All right, we're going to call to order tonight's uh Corkin Planning Commission meeting, May 1st, 2025. I'm going to take roll call. Commissioner Lind here, Commissioner Kazaki here, and Commissioner Brummond is here, and then I'm going to invite um all who would like to to stand and say the pledge of allegiance with us. 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. [Applause] And at this time, I'd like to ask staff or the fellow commissioners if anyone has any um amendments to tonight's agenda. Madam Chair, staff does not have any amendments. Okay. And if there are no amendments from the commissioners, then I'd like to make a motion to approve tonight's agenda. I'll second the motion. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. At this point in time, what we're going to do is uh open up the floor to what we call open forum. So, this is a chance for uh members of the public to address the commission on any item that is not on tonight's agenda. So, if you came um because you just wanted to bring something to our attention, this would be the time that we'd welcome you to the podium to state your name and address. Again, this is for issues not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone who would like to speak during the time of open forum? Does somebody want to make a motion to I'll make a motion to close the public. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. And at this point in time, uh, we're going to take a look at the commission meeting minutes from April 3rd, 2025. And I'm going to ask the commissioners if there's anything that they would like to correct or note. And if not, then I'll make a motion to approve the April 3rd, 2025 commission meeting minutes. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. And so now we're moving on to new business, which is going to be the section of the meeting where we address each of the items on tonight's agenda. We're going to begin with the St. Thomas Church site plan and variance. And this will begin with a staff report. and then after that we'll move into a time of um public comments. Kendra. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a request for approval of the site plan and two variances for a new church for St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church on County Road 10. The council reviewed a sketch plan in February and reviewed the high level concepts and generally recommend indicated support for that concept. The church owns three properties. Uh there's a property on the west that's currently vacant. This property in the middle which has an existing structure on it. And on the east side, uh 116 is just off the screen here, is the existing church and uh event center and cemetery. Uh these are three separate parcels and the proposal tonight is on that center parcel. Again, there's a home on that parcel that'll be removed if you can picture that. And then the church will be new. The uh site of the church and the community center um uh is on the east. As I said, the center one apparently the existing house. I knew they got the demo permit, but didn't go by today, so I guess that's gone. And then uh Outlet H was um acquired or deed to the church as part of the Rush Creek Reserve edition. That's the western parcel. The two eastern parcels are guided public, semi-public and zone public institutional. Those have been owned by the church for a long time. So as part of the comp plan, they were guided that way and zoned that way. As I said, they only recently acquired the western parcel. So that is uh was part of uh Rush Creek Reserve and it's guided low density residential and zoned RSF2. That's going to come up later tonight. We're going to talk about why that's important. And all properties are in the MUSA. The uh survey is um inaccurate. Needs to be updated. I've talked with the applicant about that. It does show the two eastern parcels as a single parcel, but they are not. They are two separate parcels as shown on the site plan. We did talk about platting the parcels into a single parcel which would eliminate some of the issues we're talking about tonight, but the applicant wanted to keep the three parcels separate for now and that does comply with the code. So, they can proceed. The existing lot is a legal non-conforming lot due to size, but it is a lot of record and therefore they can proceed with this application. The new church would be 14,000 square feet and uh it's actually 102 parking stalls. Sorry about that. Um places of worship and assembly are permitted use in the public institutional district. So procedurally, process-wise, the existing church is on a separate lot. That'll stay uh until the new church is built and then that would be demolished. Um and I know the applicants are here. they can talk about it, but some elements of that church, particularly the stained glass windows, are going to move into the new church. So, um, timing wise, that's why they'll keep that operational until they move into the new facility, or at least as close to the time as they move in as possible. The um, church right now, if you're familiar with it, does use a parking lot south of 10 in this location. They uh as you can see they have a new nice large parking lot planned and will no longer need that parking lot south of 10. So they will allow the lease to expire and then they will remove the crosswalk that exists on county road 10. That's something they'll work with Henipin County on um that's a county road. Um the 102 parking stalls shown on the plan does comply with the code requirements for this size of a facility. Uh we did have conversations about overflow parking and future expansion and so that's something that they've talked about but is not part of this application. The new church building and parking lot complies with all district standards. There is um a variance requested here to allow a gravel driveway for this portion here where the code requires it to be paved and for a zero setback for the dry bile. Um and again the two sites function as one. If they were combined we wouldn't have that variance but um Whoops. But uh for a lot of different reasons they want to keep them separate. This is necessary or requested in order to get from the church parking lot where there may be a funeral to the cemetery on this uh parcel on the east. The building height in this district is limited to 45 ft and this the structure itself does comply. The code specifically exempts uh bell bell towers and church spires. So, this element is taller than that, but is compliant. The new building would be brick with cutstone accents. But I would note that the applicant has indicated that the process for the church to get that final design completed and approved is still some time out. So, this design could change. Uh this complies with the code um as shown, but um we would review it as part of the building permit to confirm that the height still complies, the materials still comply, but um uh this as shown today does comply with the code. There is lighting in the parking lot and that parking lot lighting does comply, but no building lighting was shown with these uh plans. said again because the building I suspect because building design isn't complete certainly I would expect that there will be building lighting so we've included a condition that they'll need to provide details to ensure compliance with the code for that there is a new monument sign proposed in the southeast corner of the lot and uh the existing church sign on the corner of 10 and 116 will be removed when the church is removed that's a condition in our code the base landscaping that's required for all lots the applicant does comply with. There's 48 overstory trees and 79 shrubs throughout the site. And they've done a nice job of providing landscape islands within the um parking lot to pro provide um um a safe access into the church um along that entryway. So the main entry has a a single lane in and then shows two uh a right out and a through left turn lane. One thing noted in the engineers memo and Henipin County comments is this access does need to align with the street to the south. So that's going to need to shift a little bit. Um Henipin County did not provide formal comments. We only have that email from February, but they yeah but they will be the permitting authority and so they will sh require that to be shifted. Uh however, the plan does not comply with our buffer yard requirements. So the the code in the landscape ordinance has an additional requirement for buffer yards on the north and the west. And um the applicant would like to not apply it on the west because they own that, but the reality is that's not what the code says. So uh because that's zoned residential and it is a separate lot, they do need to provide that buffering there. The code does provide an exemption that says that landscaping doesn't need to be provided where there's a wetland buffer. So we have this zone here which is where there's no landscaping. And then um this zone here in red, excuse me, between the red and the green is a wetland. So there's no landscaping required there. But the red zone here and here on the west do need to have the required buffer. And on the north, this yellow line is the edge. And so this zone is where that buffer needs to be. And they've planted the trees down here. It's a complicated site because there's a large overhead power line that needs to be relocated as part of this project. And their plans show that overhead power line being removed or moved here. And in the staff report, there's a condition that they need to work with staff because our code actually says when you move overhead power lines, you need to bury the overhead power lines. And so we've got a condition that they work with us and the electric company to try to make that happen. Certainly with overhead power lines, uh, restriction, there are restrictions on what trees can be in that power line easement. Very few can be in there. They have to be very low and so it can't comply with our buffer yard ordinance. But until we flush through that it can't be buried, which is what the code says, I think there's room. If it's buried, they can plant the trees in the buffer yard. And so there are conditions in the staff report both regarding burying the power line as required by code and complying with the buffer as required by code. Um so the condition is requiring revision. If it cannot comply for one reason or another then they will need to come back in the future for a variance from that buffer yard requirement. I'm not convinced that they can't comply. Um, and so we've included it as a condition for now. And I just wanted to have this example of kind of where the issues are. We talked about the access. Uh, the existing drive on this parcel and two of the driveways on the east parcel would be removed as part of the project. So ultimately, we'd end up with fewer access points on County Road 10. That's something the county certainly is looking to do is minimize access points onto County Road 10. There's an existing 60 foot uh 66 foot ride ofway and the county um typically would ask for 100 foot of rightway but there is no plat and so the county does not have the the ability to require additional rightway nor does the city because there's no plat here. So the existing right ofway is what will remain. However, the county does have the ability to require turn lanes and they have indicated that they will require a new right turn lane into the church. that is shown on the plans. We also have condition that that Henipin County permits are required. So again, they've not formally commented on this. So we've got their initial email and a requirement that the the applicant continue to work with Henipin County and they have met with Henipin County. So other than shifting the driveway access, I think we're pretty close. The new church will connect to municipal sewer and water. At this time, the existing facilities on the east lot are not intending to change. They'll stay for now on well and septic, but the new church will connect to municipal sewer and water. And as I talked about, the existing overhead power line running diagonally through the site will be relocated and must be uh relocated underground. Uh the applicant and staff had talked about a variance from the curb cut width onto County Road 10. Um but actually county road 10 is not a city road. So we don't have permit authority. So that's a a Henipin County uh issue, not a a city issue. But the other two variances are for a zero setback. Again, uh there's a 10-ft setback from the lot line for parking and drive aisles, and they can't that. We've talked about this on some of our commercial sites. Um so they're requesting a variance for that and to allow that to be gravel. that will connect from this paved driveway here to an existing gravel driveway on the cemetery lot. And I would note that that's one of the um driveway points that kind of connects that's being eliminated. There's a it's hard to see on this page, but there is a driveway that kind of comes up. So, this will eliminate some of that connection and come up off of here. So, in the staff report, we did prepare findings uh for both approval and denial. And I did include a resolution in your packet for both of those items. Um, next steps again would be for them to finalize the building design and submit their building permit. Um, this is just a site plan and the two