and they all want to live by us. Uh so what we're really creating is just an environment for our kids to kind of be part of what we're doing out there. Um we've been working with the city quite closely just to making sure it fits the guidelines that the city requests. Um but the ghost plat for those who are here that may be wondering about the ghost plat that was just a city requirement. That's not really the intention that we necessarily have. We're just looking for the additional lots for our children and then a couple of the nieces and nephews of the family. So, these houses won't be something that we build and then sell. They're all going to be staying within the family just for a little bit of backstory is kind of our goal there. And then the agricultural building is some that we use. Uh the guy that leases the land from uses that to store some of his equipment um throughout the winter and stuff. He doesn't have it in there as much in the summer, but through the winter he'll keep a lot of his equipment out there. So, that's kind of what we're asking for this. So, perfect. Thank you so much for the explanation and if we do have any additional questions, we may ask you to come up. But good uh at this point in time then we'll open it up for commission discussion or recommendation. So if you have any questions for staff or for the applicant or if you just want to bring or highlight points of discussion who would like to take the charge. I guess I have one question. Um you said the agricultural lot it's going to or the outlot the big out lot is going to continue to be farmed. Correct. And you lease that out to somebody to farm that. Correct. And you live across the street across Pioneer Trail? No, I live right on in 6700. Okay. You live in the existing house. Okay. Um where's the access to the agricultural then? Does it does it and because you've got the agricultural building on lot two. It'll come off of the west side of the road that we are creating is where it will come off. Not on fire trail. I believe that's what we talked about. So, it ends in a culde-sac right now and then there's an easement there to to expand that culde-sac and then to go into the ghost plot eventually. Oh, down the road. Yeah, she's asking not the building but the land in particular. Yep. No, that's okay. Correct. That's how they'll access the agricultural or the outlot. Yeah. And actually, our goal will be in phase one. Initially, we're going to stop the culdeac. So, we're trying to decide if continuing the call and phase one maybe just to get the road all done one time. to do it twice. Is that a consideration? That was my other question because it seemed like it would be cheaper to do it and then not impinge on lot four, right? Um yeah, maybe that will service all those lots all the way out. Um there was some um notes in here too about maintaining the outlots. It looks like there's the storm water pond on the one out lot up on the east side there. Does that require maintenance? Yes. Yeah. So, we have a storm water maintenance agreement that would be applied to that storm water pond. Okay. What's out lot three? If we've got the big area for agriculture, we got the storm water. Is it? Yeah. That little strip. Yeah. And what is that for? That may be an error in the drawings. Yeah. from from staff's interpretation it appeared to be more farmland and one of the conditions was to combine it with the larger outlot. So, um I Yeah, if that's if that's accurate, then Y. Okay. So, the other the third out lot may just be the extension of the road eventually potentially, but we would I don't think it's quite big enough to be the full right of way. Um I think it was more like like a half right ofway if anything. So, we would need to if there were to be a road connection to the west ever, it would require some development of outlaw A. So, or I'm sorry, the large outlot. I don't know if that's outlott or not, but um so I at this point the city's just saying we just make it one outlot and it doesn't need to be separated. So um that was all I had. Congratulations that your family all wants to be close to you. That's great. That's awesome. My wife is a good cook. Oh, that could be it. Um go ahead. Go ahead. No, please. You go first. I have a question for staff. And this has to do with the fact that we are giving uh the owner development rights for preservation, but we're we're really not preserving anything. We're just saying you can develop it in the future. Why do we call it preserving? Because it is preserving open space and farmland for the foreseeable future. um this area is not in the Musa and I don't believe there is a political desire at this time to expand our Musa boundary. So I would say even into our 2050 plan this would likely be preserved open space farmland. So why don't we just have it preserved and not have a ghost land associated with it? It's not something that we're able to do and be in compliance with the Met Council requirements. we can do a temporary preservation and if there is like a parkland component then we can do a permanent preservation but the in order to comply with the Met Council standards and to be able to have this program which technically um surpasses the one in 10 density limit they require that it be a temporary preservation. So because there is no such thing as a in perpetuity with anything that we request or try to do. Thank you. That's the very much. But yeah, it's a great question. So I'm going to ask May I ask to address the absolutely. We just may ask you to come back up to the podium if you don't mind just so that we can make sure that everybody's hearing. Sorry I didn't ask before. Thank you so much for your willingness to move. So you made the comment that you're never going to develop that area. Um it's just one of the requirements that the city had. I'm sure I won't be developing that area. Um what my kids will choose to do. That wasn't our intention. I guess that's maybe better stated. Our intention when we designed this wasn't because we wanted to build all these houses to the north of our lot. That was never our intention. It was more of the open space preservation with working with the city um and making it happen through that venue or that avenue. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay, I'm done. Commissioner, um, you can say, um, okay. So then I'm just looking for a little bit of clarification on the number, the page two staff report on site is located outside of the Musa, but is located within the future MUSA expansion area, but we're saying it's not. Yeah. So, the the issue with that southwest area to begin with is it's becoming less and less clear how it's ever going to receive city sewer and water. Um, and as we're we were supposed to be approaching a time when the Met Council was supposed to be providing us with answers to ensure that that Southwest area would that is within the Musa would have some kind of connection and um they still haven't completed that study. So at this time I don't believe there is a desire to expand that from just from the conversations that we've had as a city with city council. I do not believe that our leadership intends to expand into that future area that was identified um because we don't even know how to serve the area that is within the Musa. So I don't believe so that's why I said I believe with our 2050 plans this area will still not be within the Musa and I can be I'm fairly confident that this would be preserved as open space or farmland at least through 2050. Okay. I think the reason that it's on there to call out that the Musa ends just directly south of Pioneer Trail from this property is just perhaps to highlight its proximity and it might that's the only reason. Well, yeah, it eluded me to think that it could be in the future. So, yes, we we have to identify a future Musa area and it might be that our 2050 plan knowing the constraints that area has now that that has to now shift to somewhere else in the city. But that was what that 2040 plan is showing. Um, but there are some some significant