okay i call this september first meeting of the planning commission to order um commissioner landerman here commissioner bruhmann here commissioner vanda here okay so we have four commissioners on the panel this evening and whoever would like to join please uh stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all [Music] okay if we could take a look at the minutes from our last meeting which was june 2nd um mr chair i apologize agenda first okay is are there any objections or changes to the agenda for this evening i have one in the online in the online packet agenda or excuse me in the printed packet that was delivered to my home agenda item 7d which is the northeast water treatment plant is listed as item uh eight a in the online packet um so that's on page 90 so there's a i think it's just a typo inconsistency between what's currently posted on the city's web page and the agenda that was delivered to my home okay anything else i'll take a motion to approve the agenda i'll make that motion i'll second it all in favor say aye aye the agenda passes uh number four the appoint the commission chair and vice chair so mr chair um commissioners someone will want to make a motion to as to someone they would like to nominate chair it can be yourself and then a second would need to happen and then a vote could take place okay is is there anyone who would like to make a motion to nominate someone to the commission chair [Music] i'll make a motion i'll nominate myself second that any others uh any other motions for the commissioner chair are there any motions to elect the commission vice chair actually i'm sorry just process you'll want to take a vote first and then we can go on to vice chair okay all in if there are no other nominations all in favor of commissioner lantern taking the chair of the planning commission say aye aye congratulations thank you and um we need to entertain motions for appointment to the vice chair of this commission may i ask a question uh commissioner yes you are currently in that role do you have a desire to continue in that role um i'm wondering sorry is this just supposed to be a vote oh it's just because it's just a clarity if you gotcha not trying to kick you out i figured they'd probably go ahead and nominate you and you'd accept but if you don't want to be in the role you could also make that clear too okay um i would continue to be vice chair unless someone else would like to nominate themselves or someone else good here okay uh all in favor of the motion for commissioner shulock to continue as vice chair of the planning commission say aye [Music] easiest election ever all right moving on to number five then uh we have the open forum [Music] so uh mr chair you'll just want to open it for the public um i i need i'm sorry to interrupt but at this point do i defer to the new commission i think you can handle the gavel off i don't have robert's rules so i guess it's up to you guys he can continue okay we'll have that be effective for the next sunday yeah it's totally up to you if you want to she says she she is a lawyer and she says that you continue and he doesn't have to have the pressure of trying first night just being ronin thank you very much um so because i told my family they're watching at home let me just say there is we're accepting applications for the planning commission i think actually oh we've closed it oh shoot we did receive it i'm wrong um open forum so we will just want to open the floor for the public those of you joining us online the open forum is for anything that is not on tonight's agenda if you would like to speak to the commission you would uh if you're on the phone press star 9 i believe to raise your hand otherwise on computers and mobile devices you you utilize the raise your hand function via the reactions tab and mr chair no one is raising their hand at this time okay then let's move on to number six the minutes from our free previous meeting in um june june 2nd um i chaired that meeting too i yes he didn't are there any modifications or errors to point out about the commission mets all in favor of approving the minute say aye aye aye [Music] and new business number 7 7a is the public hearing about ordinance amendment for corner lot frontage and fences thank you mr chair so our first item tonight is a public hearing for a zoning ordinance amendment it does encompass a few different topics primarily related to fence standards as a part of this we're also looking at a few lock definitions and performance standards for walls such as retaining walls the request this is a city driven zoning ordinance amendment so the planning commission is asked to hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to city council on the proposed verbiage again related to offense performance standards which is what triggered this request the updated definitions staff is proposing include adding lot frontage and interior lot line these are just terms of art that we rely on and so this provides clarification additionally modifying the definition of lot width to allow for lots along cul-de-sacs to have their front setback measured i'm sorry to have the lot width measured at the front setback uh this is an item that kind of got tacked on just due to looking at several different definitions for lot related items and this is a item that comes a lot to us in variances as well as typical for our pud district standards so it's just a way to have it uniform across the city coal as far as the update to section 1060.080 which deals with our performance standard for fences and the verbiage now proposes several changes including the clarification of when encroachment agreements are required requiring adequate access for maintenance changing the threshold to require zoning permits for anything based placed within a drainage and utility easement 25 feet from locked frontages and 10 feet from interior lot lines the big change will be allowing fences of up to seven feet tall and 100 opacity to be placed up to 25 feet of the lot frontage or the principal structure setback whichever is less depending on the underlying district there is an exception