variances. Uh, so there's no plat. It won't come back again. This is your final uh, review of this. So, we do recommend approval of the draft resolution approving the site plan and the two variances. That's option one. But your other two options are to um uh move to approve option two, which approves the site plan but denies the two variances. That would just mean they couldn't make that connection and they would need to continue to go through the existing lot on the east to get to the cemetery. Uh or the third option, you could mix and match and find that one of the variances meets the standards and the other doesn't. So, um with that, happy to answer any questions, Madam Chair. All right. Thank you, Kendra. Does anyone have any immediate questions for staff? Okay. All right. So, what we're going to do then is we're going to open the public hearing um on this agenda item. We will uh ask you to limit your time um to approximately 5 minutes. just so that we can get a chance to hear from everybody who'd like to make a comment and so that we can respectfully get through our agenda tonight. We will defer to um anyone who filled out a comment card first and give them an opportunity to speak and then after that we'll open it up to any other members of the public. Do we have anyone comment card related to St. Thomas? Madam Chair, we do not have any comment cards related to this project. Okay. Thank you, Dwight. Um, even if you didn't fill out a comment card, we are going to give anyone the opportunity to come up to the podium, state your name and address. If this is the particular agenda item you'd like to speak on tonight, we'll wait just a minute out of well, not a full minute, but maybe 30 seconds or so. If we see somebody jump up, then we'll give you a chance to speak. Otherwise, we'll keep moving. And then if you could just state your name and address for the record so that uh we can hear it for notes. Sure. Uh, thank you uh, Commissioner. Uh my name is Carl Thielen. I'm actually um at 16956 80th place in Maple Grove. Um I am the uh chair of uh our facilities planning committee at St. Thomas. And so uh I'm delighted to be here. Um our parish has worked uh for six or seven years uh working on establishing uh what our needs are for our future church and we're just delighted to be here. We've had the opportunity to meet with city staff multiple times as we've gone through this process to bounce our ideas out. Um we are in dire need of a new facility with all of the growth that's coming to Corkran and what's coming uh western Maple Grove and the church serves multiple communities around this area. And so we're very excited to be working on a church and a church location that's really in the best place for the long term. Um uh our current facilities are so close to the road and as you know you have nice setbacks from the road and we want to really kind of get the property in the center of uh or get our facility in the center of the property. So as um our facilities uh grow in the future uh we hope to um eventually move our event hall and our offices to that location as well. And it's really uh spaced out nice from a parking and from an access perspective. than the ability for us to grow and be off the road a little bit too for our facilities. Um we recognize that our um location is really important. I mean this a heck of an intersection to be on and um lots of activity will be happening around us in the future. And so we've really taken a lot of time to really work to design what we believe is really a beautiful building for the future. and the buildings that will go around it will be consistent with the architecture that we're establishing and as we're working to to finalize those things. I also want to just note that our heritage is really important too and even though our little church is is very worn and has a lot of accessibility issues for our current parishioners which is really one of the need for our new church. We have a lot of senior uh living obviously that St. is right down the road. And uh we also have a lot of young families coming and you know we need uh facilities that are good bathrooms and everything on one level and good uh parking drop off zones and a lot of those things which are really important and right now it's kind of dangerous proposition to be stopping in front of church and trying to get people out of the car on a really busy road. So um so we're very excited about our plan. We put a lot of thought in it. We've had a lot of engagement with our parishioners uh to really take a look at what our needs now and needs in the future and really um we're very excited to start this process with you. Um I also want to just mention that u we're taking a lot of the heritage with us. Um our current church really the most significant architectural feature is the stained glass windows. Um they uh were handmade in Germany. Um and we think in the late 1800s and uh were imported to um the United States and are in our church. We have 14 stained glass windows. We're going to remove all of those windows um restore those and put those in the new church that they're a significant feature which is really a link to our church's heritage. Um right now we've had to do some kind of emergency repair on those windows. Our walls are spllaying in um and we have some cables holding those up which we've had for a number of years but as a result it's done some damage to those windows. We've actually had to have five of them removed and taken for rebuilding those windows and we put them back in for now. But uh we'll be taking those we'll be taking some things from the interior church and our bell and a lot of things that really will will kind of carry on the tradition of our building and and u and allow those things to be enjoyed and for the future. So uh we've paid particular attention to to some of those items and as we've engaged our parishioners. So on behalf of uh Father Jensen who is here who is the pastor of our parish, I'm just uh want to thank you for your consideration and and uh thank you for the opportunity to uh develop this wonderful property. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Okay. Oh, just a reminder to state your name and address, please. Thank you. Cindy Patnau. I'm the parish administrator for St. Thomas the Apostle. So, I just hope that you will approve the resolution approving it with option one. Thank you. My name is Father Glenn Jensen, pastor at St. Thomas and Peter and Paul's Lorettto where I reside at 175 Lorettto Street. The location is becoming acutely dangerous. When I have masses at St. Thomas, I usually d a green reflective vest and use a one of those red cone flashlight type things because of the increasing danger to parishioners because drivers today find a pedestrian in a crosswalk despiteing a sign we put in the middle of it with a blinky light to be an optional behavior. We've had several near strike incidents, including with myself. was actually given the finger for trying to get someone to stop uh while I was escorting a couple across the highway there. And so we can't stay in the current location just for the safety of our people. So I would urge you to give it some very serious consideration because we can't stay there. It's getting dangerous with the driving and just with the growth, the heavy volume of traffic. We're 20, 30 feet from the roadside. So we need this very very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And if there's no one else who wants to speak regarding this agenda item, then I will make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. And so then we move into the portion where we get to have the commission discussion and recommendation. Um, so I would like to offer either one of you the opportunity to ask whatever questions or make comments that you'd like to make. Um, okay. Well, first off, I just want to apologize to everyone that you had to wait a few minutes. So, I'm so sorry that I was late. It was my birth. It's my birthday and I was at dinner with my family and the rain slowed me down. It's not okay. Your time is valuable. I'm sorry, everyone. I really am. I feel terrible about that. Um, and thank you. Um, I went to St. Thomas for preschool, born and raised in Corkran. Piano lessons there. Love it. Very exciting the growth that you have. So, just want to say that. I know this project is a long time coming. Um, I wanted to clarify the West lot is planning to remain undeveloped at this time. Yes. Question to staff. Okay. So the buffer yard is that taken into consideration as far as future plings like in the if that were to be sold and became residential and um you know are we thinking about those things? Yeah. So the buffer yard if you recall uh we added that a couple of years ago at council direction. The buffer yard is a transition from the uh certain zoning districts to other zoning districts. So whether that land was developed or vacant, that same buffer would be there because of the zoning that is on that lot. Right. And I think the church owns it. So they at some point may come in and ask to do something on that lot. I don't recall that the addition actually extends into that lot, but they own that lot and may ask for a reasonzoning at some point in the future. They may combine it, but for now it's RSF2 and that's why there's a buffer requirement because it's P1 to RSF2 regardless of whether it's developed or not, but they're not there's no variance being requested. So that's I was just going to clarify that and we know that that could change over time. And the west lot, they just have a couple little tiny spots that they're not meeting it. So I think they I don't know what happened there. I think they can meet it on the west lot. It's the north lot that they're not close to meeting it. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify and make sure I understood all of that right. Um, when it comes to pave dry vial versus gravel, has there been any prior exception to this in past projects? I don't think there has been a dry vile per se in the urban area. We did allow a we the council allowed a gravel storage area in the downtown for Westside Tire. Um but not a drive aisle. We do have gravel parking lots, storage areas, drive aisles in the rural parts of the city, but none I can think of in the urban area. Yeah, I'll just add that I would say for storage it was Westside Tire and we also did something similar for Protek as well. That's right. Um, so yeah, I would say parking lots that's less there's less examples of that, but drive aisle. Um, and a drive is typically a part of the parking lot, but this I think is kind of connecting to a gravel area to the east. That's kind of why it's gravel. So I think um if you consider it more like storage um then that would be how you maybe justify it. But also they could pave that portion and let it turn into gravel. So do we have any maybe there's no concern of this people thinking that that's an entrance if it's paved versus if it's gravel or is that a dumb point? No, I think that's something you could take into consideration that it certainly suggests that it's a different it's not a normal exit uh in that it's gravel. I would assume that the well I shouldn't assume, but perhaps the city the church would sign it as as as a private drive or something like that, but I I do think that gives a visual cue that you're going somewhere different, right? That's why one thing I'm thinking about gravel, but um those were my couple initial questions before I state an opinion. Thanks. Um, yeah. I think having it gravel is fine because it's attaching to the gravel drive that goes through the cemetery. Correct. That's the purpose of it. So, correct and and I I agree that and it kind of shows it's not an exit out of the church. It's an entrance into the cemetery. and the other varants for the curb cut. Um, I think one of the reasons they have the the maximum width is for safety, but it sounds like we're addressing safety by having a right out and a straight and and a left turn that it's probably a safety advantage to have that and I believe we don't get to state on that because it will defer because it's a county road. Oh, you're right. That's so we don't have to have to say anything about that. No, because they're not going to take our opinions into consideration. So, I mean, we could if you wanted to, but no, we won't have a bearing on the outcome of that. I guess my only other question on this is, is there a safe way for nearby residents because there's neighborhoods pretty close within walking distance. Is there a safe way for residents if they wanted to walk to church, it I couldn't really see anything. I'll defer to Kendra to answer, but I think what that would be implying is just are there future plans for sidewalks along 116 and 10? Yes, and there are there are not today, but there are plans for sidewalks and trails on 116 and 10. Uh we have a plan in our southeast district for an um overpass or an underpass on 116 at some point kind of near city hall. That's kind of a long-term plan. Um, we are continuing to have conversations with the county. Both 116 and 10 are county roads. And so when land gets platted, we take we work with the county and take additional right ofway to accommodate road expansions and trails and sidewalks. So, you know, talk to your county commissioners, but once those roads get updated, we'll have sidewalks and trails. Until then, as father says, it's a bit of a