constraints that we're having to deal with that I I'm not confident that that is real anymore. Okay. Thank you. Um and not to drain but can I ask another question mostly for my learning. Page four uh second paragraph it says there's a maximum lot size of 4 acres which is twice the minimum lot area of the rural residential district. Can can you try to layman's terms that a little bit for me? Yeah. So for the open space and preservation plot there is no uh minimum lot size because the idea is you want consolidated lots. Um but there is a maximum lot size because again you want consolidated you want smaller lots and because you need to have enough land to preserve for the open space to meet that requirement. Uh so the 4 acre maximum that is the open space and preservation plot says that the maximum lot size is twice the size of the minimum lot size in the underlying district. That's how you get four. I know it's there's a reason why I have a job. That is clear. No, your minimum twice. It didn't make sense. Okay. So, well, let's just keep moving on on that one. Um, okay. One more thing. I'm assuming then there was a typo. I'm Yeah, based on Dwight, your report, it said that you are supportive of the third variance. Yeah, it should. But it should say we do not support it. That's a big uh typo on the report. Just want to clarify. Can we ask the applicant to speak about that why they're requesting that variance? Would you mind? No. Um the biggest reason was cost um just to try to lower the cost because every dollar we put in out of our pocket. So I think it was more of a cost issue than anything. Just trying to keep the numbers at a level that we can handle as a family. I think that was the biggest reason. Got it. Okay. Thanks. And we have those requirements because well it would be a paved road though wouldn't it? It has to be a paved road and we have to get but then it might deteriorate quicker if it doesn't have the the base that is required. It's just the engineering standards. That way we have a standard road width across the city and there's not mismatching. But yes, I believe there's an engineering theory behind it that that's the base that we have and require. I'm just thinking about tractors going to be on that road, right? And so is there a safety consideration with why it would be that wide or do we not think that's a consideration as far as what engineering is required? So basically, in order to get the density bonus, you have to go off of the city standard. So I don't believe that the city standard was created thinking of the tractor. However, I do know that there are examples of tractors on our public roadways today some at times. So I don't know that they can't handle the width. I guess I'm not quite understanding the question. I think you're just looking for uh correct me if I'm wrong. Looking for uh factual information for a uh to to consider the variance. Right. So that's what you're doing. So you're trying to say like is the request for the that standard of road also um have something to do with the potential of larger equipment being on the roadway. Yes. Is that fair? I I can't speak for uh engineering as to why that width was established. I think it has more to do with two-way traffic and trying to make sure that there's also space on the side. Um and then um the other thing I I would just add is when we are considering the practical difficulty standards both by state law and our city ordinances, economic considerations cannot be the primary consideration. So that's why we felt the practical difficulty standard had not been met as staff. Got it. That's helpful. Okay. Well, I'll just make other comment and then I'll yield here. Uh I think the cup prelim preliminary plot makes sense. I think you did a beautiful job articulating the practical difficulties on the first two variances. So I'll be ready to make a motion whenever the discussion is complete. Okay. Um and then my only question is in regards to uh the storm water pond as whatever outlet it is named. Um so the uh whether or not the culde-sac is done in two phases or all of it in incomp complete um the access to that storm water pond is or is this this faint drawing on page um the second page of the renderings it shows like so you see the main culde-sac then you kind of see the faint drawing of the second culde-sac but then you see the road go all the way through is the plan that if you do eventually that will stop at the second culde-sac and then the road up or the road all the way to the back is going that would be the com completed design for this preliminary plat area. So the completed design for the for the plat would ultimately be the culde-sac constructed to where my cursor is at that last lot there but there would be a right of way that extends beyond that lot to the outlet. So that's how maintenance would reach that storm water pond. Okay, great. And then just for clarification, because it wasn't specifically called out, but the renderings show the agricultural building, the the lot that it will be on, a house will be built on that lot. So, this whole idea that Okay, maybe it was Thank you. That just helps clarify something that was obvious but just wasn't stated. So, um at this point in time, uh is the first resolution written in such a way that it approves the conditional use permit? It approves the um preliminary plat and approves the first two variances and denies the variance for the aggregate. Is that how the first resolution is written? The resolutions provided are the first resolution is for the preliminary plat and the conditional use permit and then the second resolution is for the variances. So two denials. Okay. All right. So um but we can do it as a whole kit in Kabuto. We don't need to do each one specifically or would you prefer that we do each thing item specifically? You could certainly make a motion for all of it and if that fails then we would probably need to go bit by bit to figure out why it failed. Okay. All right. So, so what that means is that we could look at each little piece of this um and go through it and say approve or deny for each little piece. But if everyone feels confident, then we could make someone could make I don't need to be the person who makes the motion. Someone could make a motion for um everything all at once as the staff recommended it. You could or you could uh make a a different change. Correct. And then it would Yes. Well, I could I I can make a motion to approve it as the staff has recommended it, which is approving the preliminary plat, the conditional use permit on all of the variances except for the roadway variance. So, approving the variance for the buffer. Oh, I'm sorry. It's your the buffers and Okay. And there's an existing building. They're going to continue to use it. They're going to improve the looks so it'll go better with a new neighborhood. And you don't have to explain your motion. It was beautifully made. You did really well. And Hargreaves uh seconded it. So all those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you so much. Thanks for taking the time to come out tonight. It's always great to hear from the applicant. Thank you. All right. And we are moving on to the second um piece of new business which is an aggra business zoning ordinance amendment city file 25-017. And we're going to begin this with a staff report as well. Thank you madam chair. Um as people filter out um item 6B tonight the aggra business zoning ordinance amendment. Um this is a request that comes to you from Margaret and John Fernandez. They're requesting this ordinance amendment to establish an aggra business use within the rural residential district which would allow them to um establish a wine tasting room/vineyard on their property at 2320 county road 30. So some background on the request. Back in September, uh city council reviewed a concept plan for a wine tasting room on the applicant's property. And through this review, it was revealed that the use was not completely c not completely compatible with any of the uses identified within the