for properties that have frontages along arterial roads also known as county roads a 100 foot setback would still be required with the option to reduce to 60 feet with additional landscaping the verbiage also provides specification that fences cannot interfere with a 30-foot site visibility triangle from intersections and driveways on the property as well as adjacent properties public works also wanted the commission and city council to consider a few items that have been added since the last discussion with council specifically adding performance standards for swimming pool fences and barriers and then specific performance standards for retaining walls a few items have come up since we started this process and they just wanted it to be part of the discussion since we're already looking at this chapter the recommendation for the council is to open the public hearing staff recommends approval of the draft ordinance and draft resolution approving findings of fact thank you thank you we now will have the open open the public hearing on item 7a is there anyone here who's going to speak on that no members of the public online if you are joining us to speak at the public hearing for the defense zoning ordinance amendment please raise your hand by phone you should be able to do this by pressing star 9 on your tablet or computer there should be a raise your hand function via the reactions menu mr chair nolan is raising their hand okay then let's close the public hearing do we need a motion for that okay all in favor of closing the we need a motion first all right i'll make a motion to close and i'll second all right all in favor say aye all right would any commissioner like to begin with comments about 70 sure i would um so i had a couple questions for staff and then i wanted to just uh okay well i'll start with the question so the first one was considering the uh reducing the 100 foot setback to 60 with additional landscaping standards and i guess the question would just be the staff see a reason why that wouldn't be i mean right now we primarily use it with puds right that are when do you see it most commonly happen i guess a lot i see it with site plans for pretty much any property especially commercial properties along county road okay i guess i just see it as it would it gives a land owner so much more of their own property for you so i was trying to determine if there was a perspective that i was missing in terms of like why we would not just make that a blanketed right not like blanketed but like why we wouldn't make that an allowance you know acceptable in this scenario you know um commissioner brummond this was a point of discussion with the city council uh originally the previous draft proposed 25 25 foot setback along all frontages on county roads as well however our county roads have been identified as a a place we want to preserve a bit more for multiple reasons it allows for future road expansions that we're not thinking about right now it also provides greenways in that sense the larger setback gets kind of more of a rural feel and a lot of our county roads serve as entrances to the city so i think they just the direction at the end of the meeting was they wanted to keep that 100-foot step back because a large privacy fence is going to wall off or county roads and they wanted your feedback on potentially allowing for fences to qualify for the building flex setback flexibility that we allow okay um so it would be utilizing that clause so what it does is it actually gives landowners the flexibility that they do not currently have right now because they are not necessarily using that building permitting process so it gives the landowner the flexibility to go up to 60 feet as long as they're willing to put in the additional landscape allow for more greenway i think it's the copper okay yeah okay and then i guess i just had a concern thank you very much but my concern was about the permitting process required for all fences then uh is there a fee associated or would there be a fee associated for five dollars 25 for homeowners and then do you know what the process would be like for my concern is that we're doing it because we're looking at this ordinance but it's actually putting a burden on landowners that is unnecessary because of the number of times that an issue actually occurs so commissioner bremen we have a current process and the current process is six feet from the lot lines and i just find it's very arbitrary because our usual drainage utility easements are 10 feet we do run into situations where we know especially with the front yard we used to have for privacy fences which are much more of a fence they can cause drainage issues and also with the amount that they cost depending on what you're proposing if you're putting it in the frontage where there's some kind of easement we need to access and we know we're going to access it we find it's much better to have the conversation before they've installed anything instead of saying instead of going in and tearing down the fence when we need to so because that is what we have the ability to do with those easements so it just allows for more discussion the the question isn't the goal is not to say no to property owners it's to find a workable solution and sometimes that means slightly off this line so you're not impacting this the swale that we know is right there or of an existing issue that we know about but i would say we do run into issues quite a bit and our six foot has been okay i just find it very arbitrary knowing that our drainage utility easement is our drainage utility easement so i feel like we should be having those same conversations with anyone that wants to put a fence within their drainage utility easement not just when it's six feet into it sure so you're not saying any fence requires a permit because i guess i'm thinking of the impact to the rural portion of our city as well right do still use fencing even temporary fencing for animals but so you're not saying any fencing you're saying fencing with that is with in that d yeah primarily drainage utility easements 10 feet along interior