taking your chances. But what will help uh is that there's a full parking lot now that will be available to people. The neighborhood to the west, I was kind of surprised that when that was built, there wasn't a sidewalk put in front of that. I mean, it's right across from the park. It's right next to the church. It's kind of in an area where you would think kids would walk and cross and and you're coming off a 55 mile per hour road. So, I I agree with, you know, what the priest said about the danger of crossing that road. And there's nothing to indicate on that road that you should slow down. It doesn't narrow. It doesn't give you any visuals like that. It's still 55 even when you're going by that neighborhood. And then it only slows right, you know, when you hit the bar almost. So, I think a little bit more could be done. And I know it doesn't have anything to do with this, but a little bit more could be done for pedestrian safety. And just because there may not be anything now, it may be planned in the future. People may still walk or bike to church. So to have some kind of safe way for them to do it, right, without having to wait for the county to do a major project would be a consideration. Yeah. It's just not our right of way as the city, so we can't work in the right of way to do that. But it certainly is a plan and I we certainly agree I think as staff of the importance of that and they're continuing to work with the county. We would very very much like Henipin County to prioritize some roads and we're talking with them about that right now actually. So we may see some capital improvement plans when they adopt it this year that may have some improvements for Corkran. We remain hopeful. I think it looks like a great project. Um, I like the amount of landscaping in the parking lot, too. So, it's not just a sea of asphalt. Looks like it's very nicely done. Church looks the plan looks very nice. So, okay, great. I just have two points to question and that is the um the drive accesses after the project is finished and the the original church is torn down. At that point in time, there's still going to be one to the gravel parking lot on the corner that's in the very southeast corner. And there will still be one to the residence. Is that that does that take us down to just two? Well, the the residence is um I guess gone already. No, not the residence on the on the far east property. Oh, on the east property. Yes. Um I think sheet Let's see which sheet that's on. I just would I was it's just checking what number we'll be at and then I'm assuming that the um two access points off of 116 will still remain open. Nothing is changing on 116. That's correct. Those two access points remain and um uh just the one access on to 10 will remain okay on the east lot. So we're just looking at one access to that east lot and then this would be all the new accesses to that middle lot and then there's not anything currently to that west lot. So, we'd just be looking at two total on 10. Yes. Okay. Perfect. Thank you so much. And I also I noted in the previous um concept plan before council there was some uh concern raised over the bell the bells ringing in the bell tower. But I just um want to say that like I don't know maybe maybe because I'm used to my rooster crowing. I think the bell is beautiful. So um that's my two cents regarding that. Uh hopefully the idea of taking the bell and allowing that to still be functional is a way to carry um some of that heritage. So if there's no one else I know you wanted to make a comment. Is your comment related to making a motion or just a separate comment? Um just one separate comment. Yeah. Is staff I mean I know this is a variance but is staff worried about you know and pre precedence in regards to allowing gravel when our requirements seek paved. I am not personally worried about that for the reasons outlined in the staff report. The circumstances of every variance must be evaluated individually and therefore no variance really sets a pre president precedent. This is such a unique circumstance that I I think it's unlikely that these exact same set of conditions would would uh come before you. And I think especially too because it's just it's not a link out to 116 or to 10. It's just between those two on a on a parcels that are owned both by the same owner. So, I would pretend to agree. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve uh option one. One. And I'll second that motion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Anyone opposed? So, at this point in time, our recommendation will get passed on to council and then council will make the final vote. Thank you. Okay. Okay. And we're going to move to agenda item number two, which is I I hope someone please correct me if I'm pronouncing it incorrectly, but it's new Mojave or Mahav Mahav. Okay. Mavan temple site plan and conditional use permit. And we're going to begin with a staff report. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. Item 6B tonight is a public hearing for the new Mahavan Temple. Uh it's a site plan and conditional use permit. Um so overview of the request um the new Mahavan Temple is requesting approval of the conditional use permit and a site plan to allow the operation of a place of worship in the rural residential district. Um just quick overview of the types of services that are being offered um by the temple. Um they offer weekend services on Saturday and Sunday that would um last between a a time frame of 7 am and 4 pm in which they expect around 25 people to um be on the site at some point during that time frame. Uh as well as uh weekday services uh at 5:00 a.m. to 7 a.m. and 6 pm to 8:00 p.m. Uh at which point they would have um they would anticipate just two people on the site during those time frames as well. Um the site itself is uh located at 8750 Trail Haven Road. This is a 5.65 acre property that is currently zoned uh rural residential and is surrounded uh by other properties that are also zoned rural residential. Um the property itself is guided rural and egg residential as is also the case with uh the surrounding properties. uh and the adjacent uses is a mix of uh real residential and uh vacant land that's used for agricultural purposes. Um the 2040 plan does not identify any uh significant natural features on the site itself. So no wetlands or creeks or things of that nature. Um so there are two items that are being considered tonight. The conditional use permit and the site plan. Um the conditional use permit is um or the conditional use permits are meant to review conditional uses that are um are uses that are allowed but contain additional conditions to help mitigate some of the potential impacts to the surrounding areas. Um and so with this request of places of worship are identified as a conditional use in the rural residential district and require that approval of a conditional use permit before they uh can operate there. Uh and then the other facet is the site plan which is just a formal review of uh a formal review procedure to ensure uh consistency with the zoning ordinance. Um so the city's discretion in uh those two facets is that if the proposal complies with the zoning ordinance standards then the city would be required to approve uh the site plan and conditional use permit. So going into some of the analysis of the site plan itself. Um currently the property has two buildings on it. The uh residential structure and the pole barn. Um the residential structure is the current principal building and the pole barn is the accessory building. The applicants are requesting that those design designations be switched and the pole barn be the principal structure and the uh residential building be the accessory structure. Um the pole barn, the the applicants are requesting that the pole barn uh be expanded 760 ft to the east side of the property. Um and this would be allowed by code as there's not a maximum size limit for the uh the principal structure, but there is a maximum size limit to the accessory structures on the property. Uh and in this case the the new accessory structure has a footprint of uh 2,6 56 square ft which does exceed the allowed footprint of uh 2648. So, uh, the applicants are are planning to remove a 24x1 ft strip on the back side of the garage of the residential structure to fit in that uh that footprint requirement. Uh, part of the application includes uh the installation of a parking lot and a driveby to serve uh the the members of the congregation who are visiting the site. um our code requires um one parking stall for each four seats in in the uh within the place of worship. So in this case um 19 stalls would be required um but the applicant's plan show that there are 21 stalls and would meet that requirement. Um there are specific dimensional standards for the 90deree parking stalls which I have listed on the slides here but um going through them they do comply with all those standards as well. Um and then parking parking areas are required to be screened uh with shrubs that are at least 3 to four feet in height just to uh screen some of the uh headlights from neighboring properties in the public rightway. uh and the plans that the applicants have uh shown meets that requirement as well. Uh access to the site currently uh consists of two driveways, one to the poleb barn and one to the residential structure. Uh the applicants are planning to remove uh the drive the driveway to the pole barn itself and relocate it northward, bringing it closer to um bring it closer to Trail Haven Road and to um serve that parking lot and it would run uh north of the pole itself. The applicants are um also planning to install uh eight sconces to um provide lighting around the perimeter of the of the temple or the uh the pole barn. Um and so with this application, they would install two of those lights on each corner of the property um and would be located 9 ft above uh above grade. So um these lights would be required to meet the brightness and cutoff requirements. um located in the city code. So those are um a maximum glare of one foot candle measured from the property line and a cut off angle of 90 degrees or less. Um the applicants didn't specify either of these items in their plans. So as a condition of approval um we would just require that um that they uh include that in in their plan so we can verify that it complies with that standard. Um, but I did look up the serial number for the the plan, the lights shown on the plan and included that picture as well on on this slide. Um, the landscaping um being installed um a 760 760 square foot addition uh would require uh at least one additional overstory tree and uh three understory shrubs. Um and the applicant is um planning to install 35 additional o overstory trees uh and 104 uh shrubs. So um those those do meet those landscaping requirements. Um and um as far as the diversity of the species, we do require that um at least 33% of the new trees be um no more than 33% can be of the same species and and they um do meet that requirement as well. Going to signage in the res rural residential district. No signs are allowed for this type of use and and the applicant doesn't propose any signs. That was um an item that was discussed with the concept plan, but the applicants um have removed that from from their plans uh with the formal application. Um for refuge, uh all exterior storage of trash and garbage bins must be totally screened. Um the plan shows uh an exterior storage area for the refues, but it it is screened on three of the four sides. So, a condition of approval would just require that to be revised to be screened on all four of the sides. Um, and then going into the setbacks, the existing structures themselves um are within the minimum setback from Trail Haven Road and from County Road 10. Um, but those do predate those setback requirements and are legally non-conforming structures. Um and then the proposal includes the expansion um not towards that setback but away from the setback and and isn't worsening that uh nonconformity and that is allowable by the city code. Um so kind of a recap of the site plan. Staff finds that the conditions mentioned in the report uh and the application complies with the zoning ordinance standard standards. Uh staff recommends approval of the site plan. Um and then as for the conditional use permit, um places of worship are for conditional use uh in the real residential district uh and that they are required to comply with standards outlined in section 1070.020. Um in the interest of time, I won't list all of them now, but I do have them included in the report and and I'm happy to um answer questions that the commission may have on those during the deliberation. But um all that to say that staff finds that those standards have been satisfied with the proposed application. Um and staff has also included some additional conditions to mitigate any potential impacts with the use itself. So at this point, staff recommends uh that you open the public hearing and take testimony. Uh and then we also recommend approval of the resolution approving the conditional use permit and site plan for uh the New Moav Temple uh with the conditions outlined within the staff report. Thank you, Dwight. May I ask just one question pertaining to what you said before we move on to the public hearing? Um, they are currently legal non-conforming buildings within the setbacks. Um, if there is a change such as one that is considered accessory becomes principal, does that change that legal non-conforming like grandfathered in process? The setback from the county road is the same. That's where they're not complying. So this whether it's accessory or principal structure the setback from county roads are the same and that's where they aren't compliant. Okay. So it's the same regardless. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Okay. At this point in time uh we are going to open the floor to the public uh to make public comment regarding the new Moahan Temple site plan and conditional use. We are going to uh give those who filled out comment cards uh first priority. So I'm going to check. Do we have some? Actually, we do have two. So, the first one I have is from uh Winstead Kurpatre. So, we'd invite you to come. If you could state your name and address for the meeting minutes, that would be appreciated. And then we're just going to ask that you kind of uh keep it to around 5 minutes. Okay. Thanks so much. Um my name is Wesley Kirkpatrick. I'm the property directly um would be north of the Moab proposed Moab temple. And I'm just going to read this. my thoughts together. Um, I'm writing to express my concerns in regards to the request to approve a conditional use permit and site plan to allow the operation of a place of worship at 8750 Trail Haven Road. This property is directly south of my property across County Road 10. In regards to the following conditional use permit guidelines, establishment, maintenance or operation of the conditional use would will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental or endanger the public health, safety, morals or comfort. My main concern here is that I feel the conditional use permit does not protect the current community from the natural side effects of a property that will be used as a place of worship. I would like to respectfully take this opportunity to express my concerns. The site plan in no way takes into consideration the community growth of the place of worship. I've witnessed on occasion, albeit though not recently, the cars parked all along Trail Haven. Having a stipulation to have a parking lot with a certain number of stalls does not in any way guarantee that the community size or membership of the place of worship will stay the current size that it is. A parking lot does not change does change the community landscape. You cannot plant landscaping and expect to blend in any place of worship into your community that is only residential homes and agricultural land. Correctly angled lighting does not prevent light pollution. Much of the already experienced light pollution is coming from vehicles entering and exiting the the address. This was especially apparent in the win the fall and winter months. I cannot logistically place. You cannot logistically place restrictions on entering and exiting the property to prevent light pollution. The constant flow of headlights will become at certain times. The noise on weekends is a concern for me considering hours of operation that I already noted last summer and fall when meetings were occurring and I could hear services at my house. All these concerns are precisely why we see most places of worship located on or near commercial use properties. I would like the planning commission to consider what would happen when the membership of New Moavan Temple grows to a point where park more parking is needed. Is there a plan for more parking spaces? Will traffic safety need to be addressed with turn lanes or roundabout? How will that affect the surrounding properties? I was completely shocked to see the road safety study did not find any concerns with potential increased traffic. County Road 10 is extremely busy in the mornings and the evenings Mondays through Fridays. Any person that visits my property is told to be extremely careful watching for traffic. Traffic coming from the west and the east can be very hard to detect when exiting Trail Haven onto County Road 10. I was hoping to see the planning commission looked into statistics on what types of auto accidents can occur at that intersection of Trail Haven and County Road 10. I've seen enough in the three years I've lived here to have a strong respect and concern for that intersection. The commission will not be able to guarantee that a place of worship directly across from my property will not lower my property value. The planning commission cannot state that CUP will promote or enhance my general welfare when it is highly likely to reduce my property value. My main concerns regarding reduced property value to those directly near the proposed use of the property are as follows. Increased localized traffic directly across from my property. Noise pollution that I have witnessed on weekends. Carl light pollution I have already witnessed especially during winter months. And property changes that will most likely would prevent potential property resale to the residential market. Finally, approval of this conditional use permit would set a very concerning precedence for future land use of land in Corkran's residential agricultural locations. I would be concerned with what other coops the planning commission would allow in this community. I am concerned that the proposed changes to the property would make the property itself far less appealing to possible future buyers. basically changing the property to the point that is no longer appealing to the residential market, thereby forcing the surrounding homes like myself to tolerate non-residential use over and over and over should the new Mahaban Temple property be placed back on the market. Thank you for allowing me to the opportunity to voice my concerns. I hope you will take them into consideration when considering the new Moaban Temple's conditional use permit. Thank you so much. And um I know you indicated your property was just north, but I just want to verify the address is 21420 county road 10. Right. Okay. Thanks so much. And then do we have another one as well, Dwight? Yes, madam chair. We do have another one from uh from Mandy Anderson. Okay, Mandy. Good evening. My name is Mandy Anderson. I live at 21155 County Road 10. I also am going to read something that I wrote. My name is Mandy Anderson and my family moved to Corkran in 2020. I'm going to share with you my reasoning as to why I'm requesting the city does not grant permission to reszone this rural residential area to commercial. My husband and I both work in the construction industry in the cities on both commercial and heavy highway projects. Our adult lives has been spent primarily spent around traffic, equipment, and lots of people. Prior to our move in 2020, my husband and I lived in Maple Grove with our family. We wanted more peace in our lives outside of work to slow down and raise our children in environment surrounded by nature. We needed a change. We did research for a long time and a property came up for sale with just under 5 acres and the home was 70% complete. It was a short sale. We took all of our savings and sweat equity and put into our dream home in the rural residential area to raise our family we were building in the city we wanted to grow our family in. After 5 years of living in Corkran, we've repeated or we have reaped the benefits of our sacrifices made in order to live in an area surrounded by trees, singing birds, feeasants, turkeys, and even owls at night. The peaceful sunrise and sunsets have been enjoyed in the summer without the faint noise of traffic or voices or people doing their daily activities. We just were able to simply enjoy what we were doing in that moment. I recently heard that a home was sold three houses down from us and that the property owner is requesting the current zoning of rural residential be changed to commercial. My family chose this location because there was no commercial zoning or mixeduse zoning in the area. We invested in this property for the enjoyment of leaving our work environment behind and being able to spend our weekday evenings and weekends outside in the serene comfort of our home. That is what we believed we purchased in 2020. When the 8750 Trail Haven Road home was sold, the buyer knew it was zoned as as rural residential. It would not serve the current community who purchased their property in a rural residential area to have this property change to commercial use. The city of Corkran currently has areas zoned for commercial use and mixed use where it would not affect changing the existing community. It will affect the enjoyment of our property if there could potentially be 75 additional people on the property Saturdays and Sundays from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. In addition, weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. because these are the same times my family has outside of work hours to enjoy our property we purchased in a rural residential area to escape what this conditional use permit is requesting as listed in resolution number 25 B2 in the submitted paperwork. I received in the mail the other day the city of Corkran updates which had an article about the land use bills that would move the city planning from the local level to the state level which would remove any community input for the city zoning and planning. The city encourage residents to contact lawmakers to oppose these newly proposed bills. I'm asking that the city of Corkran take that same response and apply it to this situation and consider instead of looking at it from a local planning level to revisit the request as a current resident who put their family's future in a rural residential area planning to enjoy their property outside of work hours without hearing commercial use additional noise. Thank you. Thank you. And at this point in time, what we'll do is we'll open it up for just other members of the public who would like to make a public comment um regarding this item agenda. So even if you didn't fill out a comment card, you're given the opportunity to step up to the podium and state your name and address. And if you're the applicant, we will give you a separate time. So don't feel rushed. Um excuse me. [Applause] Hello, my name is Joe Zalinsky. So my wife and I live at 21250 County Road 10. Uh we're within direct line sight or vision of uh the proposed property and the upgrades. Um so we've lived in Corkran for going on 11 years now. So a lot of what um was previously shared we mayor or we mere um and we have severe reservations as is. Um so the the comments are not a reflection of a place of worship but they are a reflection of the precedent that it sets. And so the concerns are are moving from a rural agricultural area um and setting a precedent and a landmark or I should say a watershed moment for moving into a commercial area where we are all permanent in that area. So, a couple of things. Um, so first and foremost, um, we we engaged in good faith dialogue uh, with the p the new parties and there were several action items that we were hoping to be addressed before it came to this here tonight um, with some level of corrective action. Um, that to my knowledge has not occurred. Um also while we fully support faith back faithbased activities of any denomination um the support um without severe modifications to the current plan and reinsurances in place uh we have some reservations and I believe the the rest of the neighborhood does as well based on slight polling. So, like I said, a lot of the concerns I have were mirrored. So, I'll try to run through them. Uh, migration from the current residential neighborhood. I think that's primary concern. I think there's some conversation around asphalting it and bringing it up to more of a commercial feeling and um I would look to seeing if we could adopt something similar to what was previously discussed in a different resolution. But signage, parking lots, headlights, fences, all of those move away from the current rural neighborhood that we invested heavily and continue to invest heavily for. Also, I believe it was presumptuous for the neighbors or I should say per for the proective owners to purchase with the intention to move away from the original character without at least pulling your new neighbors and understanding where we could have movement. I believe also property values uh were discussed as far as there's no indication as far as what this would do from a long-term perspective. Like I mentioned before, this could be a watershed moment where additional uh places of commercial try to use this for that area. Also, it sets a precedence on a road map, like I said, for future expansion. Um unchecked future expansion because it's transferable, at least how I understand it, to not only um this ownership body for indefinite, but also to future owners of that same property. And so again, it takes away from the neighbors that currently live there. We have several concerns around additional traffic, not only on County Road 10, where I myself have had to duck into um to the lawn and have nearly been run over, but also on Trail Haven. Given the topographical uh nature of that road there, it's actually very hard to be seen. Um and so now when you have a surge in traffic, I think that could uh have a result certainly from a um safety perspective also from a priority or appraisation of home maintenance. So now the home which is directly related to our home values is no longer their priority. And so therefore their