zone zoning ordinance. Um the two uses that were kind of reviewed back and forth were the conditional home occupation license and the event center. Um the issues with um the conditional home occupation license. Um, you know, while it does allow customers to come visit the property, um, it would not allow employees on the site, which is an important part to the applicant's business model, um, which includes, um, employees and vendors and such. Um, and then the event center would allow employees and vendors onto the site. However, um, hosting events is not the sole purpose or the intended purpose of the applicant's proposal. Um and so it's it's kind of a workaround and it doesn't fully capture what their needs are for um for their operations. So during that meeting, council suggested that the applicants explore an aggra business ordinance amendment um that would apply more to their operation. So what is an aggra business specifically? Um, the National Agricultural Library defines agrous or agurism as a form of commercial enterprise that links agricultural production and/or processing with tourism to attract visitors onto a farm, ranch or other agricultural businesses uh for the purposes of entertaining or educating the visitors while generating income for the farm, ranch or business owner. Um through staff's analysis we reviewed a number of established um aggra business ordinances uh from cities comparable to to Corkran both in size and character um as well as the existing zoning ordinance to ensure consistency throughout the city. Um, so through this review, staff identifies several performance standards um that should be addressed with this ordinances. Um, and I can go through these now and then after we go through them, the commission can feel free to amend them or take some out or add some more, um, however you see fit. So, um, the first one is a minimum parcel size of 5 acres. Um the location of uh the specific business would either have to be on a major roadway which in our code is defined as a county road or state highway or have direct access onto a major collector or minor collector road that is less than a thousand feet from an intersection with a major roadway. The intention of this is to prevent um smaller local streets from seeing an influx of traffic and seeing a big change uh around, you know, more local streets and neighborhoods. Um traffic itself must not create a nuisance to nearby residents by way of traffic or noise. Uh and parking must be accommodated on site and comply with uh the standards of the zoning ordinance. Uh the maximum structure size also um is consistent with the maximum structure size uh accessory structure size outlined in the zoning ordinance. Uh noise is um an item that staff foresees as a significant issue with some of these um applications. So um we added three conditions. No sound amplific no sound amplification systems may be used after 10 p.m. unless otherwise approved by council. um stages in amp equipment must be oriented away from any residents within 500 feet of the property and oriented away from the nearest residential property. And then if an aggra business involves some sort of music event, uh that music event must be limited to the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays only, not throughout the week, uh for a maximum of six hours per day. Uh and then outdoor lighting must comply with the standards outlined in the zoning ordinance as well. Um sanitary facilities. U this refers back to the Minnesota State Building Code which outlines um the number of uh facilities required based on the number of attendees for u a given event or normal use on the site. Uh and then any outdoor activity must be set back at least 100 ft from adjacent residential property lines property lines. So that includes walking trails, um crafting activities and things of that nature. So in summary, staff researched the existing ordinances of other cities and generated these sets of performance standards uh which would address a wide range of potential concerns. Um, so as the commission considers these, um, the commission may want to consider if they find this use to be an appropriate use within the rural residential district as a whole, uh, as well as does the commission wish to amend any of the conditions proposed by staff. And at this point, staff recommends that you open the public hearing and take testimony. And then we recommend approval of the draft ordinance and the findings of fact for that ordinance amendment. Thank you, Dwight. At this point in time then what we will do is open up the public hearing related to this um aggra business zoning ordinance amendment and because it's not a specific application like this would be an opportunity for you guys to uh raise questions or concern concerns um if questions or concerns are raised then what we will do is make sure that we address them after the public hearing is closed rather than engaging in a back and forth. Um so at this point in time if there is anyone who wants to um come up to the podium there's only two in the room folks no pressure but uh they are limited to just in-person comments even though uh hopefully we have folks uh paying attention and joining us from home. Um, if you guys do not want to speak, which is totally okay, then we will just applicants just so that you are aware. But it's a zoning I know they're the applicants because I was actually here during your concept plan, but it's not an actual It is. Yep. A zoning ordinance amendment application. So, they've submitted it. So, they've put the city on a test. It's not just an ordinance. Yeah. So, it's not it's not a city-driven zoning ordinance. I think that's what you're thinking of. Yes, that is what I'm thinking of. Okay. Well, if you guys uh don't want to be a part of the public hearing, then we will close the public hearing and we'll just give you an opportunity to still come up and address. So, at this point in time, there's no one here. Um so, I will make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. Um and so at this point in time, we're just going to move into our commission discussion and recommendation unless you guys would like to approach um the commission to raise any questions or concerns. Okay. All right. Then um we will go ahead and begin um discussion. I just have two questions um that I wanted to ask, but the first is regarding the roadway um and the less than a thousand feet from a major intersection. And I guess the reason that I I see the valid um stipulation that that would be my concern is is that as development has um increased here in the Musa area, we have more dump trucks driving down our road to drop off their dirt than I think any Agra business would bring in. And so it sort of feels like to me that um that perhaps this is a condition that we want to consider whether or not there's an adjustment to be made from. Um so that's that's my only reason because I wouldn't want to limit somebody who could potentially bring some economic development to their property. I guess some of it would consider this is just to clarify always coming in as a CUP. IEP up interim use permit. So for Commissioner Zachman, do you want to just give a quick summary on what an interim use permit means then? Yes, I can do that. Thank you. A conditional use permit runs with the land. So, um, it's it's similar in that it's a you it's an allowed use within the district, but you have to go through an approval process and the city can stipulate additional conditions to mitigate the use uh to have it fit within the surrounding area. Interim use permit is similar, but a conditional use permit uh it runs with the land perpetually. So, as long as the conditions of approval continue to be satisfied, then it is it's like a diamond. it's forever. And then um with an IUP, it's a little bit more limited. There's a sunset clause. So, typically we write our IUPs so that they're subject to review every 3 years. Um the if the land is sold to another owner, that owner would have to come in for a new IUP because of the change