lot lines and that's again the drainage and utilities is usually what that encompasses um and then 25 feet from frontages uh just because we usually that's where we're going to have potentially a sidewalk easement things like that that could go beyond the 10 foot and we was previously protected by our fisheries so there's there was some thinking into that um the compromise of now allowing for these heavier duty fences in the front yard we just want to make sure that those easements are are clear and that any encroachment agreement can be satisfied with that fence permits they don't have to go necessarily into a a formal encroachment agreement they do sign something as part of that permit explaining what the city has rights to do so again it's it's an education opportunity as well as an opportunity to kind of spot any conflicts that we're aware of so you're not you're not removing or changing any current landowner's abilities other than potentially just changing that six foot to where the d and u easement is right now so it exists at that ten foot interior that it exists at six feet today along all lines and we're just changing it okay and so and then there isn't like an increased fee i just really want to make sure that no increased fee okay 25 and that's handled by it's handled by me in public work so i i handle it and then i facilitate with just engineering and kevin matson okay can i kind of follow up on that anything in here like i uh on like snow i think a temporary fence is like you know where i live it's in this rural people put up snow fences temporary right right maybe in the front yard uh depending is that kind of mentioned or concerning here at all i mean they're temporary so is there a concept of temporary fencing um as long as it meets the 50 opacity and four foot rule that really shouldn't be a problem which most of those would be anyway yeah thanks and then i guess the the last thing would just be i feel like the swimming pool fences and barriers adding it to city code is is duplication because it's already we're just borrowing the exact language from the state and applying it in here and i don't know that that's necessary i also wonder wouldn't homeowners insurance policies require some sort of thing that we don't necessarily have to cover at a city level either christian bremen i used to be i used to work for state farm i don't know what how the current practice is but at that time they did not have a fencing requirement for pools so things could definitely have changed i've been in planning for a while now but i think it would be very dependent on your insurance policy b i think the the verbiage used proposed by mike pritchard our construction services specialist we don't have anything in our quote that says this is required but that's what he proposes based on that so we don't hold anyone to that standard currently but he would like to or he was kind of ambivalent it was just something he wanted to bring up now so we don't have to bring it up later we don't have to add it if we don't want to but if we were to want to add that extra security around pools that's the verbiage he would recommend to keep it simple with the minnesota building code but if it's in the state is it not dupe isn't it duplicating it it's not wired no it's just verbiage within the minnesota building code um yeah if i could correct you there is actually a minnesota state statute uh addressing fences around pools okay that was not my understanding with my conversation that we don't require it in the city but if that we can definitely remove that clause um if that's if it's if it's duplicated i guess that would be the only thing just because then it would pull out again stuff that's already so okay lengthy nope fair enough we can make that change you would just want to add that as part of the motion okay and then i don't i did not have i well i guess the last question that i had and i i don't know if um if public works gave you or uh any kind of insight into the issues that have come up but the one regarding the retaining walls that uh are above public right of ways such as trails or what have you and then wanting that to be fenced in the help me understand yeah so the public safety issue it's more it's more that the retaining so there's a sidewalk yep and then there's a drop in the retaining wall so basically they want to fence above the retaining wall because they don't want people to have a sudden drop like a kid to kind of go over and we don't have anything requiring that right now so that's that was what kind of dropped that and there have they they have been so far successful i believe in trying to negotiate that with developers but they want to be able to have teeth and that would be by putting it in code okay okay that's all i had thank you anyone else so this agenda item seems like a swiss army knife it's a kind of an all-in-one and several seemingly unrelated issues just being packed on i understand that a lot of it relates to addressing issues related to fencing but i also think that each item probably could have been its own agenda item first the staff report discusses changes to the definitions section after reading the proposed language for the first two which is a lot frontage and lot lines i am in support of those and they specifically relate to the issue that prompted this discussion the third one though is not like the others it changes the measuring stick for lot width of cul-de-sac lots specifically noting that this has been a requested flexibility for puds the proposed change to the definition states for lots on a cul-de-sac the lot width shall be measured at the required minimum front setback so basically you measure across from the front of the house instead of at the road do i have that correct commissioner landerman it's not necessarily the front of the house so if the front setback for principal structure is 25 feet then it would be you would have your lot line 25 feet back from your lot line that's where the width would be measured okay thank you so to me this seems like an ancillary issue that is kind of riding along with the fencing and corner