funds and their priority as far as maintenance has to go to and rightfully so to uh their place of worship. And so by not having their primary uh the primary residence as the primary property anymore, it creates um a potential issue as far as going back to the um the property values. So, long story short, I think uh my wife and I, we are not in favor as proposed without serious modifications um because this does not reflect the growth history or should say the rural history um that that we have um certainly embraced and and why we came to court. So, uh with that said, I'll yield my time. Thank you so much. Okay, we'll just see if there's anyone else. Okay, thank you so much. And I do just want to say we love uh if there's if there is anything that you agree with that's already been said, it's totally welcome to just say I agree with what was said before. Um but certainly spend time uh highlighting the things that are unique to your comments. Thank you. Uh my name is Nicholas Casper. My address is 21203 County Road 10. I'm right adjacent to the property. Um, I also just wrote down all my uh thoughts, so I'm just going to read what I wrote. I'm a resident of Corkran living in a rural residential zoned area and I'm writing to respectfully oppose the conditional use permit requested by Kertry uh Auadi uh to convert the property at 85 uh 8750 Trell Haven Road into a place of worship including the proposed addition to the existing polebar and the construction of a paved parking lot. While I respect the revite right of all individuals to their place of faith, I am concerned about the proposed changes that are incompatible with the rural residential character of our neighborhood and the intent of the rural um zoning district. My primary concerns are one the preservation of the rural uh residential character. The rural residential zoning district is intended to maintain a low density residential use and to protect the quiet open and rural nature of the community much as what was already spoken. Um but the parking lot and expansion of the pole barn uh introduces a non-residential use that could be that could disrupt the tranquility and aesthetic of the area. increased traffic, noise and activity associated with a place of work worship are inconsistent with the peaceful environment that the residents value in this zoning district. Uh then the impact of the paving uh the paved parking lot, the proposed paved parking lot raises significant concerns about the environment and aesthetic uh aesthetic impacts. Paved surfaces uh increase storm water runoff which could strain local drainage and affect neighboring properties. Additionally, a paved parking lot detract from the rural rural aesthetic. Uh replacing natural or agricultural land with impervious surfaces. Uh I urge the city to consider alternatives such as maintaining unpaved or minimal parking to preserve the area's character. Uh three, concerns about future expansion. This has already been touched on. And if you consider the uh growth with uh St. Thomas the Apostle, like religious faith organizations grow, that's a good thing. Um, the application does not address long-term plans of the applicant, including the potential for future expansions or transfer of the property to another entity if the congregation outgrows a space. Without clear limitations in the CUP, approving this permit could open the door to further development and exacerbates traffic, noise, and land use conflicts. a request that if the cup is considered that it include an expiration date with an opportunity to renew the permit within five to seven years. Uh strict strict conditions prohibit the future of expans strict conditions prohibiting the future expansion and non-transfer of the permit to another entity without city approval. Um traffic and safety impacts have already been touched on so I will skip my comments on that. Um and then number my other comment would be consistency with the comprehensive plan. Uh Corkin's comprehensive plan emphasizes preserving agriculture agricultural and rural residential areas while carefully managing development. Approve approving the cup for non-residential um use in a rural uh residential district may conflict with these goals. Um, I understand balancing the community needs with individual rights, but I believe that the proposed use does not meet the standards for a conditional use permit under Minnesota law, Minnesota statute 462 uh 3595, which requires that the CUP satisfy uh specific criteria and be compatible with surrounding land uses. This is not compatible with surround surrounding land uses. Uh the proposed changes risk altering the character of our neighborhood and are setting a precedent for further non-residential development. I respectfully request the planning commission and city council deny the conditional use permit. Um I know you guys already have your uh motion uh that you'll be taken in a minute. That's a request. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. If there's anybody else, we got two coming. So, let's take one and then if the other could just stand by and and wait, that would be uh fantastic. Just a reminder to state your name and address for the record. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Uh my name is Wasant and uh I live in 6418 Blue Steam Circle uh in the Ravenia neighborhood and I didn't come prepared today to be honest like others. So, I'm not going to read uh what I prepared. So, today's uh agenda I just got to know from yesterday. I didn't know much about this project but then uh I know Manoj he is one of our neighbor who lives in Ravenia. So that's how I got to know about this and um I mean with the father of two kids I know how hard is it for the gen alphas to even get out of the digital world and to spend time with uh anything that's religious or anything that makes them focus outside of the digital world. So my only humble request is I loved how uh commissioner mentioned that in St. Thomas church how she got a chance to learn and grow and evolve with it and today you are in a position to see it expand. I think few years back the same journey would have been the in the place where we are starting now would be the same place where St. Thomas would have been and somebody gave them an opportunity to serve the community and that's what it helped people to grow and to evolve along with them. So all I'm trying to put here is I think it takes a village to grow good citizens and to be inclusive. So I think from our side I totally accept all the comments that were given before. Yes, there are going to be inconveniences for everything. But I think at some time we need to know what is the right step that we are giving and what are the opportunities we are giving for the new people to come in and that will pave way for the rest of the generation to follow. Thanks for the opportunity and have a nice seat. Thank you. And I saw another person and then there's a hand as well. So two more people. Um, so my name is Brian Loft. I live on 8645 Trail Hero directly across the street. Um, I do share the same concerns as the rest of my neighbors. Uh, there it's going to be a big impact on our community. you know, we we purchase these properties um and we pay for these properties and we work every day to try and keep these properties looking the way that we want them in our rural area. And now in my eyes, I see uh just a huge change in a a rural area that uh I'm really trying to keep it rural as much as I can in our area. And now this kind of came in and it's like it's going to change my whole aspect of where I live. So I know it's going to financially change my way of life. Um, you're kind of changing everything that I've worked for 25 years to try and keep the way I want it. I know I can't change everything, but uh, that's my concern. So, thank you. Thank you. Yep. Go ahead. I talked to Dwight before. I can't stand. Okay. Can he he's going to come and bring you the mic? The reason that we do that is we do have people watching on Zoom and then also it's helpful for uh capturing meeting minutes afterwards. So, thank you so much. And then if you could just state your name and address, that would be great. Hi, Sarah Harvey. I live at 8850 Trail Haven Road. Uh we are in the property directly to the north of the property in question. Um so I just want to reinforce I agree with everything that my neighbors have stated. I did send in some comments ahead of time. Um, but just wanted to reinforce that there I don't believe that there's any conditions you can put on a permit to mitigate the sound and the lights coming from the property because they have 30-year-old pine trees that completely block the house in the driveway, but yet the lights are shining in our windows and we can hear the noise from the services in the insulated home. Um, so I just wanted to reinforce that. I just don't think that there's a solution for that. Um the other thing is I'm concerned about the inconsistencies that we've heard about the number of people. Um from the city council meeting to the application to the neighborhood meeting we had. Uh the other thing I discovered is the applicant is also the president of a second nonprofit. Um, and so I'm just concerned that nonprofit um distributes food to needy people, which is a great thing, but um based on their website, I'm concerned that they might want to use this property for that also for that nonprofit, which would not be under the um the under like a worship or um religious conditional use. So, um I think that's that's about it. Did you have something to say? Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much. And then we do have I Yep. Go ahead. I'm Manosh Prasad. I live in one uh 193 359 penny royal court uh court in Ravenia. So dear esteemed uh members and and all the guests here. Um so um as a resident of Kuran um an active member of the community and this nation uh I remember I strongly urge approval of this proposed new Mahawal temple. Our local congregation comprised of many cork residents not too many uh currently lacks uh a dedicated place of worship. Uh so approving this temple will fulfill the vital spiritual and cultural need within our community providing a serene and accessible space for worship and religious learning. Uh I believe this project will significantly benefit the Kura residents by promoting a strong sense of community and cultural richness. I thank you for consideration of this important application. I've heard lot of objections and uh I really honor them and we hope to we are very carefully trying to safeguard uh their interest as well. So we are not blind to the concerns of all the residents here because our our whole agenda is to live in harmony with everyone around here and to serve the community here as much as we can uh to the best interest of everyone. So with that uh I'd like to once again urge strongly to please approve this agenda and uh uh this uh cup request uh for the benefit of the whole coin city. Thank you. Thank you. I'm Jason Woody. Uh my address is 211040 County Road 10. I am approximately four driveways to the east of this proposed project. Um I had a bunch of stuff written down, but um the previous people opposed to this um proposal um they pretty much hit the nail on the head with everything that uh I agree with. Um so to reiterate some of the facts, I'm going to go with the bullet points of what is the future of it? What happens in 10 years if they decide to pack up and go somewhere else? Now you got a pretty tough sell. It's a pretty select market to try to have sell that facility to someone who a will want to use it, will have a use for it, and b and c will fit with the community. Um, and until that happens and they're done, then the building is vacant. And vacant buildings do nothing but destroy property values. And when property values go down, tax revenue goes down. Um, another big thing about it too is it does not fit with the rural residential, the rural preserve that that represents Corker and that people like myself been here for 40 years. Um, we have paid a premium and and made sacrifices to keep Corkran what it is. not having to lock our doors, not having to turn around and go close the garage when I go shopping. Um, we paid a premium for it and now it seems to be everything we've done, we're getting kind of encroached upon upon, you know, our what we want, our community beliefs and values. I'm not against the church. I'm not against any denomination. Uh, I'm just against the location. Um, Trail Haven is very dangerous. It's very hard to see. It's very hilly. That's safety number one. Um, two, if they go to a church and nonprofit, then they're going to pay little to no tax. So now the tax revenue for this city, state and county drop. And again, that hurts all the citizens of Corpin. The less revenue we have, the less money the city has to work with to help develop future projects without putting a burden on the city. Um, I think we should find a different lo if they want to build the church, they should go to a location in Corkran or wherever that's already zoned for this. Um, so that we can preserve what we have. We don't want to see parking lots and parking spaces and lights at night in people's eyes. It's just going to give a lot of people heartburn and then I think it's going to create more problems for the people on the city and the city administrators that have to listen to all these people on the phone, you know, day in and day out emails expressing their concerns with a bit of a chip on their shoulder. Um, I just so to sum it up, I just agree with what previous people came up here and expressed their concerns about. I agree with it. I agree with what they say and I just hope that the city takes in consideration to what the citizens want and not push this through um as of right now. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And we've spent a good amount of time. I don't want to cut anyone off, but I just want to invite if there's anyone who has something new um to comment on that, then I'm going to invite you up to the um podium. If there's Yep. By all means. Yep. My name is Greg Mushikowski. I live at 211040 County Road 10. I'm about a quarter of a mile east of the proposed site. Um I don't understand the reclassification of going from rural residential to commercial. Um, like everybody else had stated here earlier, we all bought here incorporated because it was pretty rural and comfortable. Most of us have acorage which we really enjoy and we do pay a premium for it. Taxes are crazy. Taxes are crazy. I agree with that. I I am very uncomfortable with this temple, proposed temple to be here. And again, I am not against religion. I'm not I belong to St. Thomas talked about it earlier. Um, I just think it's in the wrong location, not not in a residential area. I don't understand. One thing quickly, Joe spoke earlier. His house is in between mine and the property. The guy that owned his property, Joe's property before Joe bought it. He had a full-time job and a part-time job. He was selling enclosed deer stands and he had three or four of them out in front of his house as models for people to look at. Well, the city came and said, "You can't do that. This is not commercial property." He kind of argued with the city. The city said no. He was pretty upset. Sold the house. He moved to International Falls. That's how upset he was. And uh so with that said, if the city was totally against that on his own property, why are why is the city willing to change the classification from rural residential to, you know, a commercial property? I I don't understand. I don't understand that. That's all I had to say. And I would agree with what most of my other neighbors have said. I'm concerned about my property values. not crazy about the extra traffic that's probably going to be there and even though I don't drive on Trail Haven much. I've certainly been on it and it is pretty ugly trying to you can't see on that corner. It's pretty ugly and with more traffic there. There could be an issue. Not saying for sure there is, but there certainly could be an issue there. And I I don't know if um I don't know if the city's really thought about that. Just saying. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And at this point in time, um, unless there's somebody absolutely itching to make a comment out of sake for the rest of the agenda, I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second the motion. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Okay. I we will give the applicant if he would like an opportunity to address uh the commission as well as the members of the public. But I just as a point of clarification, could we please have staff explain that it's not being reszoned to commercial, but it is a conditional use permit? And then if you could also just answer the question, what happens if the property is sold? What happens to the conditional use permit? If you could answer those two questions, that would be helpful. Sure. Yeah. So yeah, with the request before us, it's not a request to reszone the property to a a commercial property. It's it would still have the same zoning district of the rural residential, but the rural residential district does include a list of uses um some permitted without council approval, some um allowed through uh conditional use permits or interim use permits. And that is through the council process and planning commission such as this. Um, and one of those uses is the place of worship. That's identified as as a conditional use within the district. So, um, in the event that the property sold, um, the conditional use permit is, um, very specific to the circumstances of this request. So, if someone bought it, they could um they could operate a place of worship just as as this applicant is. Or they could they could operate it as a a place as a single family residential as that's also an allowed use within the within the zoning district as well. Uh and that wouldn't require council approval. That's a permitted use. So, they could buy the property and live in it just as as it previously was. So, it's Yeah. Go ahead. No, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead. No. Yeah, I was going to say so yeah, it's not being not being reszoneed is just a conditional use permit which is um allowed within this zoning district already and stays with the property and stay and stays with the property. Correct. Yes. So I just wanted to clarify a couple points. So the conditional definitely forever conditional use permit runs with the land. The conditions the conditions must apply in perpetuity. So if a user including the applicant or if a future user were to come in and they're out they're operating in conflict with the conditions of approval for the cup the cup can be revoked under that scenario. So any expansion anything that's beyond what we've stipulated in the cup would require an amendment to what's been approved or it's simply a sign that the the use doesn't fit in that site. So those are just some things to keep in mind with the CP. cannot issue a sunset clause on it. Uh that an interim use permit would allow that. But the council when we last reviewed places of worship which was in about 2021 2022, they specifically allowed it to be a conditional use permit in this district. So um there are some limitations on what the city can't let there's not an expire or renewal clause. That would be an interim use permit. Um and that would be a change to our code which is not what is in front of us tonight. Okay. Thank you so much. At this point in time, we would like to give the applicant, Mr. Please correct me if I'm pronouncing it in uh incorrectly. Agraal. Yes. Uh we'd like to give you an opportunity to address the members of the commission and the public as well. And if you could uh could maintain a respectful amount of time as well, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Sure. Um thank you very much, Madame Chair and the honorable members of the commission. Uh my name is Kiri Agraal and I'm resident of 6035 Lanewood Lane in Plymouth. I'm president of New Mahavan Temple and EcoArm community. First I would like to give the brief background on the organization. We are a small religious group. Our organization is 501c3. Our services are based on the teachings of Bhagat Gita. For last five years, we have been renting rooms in the various churches in Plymouth. The last place the church we rented was the Peace Lutheran Church until the property was sold. During that time, uh our congregation started to look for the new place, permanent place to do our temple services. Around that time also we connected with the city staff and we looked at the zoning uh map and as per the zoning map uh the place of worship is allowed as a conditional use permit like it was discussed. Historically we have the congregation of 10 to 12 family members and since our members are from Corkuran we started looking for the place in Corkan. Before we started our search we had the meeting like I said with the city staff and also looked at the zoning. After purchasing the property in 2024 uh we had multiple meetings with the city staff to look at the guidelines and what is permitted. uh uh what what will meet the guidelines of the conditional use permit and we also had the meeting with our neighbors which was mentioned earlier in the feedback from the neighbors on that meeting is included in the addendum uh unfortunately it was not uh not uploaded on the system but it is provided uh with this meeting. So that addendum addressed most of the concerns that we heard uh in our neighborhood meetings. I would like to address some of the concerns that we talked about it and also I think that Dwight already uh explained that the conditional use permit is specifically for the conditions that we are requesting. If we grow, if we outgrow, then we would need another conditional use permit or addendum to the conditional use permit and we have to go through the same process that we are going at this time. As our congregation is small, we have proposed a small parking lot and we have covered with the proper landscaping. Uh if look at the looking at the report the perimeter of the lot is 3,65 ft and as per that we required to have 61 u over height um overstory trees and uh 102 understory shrubs. If you look at the whole parking whole landscaping plan, we try to put all those trees in the areas where the development is. So instead of putting it on the all parimeter, it will be very concentrated in that 1,500 square ft of area uh parimeter, not the area but the perimeter. So that will give a very good buffer uh for the parking lot as well as for the lights and other uh other pollution. If that happens regarding the future growth we have been uh consistently for last five years more than five years uh with the 10 to 12 families families comes they move out and that's the growth is even we consider the future growth and that is why we have requested 19 parking lot 21 parking lot in case if there is a future growth uh for that purpose. Um with that uh I would like to uh thank uh the city staff who have patiently listened to us and guided us throughout this process and also I would like to thank all the neighbors who came who shared the feedback in our meetings and also today and we addressed try to address to the best of our ability in our proposal and we are open to make some changes if that is needed in the proposal. Finally, I would like to mention again that the sid uh that we are very small and friendly congregation and look forward to contribute positively to the city of Cork. Thank you. Thank you. And at this point in time then we will begin uh commission discussion and recommendation. There's someone who would like to begin bringing their questions forward first. I guess I can go first this time. Um, these these are always really difficult because people don't I mean anybody that moves into a neighborhood and they look at the zoning and they figure it's rural residential that that's what it is. They look all I mean if people even bother to look that far when when they're buying a property and I don't think most people realize that there's things like interimuse permits and conditional use permits that are allowed in the city. um what's being proposed is is allowed in the city and it looks like it is meeting all of the conditions that that we've put on it. I I think the one the one condition maybe that is causing a problem is that the the neighbors feel like it it will reduce property values. It will affect their quality of life. the lights, the sound. I guess you guys have already been maybe holding some services there. It sounds like because people have made comments that there there is issues with lighting and sound. It is a pretty consistent thing with services every every weekend um and on the weekdays. The the parking lot I this is a question maybe for you Natalie. the paved parking lot that that is something that would have to be it. Why that rather than like gravel in an area like this where people do have because that's such a permanent thing too. Correct. Yeah. So it the paved parking lot is a requirement of code. Um we only allow gravel parking lots for uses that aren't year round and so there's some limitation to it. So they could certainly if there's a need for if there's overflow parking, they could certainly have like a gravel area for that. But the primary parking lot per our code and they've done what they can to meet all of our code requirements without having to ask for variance. They've been very intentional about that. That that's the city requiring it. So it's not them proposing it. I'm sure they'd be happy to have a gravel. It'd be very it'd be less expensive. Why does the city require paving? Is it dust? Is it what what is it wear? Is it know the history on that? It is dust and wear. I think historically and this is before I even started at the city is that there was a desire of the council at that time to acknowledge that Corkran was transitioning from a rural community to a suburban community. And so I think uh this was late 90s early 2000s. It was an intentional decision by that council, but the dust and and the wear and things are part of that as well. The storm water runoff is a part of that. Yeah. Because it becomes impermeable at that point and that would probably contribute to more storm water runoff as as a couple people have said too. And I know a lot of us live on gravel roads in Corkran. I mean there's a lot of probably more gravel roads than paved roads in Corkran and a requirement like dust control. I mean, I can I can understand dust being an issue and that would cause people problems if they live nearby and that dust flies around. I guess that whole permanent nature of a big paved parking lot in a rural area. And I mean, yes, Corkran's transitioning, but the rural residential area will