of ownership. And sometimes there's additional sunset clauses that we'll put on a use. um not necessarily for an aggra business, but just sometimes if it's a property that's eventually going to receive municipal services, then there might be a sunset clause tied to um municipal services being available to the area. So, it gives a little bit more ability for the city to um really review the use and potentially um have a little bit more ability to uh revoke the use, I suppose. But I would say we to this point I've not seen an IUP revoked. I think it's more of just the the the three-year check and mark is kind of what I think is why the city likes those. So, thank you. Yeah. And it it I mean it's good for all of us. So, it's not just for you, but So, that is that's just a a a concern I have. I guess feeling like um wondering whether that will restrict um other people from um having access to this type of model um on their farmland simply because there may be more than a thousand feet from and perhaps it like yeah you guys can go for it. I'll think of more ways to say it, but are you are you thinking that the,000 ft is not enough or is it too much? I am saying that I think it's it's more restrictive than I would care to see if we're trying to allow those who are paying significant property taxes to have um for generally for services they're not receiving like plow trucks. um allow them to uh bring an additional source of income to their to their home. So uh and I guess we we can clarify what is a minor or a major road. Um there is a map that shows what those minor and major roads are. Maybe we can leave minor roads away, but a lot of the main thoroughways of dirt roads in a rural residential area I think are considered a major a lot of them are considered major roadways. Um, but those would have to be within a thousand access from that property to would have to be a thousand feet away from a So, I was looking at the map and it looks like a principal arterial would be highway 55. Basically, that's the only principal arterial. Uh, minor expander would be highway 101 and highway 116 north of 30. A m a minor connector roadway would be like county road 19, county road 30, county road 50, county road 117 west of 19. I couldn't find a minor reliever on the map so I don't think we actually have minor relievers. Yeah, maybe it's county road 117 between 19 and 116 and 116 south of 30 because those weren't covered in any of the other but they're all paved county roads or highways basically. So that's what we're talking about, right? Well, so it's saying that it has to be that access has to be within a thousand feet of and it's a paved road basically because all of these are county roads. They're all paved roads. It wouldn't be like straer road is a gravel road. Okay. So major roadway I think major roadway would be straer. It would be well a major roadway are county roads typically and then the highway friend would also be considered a major roadway. That's how we have it defined in our zoning ordinance and we could certainly clarify that. So technically our county roads would be major roadways and some of our county roads are uh most of them are minor connectors. Uh we have one that's other arterial which is the county road 117 and county road 116 116. So um I what I think specifically you're discussing is the we were we were to and trying to recognize that not every property has access on a county road and even if they do have frontage on a county road if they have frontage on a more localized roadway the county is going to push for that. They're not going to want to give access. So recognizing that complication, that's where the and this is language taken from our place of worship ordinance within our uh suburban residential district. So that's where the language came from and we can I don't think either one of us are tied to it. It was just kind of a starting point that we were presenting, but basically saying that a minor if it is on a minor collector or a major was it minor and major collector, it needed to be within 1,000 ft of a county road essentially. Um, but we could certainly we could increase that or we could remove that as your recommendation. I don't I I don't think there's a wrong answer to it, but yeah, minor collector could theoretically be non-paved. Um, it could be a dirt road. So, um, but the major roadways, our county roads are paved. Yes. Yep. I that that's where I would start and I understand it's the beginning of a discussion. I just would like to see um I just think that um I'm trying to figure out like unless we're limit you know because you could do a farm workshop that you could teach people how to process their own animals. you're talking about 20 people. And if you want people to utilize the process instead of just doing it on their own, that that type of thing is not going to be generating the same amount of traffic or noise or anything that um that potentially other uses within agra business could do. And so I understand there's some flexibility in the IUP process and we also want to have starting off points. Um, so I would be open to just considering whether that is um I I want to look at whether that limits people. I I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, sorry. I'm the in I'm reading from the staff report. The intent of this condition is to prevent aggra business related traffic from lying on relying on local residential streets minimizing traffic impact on nearby homes. I so I think that's all good and that so like the premise of it I like but maybe to your point it can be I think it should still exist first of all because I think that premise is good. So maybe to your point if if it's estimated traffic of less than 20 cars per week. Could we add something like that to the the term? I think uh we could add a sub paragraph that's that says um aggra business uses with car traffic of less than 20 vehicles a day or week. Yeah, whatever whatever we want to say. You tell me because this would be your recommendation could be subject to or could be um could be allowed on the local roadway. Yeah, could be allowed on a local roadway. um from the standard we could we could figure out the exact wording. It's hard to think of it on this. I think that we would want to stay away from number of car trips because we know we know that that is it's come up before and that is a hard thing to regulate like who's going to sit out there and count the cars, right? And we talked about that as just being a hard mark. Um, and so I don't know what that verbiage um that that would feel successful moving forward is. Um, to your point, Chair Brum, also I do know of a few going some of the subdivisions we've had more recently, there's been a few large properties at the end of a culde-sac. Right. We have a 30. So it' be a local roadway and they would not be able to correct. Yes. So if that's something that you think is incorrect, then I would say we would need to Yeah. we would need to remove the language requiring it be located have access on a minor collector and is there a way that we can just frame it where um it instead just becomes a part of what you're looking at when the IEP is that difficulty because yeah the underhill lane the largest property is at the back and would have to crack and that's significant acreage um so I I if we can leave if were allowed to leave such a statement in there in terms of um I'm going to put some more thought into it. So you guys go ahead and and bring up any other discussions that uh you might have related to the agra business. Um I have a comment or a question regarding the lighting. Is there a time that's associated with that particular standard that section 1060.040? Not at this time though. This has to be a one foot candle at the property line, but you could we could certainly add a requirement for lights to be turned off as of 10 p.m. or something. Yeah, I would like to add that. And I think 10:00 would be a reasonable time. That goes with the noise, too. Yeah, goes with the noise. Can you say something? Yeah. Um, yes, by