lot issue this seems unrelated to the corner lot fencing issue that prompted the discussion and it seems to instead be [Music] you know awarding by right something that has to date been categorized as a requested flexibility for puds i think we should keep the status quo on this definition and deal with it on a case-by-case basis in the pud context second i support almost all of the changes to the fences and wall section 1060.080 [Music] i completely agree that fences should generally not be placed within easements and further agree that the threshold or zoning permit review in subdivision 1e should be changed to 10 feet and you know frankly i'm a little surprised that this is not how our code is already written uh the second one though the part about maintenance and access uh what is that for it it says reducing neighborhood conflicts could i get an example of a neighborhood conflict yes commissioner our construction services specialist recommended that change just with the idea that if the fence were to be placed along a lot line or very close to the hotline and there is conflict between the two neighbors the the person who owns the fence would not be able to maintain the other side without asking for permission from their neighbor so this is just encouraging that it be offset enough so they can deal with painting i mean it might be something that most neighbors are going to be pretty reasonable about but not everybody has a reasonable relationship with their neighbor so it's just some it's just a kind of a way to encourage that that be considered with defense placement that you're going to need to maintain that at some point thank you that's helpful so in in principle i i support uh this change i also support the change for the 25 foot setback from frontages for fences for the requirements related to pools again i sense that this issue has been kind of tacked on but i do believe that this language parrots state law and uh so therefore i don't see any reason for for um you know for us to add it here it's it's just simply again duplicative so the last uh item regarding retaining walls i basically understand that this would institute a requirement that fencing be placed at the top of a retaining wall is the idea to prevent people from climbing on the retaining wall or jumping off is that what you just you're saying defense or other type of barrier but yeah the the i think less so that someone would purposely jump although i'm sure that's possible but yeah it's the idea that someone could walk off they're not paying attention okay yeah so it it seems like there's potential to take something that's nice looking like a stone or brick wall and making it uh more obtrusive so i guess just to recap i support everything other than the change in definition for lot width for cul-de-sac lots and i do not support adding the language related to fence fencing around pools thank you any other comments so would we entertain a motion [Music] to to pass this this item as it stands or would we entertain emotion to with the exceptions that you've you've brought forward i would entertain emotion with the um to recommend approval with removing the if and if indeed it's duplication for the state law then to remove the swimming pool fences and barriers and then with the recommendation that the flexibility along county roads be allowed with the additional landscaping requirements would you like to make a motion i will make a motion okay with those uh to recommend approval with those changes a second then you have you have you haven't you have another one yeah so i would make a motion to adopt the changes recommended by my colleague but also add or or or rather subtract the language related to lot widths or cold we need a decisions and then commissioner landerman could make a friendly amendment make a motion for a friendly amendment okay um do we have a second for your emotion yes i'll make that second with the caveat that i would like to make an amendment okay and so all in favor of that motion so um commission land again go ahead and make a motion for your friendly amendment then we'll get a second and then we can vote from there okay okay um i would like to add to my colleagues comments that the language pertaining to the lot width or cul-de-sac lots be removed i'll second that then we'll vote on the friendly amendment and then we can vote from there okay all in favor of the friendly amendment say hi all in favor of the original motion i i i then the motion passes [Music] item 7b the public hearing for the blair brown riding arena conditional use permit on oakdale drive oops sorry all right thank you commissioner um cheers uh the next item is a public hearing for a conditional use permit for a indoor writing arena the applicant is blair brown and the cup would allow for a structure with a footprint of 4 800 square feet and a sidewall height of 16 feet 4 inches by right she would otherwise be allowed 3969 square feet and 13 feet six inches but our code does allow for these standards to be bypassed with the cup particularly if you're on a 10 acre lot as she is this is a view of the property it's in our rural residential district off of oakdale drive and the site plan on the on the very far right is very zoomed out because it's a very long property and then we have a zoomed in clip to the right of that i'm sorry to the left of that the riding arena is about just about halfway up the property near the west property line and then in front of that is a barn where a building permit was approved which and it's about i forget the exact number but it's within the footprint allowed but we would need the cop to exceed with the indoor writing arena but that's already approved it hasn't met standards for our analysis the section 1030.020 provides specific standards for a cup to exceed the side wall height there are no specific standards to exceed the accessory structure footprint and then we have our general standards and staff reviewed the requests with against all of these and believes that this does meet the cup standards for both there are a few conditions of approval within the draft resolution