probably not transition for the next 20 years. I mean, it's just not even in the 2050 plan. I don't believe. I I think it's difficult. I think and part of that is it is an allowed use. They are they are meeting all the requirements of the allowed use, but it it certainly seems to be impacting the neighbors and I see that as a problem. Thank you. Commissioner Linda, do you want to go or would you mind if I asked a few questions? Oh, you can go. Go ahead. You can go first. I just have a couple questions for the applicant if you if you don't mind. Um, so it does indicate that on the weekends the services go from 7:00 a.m. till 4:00 p.m. Could you just give a quick synopsis of what what is happening like because that seems just um atypical for the length of a service. So could you just talk um overview of what is happening during that time? Definitely. So if you look at the application then what we have mentioned on every day it is 5 to 7 in the morning. Uh the purpose of that 5 to 7 in the morning is to uh wake up the god. Uh so it's a place of worship. The lord uh lord will be there and uh the purpose of 5 to 7 is to wake them up and then uh 6 to 8 uh the time is to make them sleep. And during that time during the weekdays we are all family members. So it would be only one or two members that would be going and doing that service. on the week uh weekends uh that would be from 7:00 a.m. uh we will start that process but the majority of 10 to 12 families who will come would be between 7:00 a.m. till 11:00 a.m. And after that we just want to keep it open which is mentioned in the narrative of our proposal that two volunteer family will be there from 11:00 a.m. onwards until 4 p.m. So it would not be the parking lot would be full during that time but it would be just open during that time. Okay. And because it says that it's the ecoarm was mentioned as well are like I guess what I was wondering is are those activities coinciding like are both right. So, so what it is is uh when we presented the uh concept plan, then there was a debate about the eco-arm and the temple purpose and all of those things to make it much easier and uh simple. We are requesting for the temple because that is what the conditional use permit is for. Yeah. Uh the farming is the permitted use over there. But we do not have at this time we do not have the plans to do any organic farming that we proposed earlier. Okay. Um because my question was going to be about storage of equipment because if the outbuilding is transformed into a place of worship then if if that ecoarmming does happen because it is an already allowed use like where is the storage of equipment um going to be for those activities? That was my question. Right. So at this time we have talked to our neighbor and he will continue to take care of our farmland. Okay. Um but that could that is because it's an allowable use. It doesn't require a coming back like it it doesn't require anything. Right. So then it just becomes an issue of them figuring out where to store equipment if there is no longer room in this out building. Correct. And and they do have a very large garage with the with the house residential house. Okay. Um, and then what was my last question? Oh, on the plans, and the only reason I asked this is is parking and where there's a lot of concern about future growth. So, on the plans, it just indicates a seating area and is that inside. Is that typically left as an open seating in which chairs are set up as you need them? And um, do you know what I'm getting at? Or like what is the capacity for that space? So the capacity for the space fire code is probably more than what they're proposing. The cup can limit the capacity. Okay. And so is there a limit right now attached to the cup? There is a limit of 75 seats with this application and that's based on the number of parking spaces is how we get that. It's based on the on the number provided in in the narrative. In the narrative. So set by the applicant not by the city. Yes. They have two festivals a year where there may be the 75. So more than the just the typical 25 people that they're seeing. Um and so at that point I we don't believe it's necessary for there there to be a paved parking lot to support 75. They would just have overflow parking on the site. Uh but the the requirements would be that parking needs to be not on trail haven. Um and then they can't have more than 75 people on the site. Okay. But I just want to clarify that because 75 is the maximum related to the cup, weekend services could get up to 75 people and they would still be operating according to the standards set by the city. At this point, we could add a condition that makes it clear that makes it a smaller threshold for the way regular weekly service. Is it possible to be so specific as to say um because I remember this was a discussion on a different application but similar a while ago where that there were like a uh we could set as a as a condition that there were a couple of times a year that it was permitted to be more but that the regularity so that if for some reason it went beyond that without an additional amendment then the conditional use permit could be uh re reviewed. Okay. certain maybe I would propose that we don't make it as low as 25 but we could potentially do 30 35 I would make it because there's like they said that I think it 10 to 12 is what the cars that they usually anticipate they have a parking lot for 20 so I would assume that we probably want to match what the parking would allow more okay so I do have some additional questions but I just wanted to knock off some big ones um and then go ahead and uh we'll pin you are if you do you have any questions for the applicant. Okay. I I Well, I think I do. I might be a bit confused on the amount of expected folks during the daytime services or the the morning week. Week day. Morning. Weekday. Weekday or weekend? Weekday. Weekdays. It will be two people, two volunteers. But how many will be attending? Two. Okay. Okay. So, I wanted to be clear. We have two early in the morning 5 a.m. and then in the evening 6 p.m. Okay. It's essentially a ceremony that they trade off responsibility out throughout the between their congregations. Okay. And I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this question. Um how has your the growth of your community been over the past few years? Yes, that was one of the question in the neighborhood meeting also. Okay. And we have like I said consistently 10 to 12 families. That's what we have for the last more than five years. Okay. Thank you. I think that's all my questions. Can I Can I ask one more question? Certainly. So, the house that's being reszoned, not reszoned, but reied reclassified. Thank you. Reclassified as a out building or accessory building. Will nobody be living in that? Is it not a residence? Nobody's No, it is part of the condition that it would be not uh human habitat. Uh that's what the word it was used on that. But we will certainly be able to use it for the office purposes or administrative purpose. So it can't it can't be used as a residential building. That would be the one moment. I think staff wants to weigh in. So um I sorry the I think there might be a condition in it but I think there had been talks that maybe someone could eventually live in it or could be used. Right. So, but I looked at the condition, so I wasn't sure that what does that mean, right? So, would it be treated like an accessory dwelling unit? Yeah. Yeah. And so, it would have to have a separate address. Yeah. That was um It's actually our addressing is a bit different now. So, it would be the same lot address, it just have a unit two or whatever. Okay. So, I think basically um the condition would be if they do want to use it for residential purposes, they have to come back as accessory building. I think that's what he was getting at. Um, so that would be something that we could look at at that point. Um, I would also say there was concern that they wouldn't be investing in the house and that would potentially bring down property values. We could add a condition that they the house be maintained to our property maintenance code standards which are is part of our code. Um, and having that be a condition of approval means if the house is not being maintained, the cup could be potentially revoked as part of that. So there there would be some kind of catch all or not catch all but that could be a way to control that concern. And if they decide I mean it seems a waste to have that whole big home not occupied. Um my understanding is they do intend to use parts of it for various use. So like in order like to stage the food for some of their like I don't want to speak for you but I believe there was still some intent to use it. It's not that it's going to be going unused. It's just not going to be used as a residence. Right. So at this point there is no plan to use it as a resident. Uh however it will be planned to use for the office purpose or some administrative work. Okay. And in the future if the property is sold or if somebody wants to reside there it would have to be reclassified as an accessory. No at that point it would just essentially um at that point they would be able to well we'd have to look at the conditions. So, if we have it, they could come in and they could basically say, "Yeah, that they would want to just be using it as a residential purposes and then we'd go from there." Um, or uh we can probably can take a look at it with the city attorney about whether uh if it was sold to a residential use like how exactly we could get that cleared up so they don't have to come in to just use it as a for a by use. So, we could talk. Should we allow that to sit? Yeah, that's what I was going to say. If you've answered go down, I know I just feel bad. I think we're in deliberation modeish. Well, I think my question for staff is actually regarded to that like regarding that issue. So, if we switch the principal the classification of the principal structure and then we allow the expansion of it. So, now because it is considered the principal use and it it does not have a limit in terms of its size. Um, but somebody comes in and wants to now reside as a residential because the cup follows that. How does that bear? So, we probably have to have a condition in there that if at if in the future someone wants to use the um house as their primary residential structure that the at that time the pole barn would need to be brought back down to fit within the footprint for accessory structure or could it at least be indicated that it does because that that's tricky. Uh I'm just going to ask that you guys it's really hard to hear when there's side conversation so if you could all just please be respectful. um while we get uh questions discussed. That would be great. Um because that's tricky to do. I'm thinking of a different property that's being developed right now where one of the stipulations was supposed to be that the garage is attached to the main home and that still hasn't happened. Those things are hard to uh to review. Is it possible instead to just at least limit? because I'm thinking if at that point there's no uh size limit on an the accessory structure, but we're going to allow somebody to come in and live at the home, but the accessory structure is a principal structure and could be expanded to any size. That I see as the potential problem. Do you know what I mean? Rather than saying you have to bring it back to accessory, try and plan ahead so that if it transitions back to a residential use, then we're not creating a nonconformity. I think that makes sense. Um, I I just did a brief estimate of the of the footprint of the existing structure. I think with the expansion proposed, I I'd have to look at the plans more thoroughly just to confirm. But I believe with the expansion, it would fit the allowed accessory structure accessory accessory structure limit. So in the event that it became an accessory structure again, um, it would comply with that. But we would we could look at that more thoroughly and have that as a condition if if it doesn't meet that right now that they've revised that to meet that condition for that potential um outcome of this. Okay. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding too because the conditional use permit is attached to the proposed accessory structure square footage, right? You're giving me a confused look. Like maybe I'm not communicating it correctly, Kendrick. So in order to Yeah. So, like even the new Mojave Temple, if they get the conditional use permit, cannot expand that that principal structure beyond this proposed square footage without coming back for an amendment. Okay, she's nodding her head. Yes. So, I think I'm understanding. Okay. Um, so that in and of itself would mean that if somebody purchased the property, wanted to make an expansion to what is the principal structure, but actually the pole barn, they would still have to come in because that size limit is connected to the conditional use permit. Correct. Okay. Can can I take a couple steps back? Yeah. Okay. So, technical question. Approval. Okay. In in the example of a denial of the cup, do we not make a vote on the site plan? Are they dependent on one another? Essentially, um, yeah, the site plan is specific for the the use being requested. So, if you approve the site plan without the conditional use permit, you're approving a site plan for nothing essentially. Okay. Wanted to make sure. Okay. So, we're saying that the city code today allows the switch of an accessory building to a principal structure in a residential district that is not livable space. Well, okay. I don't I don't know if there's a bathroom in there. Like I'm saying, no, I get what she's getting out of. She's basically saying anybody can come to you and say, I want to flip with a conditional use permit in the rural reg residential. I want to flip my barn to my principal structure and keep my home as the accessory structure, but I think the the determining factor might be that it's classified as a place of worship. Yeah, it would depend on the uses of the of the switch. So like if someone were like if someone were to say, I want to live out of my pole bar and I'm tired of living out of my house. um there are specific standards that that pull barn would have to meet in that scenario to meet you know residential standards um or in this scenario it's a place of worship. And so we're reviewing the conditional use permit standards to um maybe allow this as maybe allow that switch so that the place of worship could operate out of that pole barn instead of um instead of it being used as like a storage space. So it would depend on the use that's being requested. So residency at Sorry. No, go ahead. So residency is not a requirement in this instance. No. So I think what you might be thinking about is our conditional home occupation licenses where residency is a requirement. The place of worship is not does not fall under that category of uses. So we do allow for home businesses. Um and those are a separate use. And so we don't we don't list every potential home business. It's something that gets reviewed. Um, but this is a use that's called out in and of itself within the zoning district places of worship. So that so that and that is a allowable use with the conditional use permit. I think that the the tr what feels like the potential um downfall here or where I'm seeing is usually for this sort of allowable use in my mind I'm thinking that whatever is on this property is being torn down and a place of worship is being built. So I guess I'm having a difficult time wrapping my head around potential um future issues, right? if all of a sudden um there is sort of it begins to open a pattern. Obviously, we don't want to consider that because we're only looking at the application in front of us, but that's where I'm seeing it's unusual as opposed to like purchasing a plot of land, tearing down the residential, tearing down the um pole barn and building a new structure that is the place of worship. So, uh Madam Chair, the theoretically they could they could tear down the house entirely and expand the pullbar. That could be how you do it. I think part of the reservation of doing that is the fact that it is such a beautiful home and that if the use were to go away, why would we not want the house to remain? So the but that certainly could be part of what you stipulate that really the the house does not make sense. We don't want to see it as an accessory use. It needs to be torn down. that they would the they I don't think there's a scenario where we could require them to tear down both structures and start out with a whole new new a whole new structure. I think they'd be able to theoretically tear down the house. I know they don't want to do that. Um so and that I'm not saying that that's what they would like to do. I think they're looking at ways that there's still useful ways that they'd like to use the house and I think there was some discussion about potentially having an option for it to be a residence at a later point. So yeah, I get it. I think that just because so many people in the rural residential have outbuildings and residential structures, that's where I'm I'm struggling with separating this out as something different. Do Do you Am I making sense or am I struggling to find words? I think it would be difficult. I'm not saying they should tear down the home. That's not what I'm proposing. I'm just saying that when we talk about a conditional use permit as being possible in a rural residential area, that is more along the lines of I guess what I envision falling into that just in its plain language. So, I'm not saying that I'm oppo, you know, I'm I'm just thinking that this is I'm just considering I I'll also say that we in the rural residential, we also allow event centers theoretically, and we've had a lot of people interested in repurposing a barn or pull pole barn to basically act as a wedding venue. Um, so I I do know so yeah, theoretically people who have the land and the the buildings to do that have a pathway forward where they can request that ability to operate on their site and there will be conditions stipulated to try to make that work within the confines of the neighborhood. And I know that a not a lot of them have gone through and it's a it's a separate issue, but part of what comes on those reviews is uh noise. So, I don't know that there's anything in here addressing noise. And is that just because of the hours in which it's operating? So, noise is can be challenging to control entirely. Uh they are going to have to insulate the poleb barn as part of just meeting building code. So, I think that that may help with some of the noise. Um and also the significant landscaping will also act as an additional sound buffer as well. Uh, you could also require a fence like a privacy fence and that would also potentially contain some of the sound as well. I have a question. So, right now you guys are operating a worship center in the building because I've heard there is some noise and lights that are happening. No, we are not as uh as for that. Uh, we are just maintaining the house. So we are still going to the house and uh during the summer time we have used it uh to discuss about the farming and other things. Uh but that was uh the purposes we had. And you did that inside the house or inside? Inside the house. Okay. Because I was going to say if you were doing it inside the pole building and it's not insulated then I could understand the noise carrying. I don't live across the street. Um, we have to kabibash the extra conversation because it really is just a time of deliberation for the commission. But if you do have information that you'd like to pass on, you're certainly encouraged to reach out to staff. I think it would be difficult if they decided to sell the property for it to become a residential property again. I I would assume it somebody would want to continue the conditional use permit and make use of the big parking lot. And I I'd have a hard time seeing it reverting back to a regular residential without having some kind of a small business there since it's going to have this big paved parking lot with what was it 21. Keep in mind with the cup we have to focus if we're if we're talking about finding the fact as to why the recommendation might be for a denial. We can't the we can't because it's an allowable use and it's for condition use per we have to focus on how it cannot be the impacts like such as noise traffic sound can't be mitigated with conditions we really can't deny it because of a use that would be true of it on any site such as um a rural residential property like if it's true on a different site or any site that would not be something that we could use in our findings of fact so just keep that in mind so I think that's I don't know if I'm explaining that very well but other than just trying to say that um I hear the concern that basically having it have a parking lot, having it be converted to a place of worship would be concerning of how it could be used in the future. I think that'd be true of any rural residential property in the city. That's not specific to the site. Just want to focus on the elements of the site. And you did say that the conditional use permit doesn't have an expiration date. So they could continue to operate this there in perpetuity. Correct. As long as all the conditions of approval are met. Do we differentiate between place of your of worship and running an organization or a business like a nonprofit? So the nonprofit you could theoretically do under conditional home occupation license. the fact that they're having services. Uh that is what really draws the place of worship and that's what needs the conditional use permit or um operating a nonprofit where no customers are coming to the site might not even need a for like a conditional home occupation. It might just be an administrative home occupation license. There are a couple of people who operate nonprofit offices out of their homes I believe in the city. So I'm I'm going to start making some Yeah. one quick second because she just reminded me, but um they are currently a 501c3 as um as stated and so someone had mentioned tax concerns and really that is an issue that gets filed through the um federal government or at least at the state government through the IRS whether or not a 501c3 pays property taxes or not. So, I just wanted to say that sometimes um our our comments or concerns are not um not actually what is taking place right now. So, I just wanted to uh mention that and and that again because they hold a 501c3 the decision to do that would not be up to uh or have any bearing on anybody in the city. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Lynn. Take us into the next. Okay. So, um, I first of all want to thank the applicant. Sounds like it's been an an ongoing dialogue with the city for quite some time. Thanks everyone who came out to share their opinions. We read them, too. So, thank you all. Um I find that it's difficult to um talk about these conditions because like you said the level of discretion is specific to if they meet the conditions and I find that I don't feel like this meets the conditions in in my belief. Um and I'll tell a couple reasons why. I agree on safety and I don't know how it can be mitigated and specifically that I run Trail Haven and I run past this property all the time and it is hilly. It is hard to see and the more traffic that we're bringing um for non residential reasons, you know, I see that being hard to mitigate. Um, the second piece is I see I personally could see how this would impact property values and the general aesthetic experience of the neighborhood. If I'm driving by looking to buy a property in Corkran, I see a significant number of cars and a paved parking lot in a residential what looks like a residential home in the current state. it it I would think about it a couple times. Um but that's me. So I see that like I don't know if I necessarily agree with that um opinion here. Um so safety and enjoyment of other property in immediate vicinity. You could argue um specifically if there are larger events happening um it could impact the enjoyment of the neighborhood. I I don't know if that stands or not. Um and then normal and orderly development of the um property and surrounding. You know, if we're saying this stands, uh unless they were to change the use, I think that that that's a pretty permanent thing to make. So that's why I also think that that um maybe could be argued as well. So those are my findings and for that um may I clarify? Are you making a motion to recommend denial of the CUP and the site plan with those facts of finding findings of fact? I'm making a motion to recommend denial with those facts of finding. Okay. Findings of fact. Is there a second? So, okay. So, I'm going to There is a motion on the table. So, we need to finish voting and then I'll make an explanation. So, um I could Do I resend it if no one's Yeah, it just won't. It just won't it will just die. Okay. So, I will second at this point in time. Uh and then we'll make a vote and and then we'll go from here. But, uh all all those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? So, here's the deal. We only have three. So, we cannot find a quorum unless we all agree, which is why it's sort of a um form not a formality, but to to keep us moving forward. This is why we're getting to this point. What we're doing is making a recommendation that gets passed on to council. So, what I propose since the motion didn't pass because we had two yays and one nay is that we agree on either a denial or an approval and then we indicate um sort of thing. Madam chair, just to correct you, two to one would be a majority vote. So, I recommend a denial of the Okay, then never mind. Why did we get stuck last time? We had four people. You had two to two. It was a two to two vote. Never mind people. Okay. So, can I just add an addendum to this and that is that because our recommendation Thank you for correcting me. Um because the recommendation gets passed on to council and one of our council members is here is that um when when council deliberates and makes a discussion if we could indicate that some of the con conditions if council finds that they want to make an recommendation for approval or if they want to approve it um that the cup would be um indicated to like a regular use of 30 people with a few times a year increased to 75 and then upkeep of the um which had been in mentioned in discussion. I just wanted to highlight them at the end here in the event that they got lost in the discussion. Does that make sense? Councelor Baron Camp, it makes all the sense in the world, but you are recommending not approving. Correct. So, yes. I just want it to