all means, just please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record, please. My name's Margaret Fernandez. Um, my address is 23020 County Road 30 here in Corkrand. Um, I, you know, I agree with the light and the sound. I think that is important, but when we start putting, especially sound, but when we start putting parameters around, I also want to think about like all of the farm that have their lights on all night. Um, we would never do that. But once you start putting timelines on people on that, I I would want to maybe extend at least the lighting a little later because people also have farms with lights right outside. Like what what are we talking about with lights here? Like what are the rules? If we have a closing time at 10:00, we got people out. You should come up to the It's okay. I got it. We do appreciate and I think it's a great concern and we will make sure that we address it in the um in the discussion. Okay, Natalie because we have to clean afterwards. I you live in your house, you live there, that type of thing. True. But thank you. Yeah. So, I think a way around that would potentially be So, for example, the new Mojave application that went to city council last week, they tied a stipulation that the parking lot not have parking lights. Lights. Yeah. But the building could have lights, but they be motion sensored. So that there so you could still have people uh leave the site safely if there is people on the site that shouldn't be that's still visible but to still try to allow for dark skies in the area. And I also just want to say as somebody who lives in the rural residential area you do get certain times of the year tractors are out till 1 2 in the morning sometimes. So, it's not it's not a never occurrence. And so, it's not unrealistic for there to be um and how do you decipher from those regular outdoor lights if it is a place where you live, but you also um offer a business. Um especially because uh traditional commercial buildings are not required to turn off their lights at a 1000 p.m. time frame either. Uh so that feels like I want to make sure I guess for me the intent of doing this is to give our residents another opportunity to bring economic development to our city and so I want to make sure that we do it carefully and we do consider um the impact but that uh so thoughtfully and meaningfully but that we don't do it restrictively because that is it that is a feels like an obstacle. Um, so well I mean I'm so I guess the lighting standards in the city, why does that feel inadequate? The lighting standards that already exist for development, why does that feel not adequate enough to address the agro business as it comes? Are you asking me why I want to limit the time? No, I'm just asking why this feels less because if we're talking if we're talking about a an agricultural area and all of a sudden now we're saying, okay, it's got to meet the standard uh of 1060.040 that if I understand it correctly, restricts lumens to the edge of the site to one foot candle. Mhm. Do you know what one foot candle at the edge of the site is? It's quite lot that's bright and I understand uh agricultural lighting on barns and things like that, but that's nowhere near one foot candle at the edge of the site and that's what I'm concerned about. Okay. So, do you consider a different proposal otherw other than saying a specific time that exterior lights need to be turned off that you feel like would address that? If we if we do something different with the limits, the lumens at the edge of the property, I would be open to that. Is that something that has ever is there a difference in that one foot candle uh based on the type of business that it is? Is that a standard that changes throughout the city? No. Right. So, it is a set standard regardless of whether you are a quick trip or you are an aggra business. And so, I guess I don't see Agra businesses as generally falling into that same category. Um or or that the use for lights would even be near the same. So, uh, guidelines, sorry, I'm just looking up the dark sky society, they you and I'm not trying to contradict, apologize, but they they say that for dark skies um, limits spill lights across the property, light levels at the property line should not exceed 0.1 foot candles adjacent to business properties. So that could theoretically um still allow for lights, but just making sure that they're far enough away from the property line that it should limit the impact from the property. And I don't see it at all as a um as a challenge. I think I'm trying to figure out how do we hear a concern and move forward with something that feels like a realistic proposal. So, um, if that is, you know, I I do I can see folks living who live in the rural residential area appreciating some of the dark skies, even though that's already going away. Um, and so if that is something that is recommended, then I could see that if we were to make that adjustment, does that feel like something uh that would satisfy uh some of your concerns regarding the lighting rather than so pursuing that language um in the zoning ordinance rather than pursuing something that is a set time? Yes. Okay. Does anyone else have other things that they want to discuss regarding the language or the ideas? Is there something that you want to see um added or something that you want to see changed? I think just clarifying the roadway is is important and maybe making a distinction because it sounds to me like it's allowed on paved roads. from the language that they've got here and from that map that you brought up that I looked at, they they were all paved roads. So maybe just clarify that because these are allowed on gravel roads, right? Agra businesses would be allowed on a gravel road. Yeah. So I think right now the way that they're currently written, it would limit it. Um if we use um underhill that upward acres. Yeah. Under Hillane. Yeah. Okay. So upward, if you use upward acres as an example, that would be a uh gravel roadway, but it's a local roadway. So the property at the end of that culdeac, which has the most acreage in that entire development, could theoretically be used for something like this. Um they would be they would be excluded with the current language. Um they are about 825 ft away from a county road. So I think one we could remove the fact the language regarding minor collector major collector and just say it needs to be within 1,000 ft or 2500 ft from a um major roadway not even necessary major roadway but at least a minor collector um and then maybe that would and I think like open up more opportunities right and it right it doesn't have to be available to everybody but I think we would want to cast a wider that people and then maybe we add some additional language that says for aggra businesses with a lower impact the city may choose to deviate from this standard and then that way we could look at it as a one-off basis for something that's you know really minimal and doesn't make sense that they have to have that kind of access because I like the whole idea of opening this up I I like the idea of having this aggraus zoning I mean we're trying to keep Corkran rural and our farm-based. It's it's a big deal for us in Corkran. So, I mean, put our money where the mouth is, you know, and let people have agra businesses. I think it'd be good for the whole community and it might keep us rural longer. Who knows? I think that's staff's hope. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. I can't wait to have a sip of wine there. Um, couple questions. Um, this is maybe also for learning. So let's say not in this instance another one another application it's a winery plus a wedding venue let's just say what does that get categorized as events uh I think it would be an IUP for um aggra business I I can talk with James our city attorney if we would need to also do an event center or if the really if the aggra if the aggra business would be enough because some aggra businesses do tend to, you know, like um I've gone to Apple Orchards where they did have like a Halloween special and they had an event. Um so I don't know that we would need to have a separate IUP or if it would be an IUP that approves both components. Okay. Um thank you. Um how Okay, so five acres, you might not know this, okay? I don't expect you to know this, but if you did, it would be amazing. How many properties in the city of Corkran are five acres or bigger? I would in the rural area most of them but um I think not all of them because if you consider that what we just made a recommendation for approval tonight none of those properties would be able to do an aggra business but that's also the other reason to consider this uh limitation on there's no property it is going to be farmed but let's say that something changes in the future that whole back part of the property would not be eligible for doing an aggra business um if they wanted to keep it in the family for another period of time. So they changed that from being an agriculturally I'm just using it as an example but anyway um yeah yeah so not every property but probably a significant the point I'm trying to like just get us to think about is you know five acres versus four acres versus seven acres. I mean, we don't want have to o overink and or or overkill this, but like if we knew where our properties are kind of sitting in that and in which provides an appropriate amount of opportunity. I guess I would be curious on if five we felt was appropriate or if we have a ton that are sitting at 4.2. Is it better to say four? I don't know. That's fair. So I would say um so far the event center applications that we've come in they need at least five acres to accommodate all the parking. So I think that's where the five acres in my mind is coming from and that's what I'm comfortable saying and really that's the minimum things below that it's really difficult to start accommodating you know the the bathroom facilities and the you know the setbacks that would be required of it. Um I think just not that we approve this ordinance based on the incoming application that we know is coming. Um but they are not quite at 10 but they are more the the overall site is more than 5 acres and I and I working with them. Um they do have enough space for all the parking that they're proposing and the building that they're proposing with significant setbacks. So I think that's why I think five acres is a healthy minimum. um open to four acres. I really think anything less than that is just not enough. Agreed. Yeah. I just wanted us to think through that. I I didn't know, you know, how many or four between four and five like if if it's, you know, is that a threshold because that's like an important thing to understand. Um okay. So, just going to put that one out there. And then, um in any of these, do we have a maximum amount of guests? Okay. So, the parking says we need a stall per two guests off street. So, I'm assuming that's based on an average and okay, but let's just say we're going to have a huge bang out sell all the wine we got situation, which would be cool, but you know, do we have a maximum amount of guests in these scenarios or is that part of the IUP? Okay. Yeah. So, the event center calls it out that the city can identify a maximum guest for I'm sorry. Yeah, IP for Advent Center has that language and so I could include that in this as well. I don't did Did you I I didn't include that in this, but I I I with the intention of having it be reviewed as part of the IUP. Okay. If it's covered, I know we have layers to this. So, that's cool. I just wanted to make sure it was covered at some point. The only other thing I thought of was there like the roadway thing we've talked a ton about, but um and it maybe this is covered in the event center one, I don't know, but let's just say the te the tasting room and let's say it's a different winery. Do we want any type of um restriction on how close that can be to a neighboring property or a neighboring property building? like if there was a hosting space as part of this or like operations of the business being so close to a neighboring house because what if the what if the plot is like only allows them to do something in one part and it's right next to their neighbor's house. Maybe I'm overthinking this here but No, I don't think you are. He has language. I think so. So, I have language in here that specifically applies to outdoor activity areas being set back 100 ft from the residential property lines. We could amend that to all activities. Doesn't have to be outdoor exclusive. It could be um parking lot. Parking lot. Yeah. Well, parking lot might be good. I don't know. I mean, where do you call that outdoor? Um if you go to the res or to the ordinance uh it is page three three of four uh.9 any outdoor activity area shall be set back at least 100 ft from adjacent uh residential property lines. What about parking requirements? Parking requirements? No, I mean like are you doing paved? Are you doing gravel? Are they allowed to park on grass? Are you It would depend. So, if it's a seasonal business, they would be able to in for our current ordinance, they would be able to request a gravel drive a gravel parking lot. Um, if it's a year round um business, our current ordinance would require it to be paved. So, and again, these questions aren't targeted towards your application. It's the fact that it's like zoning is why I'm like just thinking about the future. So, Oh, yeah. And that's the tricky part is like we know that we're doing this for a specific application. So, we want to make sure that we don't write an ordinance that they immediately can't qualify for, but we also have to write it in such a way knowing that there's going to be other people that want to use this. So, did you did you want to say something? Well, we're sort of past the point of because we're in the discussion, I apologize, but um so at this point in time, is there anybody else who has additional um questions or concerns from the commission that you would like to or raise? Uh, it was brought up, it was mentioned, someone said it might be a good idea, the parking being 100 ft. Um, I think sometimes we throw out numbers there without having an understanding of what that really looks like and what that really does to um to a potential plat. Um, so having to have if you have a parcel that has two neighbors, you're talking now about a loss of 200 ft on either side for anything. And I feel like that is um restrictive. And because this is an IUP application, uh, in the future, any Agra business is getting an IUP, that is something that could be, um, there's going to be enough unique parcels where maybe someone's house is shifted more to the one side of the property line than the other. And so I would be hesitant to change um, the language that you have already included. And that is I agree with that. Yeah, I I agree with that. though. Is there a minimum the parking could get to a property line? Right now, it's a 10ft minimum for drive aisles and um drive a parking spaces need to be set back at least 10 ft and they're supposed to be um shrubbery as well in that 10 foot. So, they you'd have to Yeah. Because you Yeah. You have to you have to screen from the screen the headlights. So, if there if it's adjacent to a property or right of way, you have to screen the headlights within that setback. I don't think 100 foot is realistic. I I think that and I agree with Karen. I I think that's too much. But I I I do think it needs to be more than 10 ft. We um in from commercial districts to residential districts and other areas of the city, we require a 50- foot setback from property lines. So if like it's a commercial business right here and they have a property line uh that's shared with a residential property, the structure has to be set back 50 feet. So that um that might be a helpful reduction but still have something that's a little bit more than 10 ft. Um and we have experience applying that elsewhere in our code and that seems to be doable. I would feel good about 40 ft. 40 ft. Yeah. Unless somebody