the property cannot be used for commercial purposes without additional approvals being granted any changes to the septic system and well need to go through the county and state and then just one minor picky thing i had to do revised plans need to be submitted to satisfy an overhang of 24 inches right now i think it's showing 12 feet and then i'm sorry 12 inches not 12 feet i apologize and then the app if it was 12 feet it'd be fine believe it or not but the applicant must also be in continue continuous compliance with the manure management standards we have outlined in city code a recommendation for the council is to open the public hearing i did receive one email this afternoon that is on the diocese for our commissioners and it's a letter of support from their eastern neighbors and um and so the staff recommends approval of the draft resolution approving the cup it'll allow for the side wall height of 16 feet 4 inches and an accessory structure footprint of 7008 square feet on the property thank you thank you i'd like to open the the public hearing portion of this item is there anyone here that's going to be speaking about the blair brown riding arena i'm just here to answer your questions if there are questions you can approach the microphone um if there are questions uh members of the public online if you are here to participate with in the public hearing please raise your hand if you're on the phone that would be by star 9 otherwise it's the reactions tab there should be a raise your hand function on your tablet or computer mr chair no one is raising their hand okay i'd like to entertain a motion to close the public hearing i'll make that motion i'll second all in favor say hi and does anyone would anyone like to start with comments commissioner um i don't have much to share here i think that according to the standards outlined in the code this application substantially complies with the code and indeed the cup is a mechanism for the homeowner to request the ability to exceed the building footprint and the building height i support granting this cup as it relates to both building height and exceeding the maximum allowed footprint thank you thank you if no other commissioner is long to speak on this then i would make a motion to uh to pass the resolution in favor of granting the cup i'd just like to make a brief comment about the cup written narrative that was shared with us i wish a lot of our developers and planners would put as much concern and care into getting along with neighbors and and as you have here including turning the the building away from you know different directions and things like that um you've you've thought you've done your homework you've thought this out ahead of time and uh it's it's refreshing to get that type of application so it was a very thorough application she made my job natalie okay we have a motion on the floor this that has been seconded all in favor say aye aye all right congratulations congratulations can we come over and see them sometime okay item 7c public hearing for the pro tech site plan staff report thank you mr chair this is our last public hearing item not the last item but the last public area for protech auto expansion it the item in front of us is a site plan a conditional use permit or two conditional use permits and that's why the public hearing is required and a few variances some background tom and dan gleason of pro tech auto repair have submitted the request to allow them to expand their facility they've outgrown their existing building on the picture that i'm showing you right now the existing building is the shorter side and then the proposed expansion is the taller side that they are looking to add this is the aerial view from 7591 commerce street where they are located and this is a very zoomed in site plan focused on the proposed building expansion it does provide some view of the proposed parking lot on parking spaces that they're looking to add as part of the expansion so the expansion includes additional building space of almost 5900 square feet three repair bays and warehouse space for storage of equipment and materials their plans show 24 parking stalls and the park the primary parking area would become paved with bituminous and concrete curb and gutter and their gravel areas are being designated as exterior storage space for their longer term vehicles the plans did comply with the basic district lot standards such as the uh the building anyways did comply with the setback the exterior storage we do need a little bit more information to confirm 80 opacity screening can be met year-round and i need additional information on the fence as well so this has been added as a conditional of approval for the site plan and conditional use permits there are for parking there are three variances that are going to be needed the southern drive aisle width of 23 feet the western drive aisle setback of roughly five feet where a 10 foot setback is required and a 20 foot setback for six parking spaces where four were approved prior to the establishment of a 50-foot setback for front setback for parking there are six i'm sorry actually it's five there are employee parking spaces shown on the north end of the expanded building and this does need to be further shifted north so that there is a separation between the parking spaces in the building that's not reflected on the plans currently additionally an encroachment of the western drive aisle onto the neighboring property that exists today does need to be addressed with the approval of the site plan regardless of the approval of the variances and then a revised plan must provide required parking screening for spaces 11 and 12. for landscaping we just i need more information on the existing overstory trees and understory shrubs and i think they're going to be pretty close to that landscaping requirement i've been to the site i just don't think enough was shown on the plane streets and access engineering recommends a concrete apron at the entrance of the site this is not a condition of approval based on previous feedback from city council but we do ask the planning commission to provide feedback on whether they believe this item should be a condition of approval for utilities engineering just said they must obtain a permit from hennepin county to abandon the current septic system shown on the site for building materials the proposed expansion does meet the approved material allowed building materials but that's based on verbal confirmation so i just need revised plans that show they're going to use integral colored block as discussed but they also need the cup that we'll discuss further to bypass an upgrade requirement on their existing facade finally there are several comments regarding grading and so they will need to provide a revised grading plan work with our engineers to meet the outline of the requirements outlined in the engineering memo for the conditional use permit again the code requires that the existing concrete block on the existing building be upgraded so that 25 of the existing facade uses what is now an allowed material the code allows the council to grant this requirement to be bypassed through a cup with no specific standards i reviewed this against our general cup standards and i do believe the standards have been met the second conditional use permit is for the newly dedicated exterior storage spaces there are specific standards outlined and i reviewed those in conjunction with our general standards again i do need more information to confirm that 80 opacity screening can be met year-round so that is a condition of approval otherwise i do believe the remaining standards have been met for the first variants we're looking at the 23 foot wide drive aisle along the southern end of the site this was reviewed with our variant standards and i do believe a hardship standard has been met due to the constraints caused by their site layout that have been in the making long before the city standards have been established the parking lot in my mind should be required to be striped to mitigate potential impacts of additional changes happening kind of in the future for our second variance we're looking at the western drive aisle proposed to be located as close as roughly five feet away from the property line where 10 feet is required again this was reviewed against our standards i do believe that the hardship standard has been met due to the constraints caused by the location of the existing building and the need for internal circulation of emergency and oversized vehicles the applicant should enter into an encroachment agreement with the city to address the impacts and outline clear standards for them to be aware of and then the planning commission could recommend that the proposed expansion be moved further east to accommodate the required setback without a variance and just have it be along that pre-existing building side it's not what i'm recommending necessarily but it could be something worth discussing i'm sorry could you go back to variance one for a second okay now i guess the third bullet point down i have a question wasn't the narrowing of the drive aisle by three feet created by the applicant's 2000 expansion um i would have to look at that i don't think it i don't think it was created by that necessarily but they i think they're entering into planning commission discussions okay well i'm just trying to get clarification because the the third bullet point down states that um well anyway go ahead i'm sorry yeah no we can definitely discuss that um i don't i believe that what is shown on the current plan is parallel parking that they're doing existingly um but yeah we i think i'll have to pull up the exact analysis i don't believe it was created by the 2000 site plan if they continue as it is it's currently 19 feet wide with the parking that they do regularly um and this would improve it to 23 feet wide so they are kind of meeting us halfway with their proposal and finally the third variance is for the expansion of the number of parking spaces subject to a 20-foot setback where a 50-foot setback is required currently the 2000 site plan showed four parking spaces in this area so this would increase it by two again the standard variant standards believed to have been met due to constraints caused by the existing layout of the site and locate building location and the fact that the implement of a 50-foot parking setback was not foreseeable when the layout was established originally staff recommend striping of the parking lot in additional parking screening as conditions of approval to mitigate the impact of the variants so finally staff recommends opening the public hearing and we do recommend approval of a prepared draft resolution approving the site plan and two cups i did not prepare resolutions for the variants just because there's so much to discuss and unpack so i think the easiest way for us to handle that is to make a motion for each individual variants whether you recommend approval or denial you can discuss findings of fact facts that i didn't consider in my staff report as well as any conditions that you believe need to be added to mitigate the effect and that is all i have okay thank you let's open the public hearing part and i'm sorry the applicants are these two gentlemen here in the audience and anyone online hoping to participate in the public hearing please raise your hand either by pressing star 9 or utilizing the razer can function via the reactions tab on your computer tablet at this time mr chair i don't see anyone raising their hand okay is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the project or we're here to answer questions okay good so we can close the public hearing with a motion uh i'll make a motion that we close the public hearing portion of this item second all in favor aye aye [Music] commissioners okay so first i want to thank staff and specifically natalie for this report there's a lot of content there and i can tell it took a lot of time to prepare and i really appreciate the clarity of thought i like the work that staff has done i like having the options laid out in such detail and clarity with the for and against arguments included pro-tech auto is requesting to