else has something else to offer, but that's for parking. Yeah, I don't feel Can we say that that's a parking lot? Like, isn't that different than you just said that seasonal or like once in a while type of things are not requiring the same paving as a permanent parking structure? It would No, they would still have to be a parking lot and they'd still have to meet certain standards. it could just be gravel instead of paved. Um, so it would a gravel parking lot would still have to comply with a 40ft setback if that's what we're setting for a parking set, right? But we're saying 40 foot setback from just a property line. So this means that there isn't even necessarily somebody living on the property it's adjacent to. It might just be a farmland plat that belongs to somebody else but doesn't have a home or someone living on there. So much of our farmland in the rural residential area is owned by people who do not actually live on that property. So you're saying you have to be 40t from the property line whether there is a structure a principal structure located on the other side of the property or not. Yeah. Because it can always be developed. Exactly. And there can be a property a house there in the future. something. Couldn't we address like I get I get what we're trying to address, but couldn't we address that through the IUP situation when it's a unique parcel where we're running we're we're hitting friction on that point? Like why does this have to be addressed in the zone? It would have to be. So if we the performance standards that we're outlining for the IUP to deviate from the specific standards that we've called out in code, you would have to do a variance. And sometimes I as someone who really hates variances would make the argument that if the site can't accommodate the performance standards we've identified then it can accommodate the use. Um now I have that argument has not always won but and I know that we have there has been times where it has been a really tricky parcel and we have granted a variance from a performance standard but it's I would say there is an argument that could be made um so that that it really then the site really can't accommodate this use. So we're talking about now adding a condition the 40t which would overrule the 10 feet in the IUP. So I Yes, I believe that is what he that's what's currently being proposed. I I don't love it. What's current? Okay, we're talking about the 100 ft is from is it's from outdoor activities. It's a structure. Outdoor activities. Yeah, outdoor activities. I mean, here's the thing. We got to learn as we go a little bit. This is our first one. And um I love the research done to look at what others are doing. I think it's fair. I love the suggestion on the roadway. Um I think well you know Yeah. Oh go ahead. I'm sorry. Nope. What I think is not fair is to object to something without providing an alternative. If if you don't like it, I would leave it at 10. Okay. That's what I would do. And I'm not not offering suggestions. I think that sometimes we we want to throw out what we feel like might address a problem that isn't even there. And that's what feels frustrating. Um so but I that's what I would do. That does not mean that we all have to agree. Nor does that mean that this has to move forward with um with with we can select one of those languages and it could be changed. um we could make a recommendation to look into something without I know you want a specific um I think it is helpful to have a specific suggestion. I think it's helpful to have at least a minimum starting point but we can always add a little bit more language that says you know uses with higher volumes the city may require a higher setback. We can use language like that. And the truth of the matter is is that you're lumping all rural residential properties together. And there is a huge difference between something that is five acres and what they can support as an aggra business even in terms of their own land use. Like to have to give up their own property to have a parking lot means that they're doing less aggra business. So they're just not going to be large enough versus a 90 acre parcel having an aggra business. Like that's just there is difference. So, I don't want to write something into the ordinance that would pertain more to one property than the other, but but potentially create um more of an issue um with because they're they're not equal in terms of the aggro business they can support. So, I understand the performance standard and so that's why I would leave it at at 10. But um but I am that's my re I mean that's what I think and if the proposal is to move forward with something else then um then that's what we will do and have a performance standard. I just think that um we want to keep track of the recommendations or the things that we have talked about. So for review we have talked about the dark night change to the candle lumens. We have talked about the change in language regarding the access to the site. Um at this point in time, what I think was agreed upon was to remove the language regarding um the major and minor roads and instead indicate 2500 ft from a at least a minor collector. A minor collector. And then there is some discussion around uh we like the 100 ft outdoor activities from a structure and then we are considering what we will make a recommendation for regarding property lot uh parking lots and their standard and I guess while we can pause here for a moment if it's helpful or we can make a decision uh but I guess I'm curious to know is there anything else that other people have to discuss or is this sort of the last lynch pin in making a recommendation for this zoning ordinance amendment. Tell me, please just tell me if I'm getting too stuck on this, but like I I just I don't feel like we have enough data to say five versus four acres acres. Am I getting am I getting insane on this or you know I do think that it is like um it is tricky to meet the parking lot performance standards even in terms of providing enough spots on a smaller property. I also say four acres are less likely to have a lot of crop land for it to really be an aggra business use. Yeah, you're more a homestead I guess. But it could be 4 acres that's all upland and not a lot of wooded trees or no wetlands versus a 5acre plot that's half of it is wetland. But my thing is we want these types of businesses in the city. So why not do four? I'm fine with four. I think as long as it meets the requirements to maintain the business and have places to park and and do it, it's fine. I'm fine with four. I think there log I think a logical argument could be made that it's twice the minimum lot size. I think we all learned about that tonight. Okay. Somebody make a motion. Yeah. Make a motion. You make the motion. Okay. I'll make a motion that we uh Well, okay. Go ahead. Go ahead. You're making a motion. Nope. Make the motion. Keep going. It's already living, so we got to finish it. Okay. I make the motion that we drop and I'm I'm We drop it to four acres. We instead of the this the lighting standard that's in it that we we drop it to the 0.1 foot candle. Mhm. And the setback from the property line to parking is 40 ft. And then there's another one I don't remember. It was 100 feet. 2500 ft from a minor. Yeah. 2500 ft. Yeah. That would be my motion. [Applause] There are no seconds. Does that make sense what what he said for a motion? Oh, yeah. We got it. Doable. Okay. And so then if there isn't a second, the motion um fails and then someone else can make a motion um or we can uh if people are confused on the hangup um then we can have some additional discussion on what is the point of contention. I think his motion covered everything we talked about. Correct. Or the four acres might not be exactly what we talked about. It was more based on ability to I think we said I think accommodate um as I'm following the discussion I thought we landed on reducing from five to four. Okay. Um so I think the issue right now is we need a second in order to move the motion forward. Right. I'll second. Okay. So even though I said it killed it's still alive. Well, I don't think because there's there was just a really long pause between between the motion made and the second and so uh typically when that happens another motion is required. Do you need them to make another motion or are you just going to go with the we do the motion again? But you know to repeat all of it you just for our sake just redo the motion if you wanted to. For the sake of we all know what you're talking about if you just re redo the motion as Okay. I redo the motion. Can we can we have a discussion before we do that? Well, it's already been done now. We could have, but now I withdraw my motion. I want to hear what Linds say. I agree with everything but the 40 ft. I don't agree with the 40 ft. How about 20? No. Yeah, that is what it is that's what it is today. So, we don't change that. And I'll I'll agree with you on everything else. But what is a foot candle? Foot candle. I don't know how bright one foot candle is. It's good question. No, that's a great question. When you put a motion for 0.1 foot candles compared to one I don't know what that is. Is that a flashlight versus a you know spotlight? We'll have if you go on 101 and go to where the tractor place is. Yep. Go to their property line. That's one foot candle. And if you go to their property line, you can read a paper. So a one- foot candle is used more in commercial applications, whereas the 0.1 would be used more in like a dark skies residential area. So like a to get across a crosswalk would be more in line with 0.1 foot candles versus one. I'm thinking from a safety perspective. Yeah. So I would say like street lights are a bit street lights are a bit different. So there might be a street light at like an edge of a property and I don't know that's necessarily one foot candle might be a little bit more. Um so this would be applicable to parking lights and like building lights for the not necessarily the home light but the um the for the structure if there's lights on the structure for uh the business building. And then if there's lights in the parking lot, those would be maxed out at 0.1 foot candle. Okay, I can't even remember the word, but 0.1 instead of one, which is what we typically require for commercial use. Um, and that the reason why I got to that number was just a quick Google search on what's compatible with the dark sky ordinance. So that would be pretty minimal at the shared property lines. I think the only concern is that people can find their way to their cars basically, right? And street there's there's illumination parking lot across the street. Yeah. This is just this is just where the light has traveled to. So at the property line, it has to meet that cut off within the parking lot or on close to the building. It would be a higher 10 feet away from the property line in a it should be even in the scenario. You couldn't have. Okay. All right. More of a a clarifying thing. I don't think it changes that much. I just don't understand what a foot candle is. Yeah. I I don't have a great I don't have a great example to provide you. That's a great question. I should probably try to figure that out. Okay. Can I make my mo another motion? Yeah, you can make Okay. I make a motion where we do the 10- foot setback for parking. We do the night sky. We do um the 2500 feet from the the street where over that instead of one instead of 1,000. And what was the other one? Lot size is a minimum of Oh, and lot size is four acres. That's my motion. I'll second it. All those in favor say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. Okay. So then that recommendation will go forward to the council and I would love to give me just a minute to finish up um the meeting. Uh okay. At this point in time we are moving into um other business. We do not have um a council representative tonight. So there's no city council report. But if you have any questions regarding the planning project update that was both emailed to you and left on the dis um Nie or Dwight would be happy to answer. And uh councelor Baron Camp wanted to say feel free to reach out to me directly with any questions. Oh maybe I will. I have two questions. [Applause] One, how does it work when is there any sort of Okay, let me phrase how I asked this. Is there any sort of like recon slasharning session slash followup when we recommend one thing and council does another? No, I think that sometimes the that's there can be an update, but I mean there are time it it does happen where a recommendation is made and council goes a slightly different direction. So that or a completely different direction. Um I don't know that we have at this point a process in place that really follows up with that other than checking in with the lays on. Okay. I saw the the proposal that we had declined got approved. Okay. Um, I wanted to ask just informally, what was the council's feedback like themes on the uh, the 325 unit apartment off of County Road 30. Uh, they were somewhat open to it. they wanted that they wanted a bit more of a mixeduse development plan and they wanted the commercial areas to be a little bit more spread out on the site than what they were showing. Uh so I there the applicant that brought that forward is at this point um going back to the drawing board to see how to maybe make that site work and how to maybe incorporate the commercial component because it's supposed to be a mixeduse area. Um, and they they were just proposing a residential component and then kind of setting off a half the site roughly. It wasn't quite half the site for future commercial uses. Um, and they wanted it to be a bit more integrated instead of having just like a residential area that really wouldn't be walkable to the commercial area. So, do you did were they positive in the uh in regards to multif family? that it was positive into the regarding the unit type and the product type. Yes. It was just more of the overall site functioning as mixed use. Yeah. Wasn't it uh wasn't the fact that this is the one by Belleather, right? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Wasn't it because they were proposing all that industrial or whatever it was that would back up right to Belleather instead of having a a gradient where you would have bellweather and then multifamily and then like Yeah. So, it wasn't industrial, but they were proposing commercial. Yeah. And I do think there would still be some commercial in that area, but I think that was one of the comp components that council says they really would like um a lot of that area that directly abut to be more multifamily than commercial. So, and then maybe from that than commercial. Yeah, that made a lot of sense. Thank you for answering my questions. Okay. And I just want to draw everyone's attention to the fact that next meeting or next month's commission meeting is not going to be the day before the 4th of July, but instead we had talked about rescheduling it. So it will be on July 8th. So that's uh Tuesday. Um so just make sure that you note that on your calendars and let us know early enough if there's a conflict or as early as you possibly can. Um but just a reminder and then again listed on the bottom is the commissioner uh the suggested council meetings. Um, so, uh, we used to have where there had to be a commission representative president at present at the council meetings and now that isn't a requirement, but that's what the recommended um, schedule calendar that you'll see at the bottom of your um, agenda is for is that if we were to in turn um, take turns being present for those, that's what it would look like. But you're welcome to join um, virtually or in person to any meeting that you'd want. um and uh and to not participate in the one that you are recommended for as well. And at this point in time then I will make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. I will second that. And all those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? I don't need to binge. Okay. And no one's the boss.