expand their building they are requesting two conditional use permits and three variances so cup number one waiver of building material upgrade essentially the applicant is asking to waive the requirement that 25 of the exterior of the existing building be updated they have painted concrete blocks now i think it is not practical to enforce this requirement upon the applicant for that reason i think we recommend to the council that this cup be granted cup number two exterior storage city council has indicated that it is okay with gravel where blacktop is required the code affords the city council the ability to to waive this requirement so i support granting this cup as well i agree that it should be conditioned on the applicant showing that it is properly screened in all seasons variance number one drive aisle width of 23 feet the staff report notes that quote the commission could find that the reduction of the existing drive aisle with due to the expansion of office space in 2000 was indeed a condition created by the landowner at that time i agree i think that this is compelling it seems like the condition that is giving rise to narrowing the dry vial by three feet which is not insignificant was created by the applicants 2000 expansion for that reason i would recommend denying variance number one variance number two allow western drive aisle within the required ten feet setback what's over the property line needs to be corrected i think this should be approved on the condition that they get the one drive aisle off of the neighbor's property and two condition that if there is any maintenance needed within the easement they understand that they are on the hook if anything is required to be done in that easement that would affect the dry vial and three i think it's said that it's currently 17 feet where fire code requires 20 so it should be conditioned on that widening as well variance number three which is allow expansion of non-conforming parking spaces basically my understanding is that since the first four spaces were installed the setback requirement has increased i think that based on the arguments laid out in the staff report this variance should be recommended for approval so just to recap i recommend approval of the two conditional use permits i recommend approval of the drive aisle on the western side of the property with conditions and allow the expansion of the non-conforming parking spaces i also recommend denial of the variants for the narrowing of the drive aisle on the grounds that it was created by the landowner during the expansion in 2000 thank you thank you i just want to add i understand what you were saying now i did not understand the first but the opposite so oh i get it now okay thank you thank you for clarifying if i can just kind of jump in then a little bit on that because in there around that you had mentioned the city engineer is not concerned with the drive aisle width of 23 feet correct uh commissioner van denite so i had i did ask them point blank do we have any objections to a 23 foot drive or other safety concerns i have seen other cities that have less of a drive out they don't say have a 26 foot drive aisle for 90 degree parking there were no concerns when i brought this up with the city engineer in the again they believe it's it's an improvement from what the site is today with adding four feet uh because right now it's 19 feet so this would actually they would have to when they're doing the parking lot they're gonna actually push it a little bit more to the south to add in four more feet so i think the idea was it there really weren't too many concerns and the fact that our 26 foot drive aisle is more for 90 degree parking backing up to 92 people like i was wondering about that because it would be like this and you have raised versus this is parallel and yeah yeah so i i i i don't think there are a safety concern that the engineering team is concerned about i think that our standards as they were written in our city code were an attempt to not only think of safety but provide comfort so i think that's what we would be losing by not requiring a 26 foot picture and so the recommendation for striping is to clearly denote what is those yeah designated parts spaces so that parking remains parallel for instance in that location rather than maybe becoming used in a different way yeah i think over the years it's kind of the site how it gets has sure there's no striping today and how the site's been used um is very fluid and i think this will provide some rigidity so that we don't come back in 10 years when they need to do some expansion again where it's like wait a minute what happened here why is there not six cars being parked here regularly so i think um that would just provide a clear sense for everybody using the site and then for any future expansions just clarity that we don't run into any other issues when we have [Music] a memo from the public safety team for example here there are five items are are these to be now it says that there's initial feedback um but are these standards to be met it's assumed that they're going to be met with whatever we decide tonight uh correct and i'll say that the applicant reached out to our public safety team and they went out to the site and public safety is very comfortable now with the plan so this was more based on the site plan i didn't have a chance to meet with them on this but they were they said there are no additional comments since they were able to speak with them directly so they're comfortable with the layout at this point very good thank you um any other discussion my only question and it's it's very it doesn't seem impactful but just for clarification the additional or the four parking spaces that were approved under 2000 had we not been adding two additional parking spaces so that a variance for that particular issue would not be required correct that it would just be grandfathered in so then but those are additional parking spaces that you that you need and that's why they're being added in okay i just wanted to clarify that because it said that you're based on the formula for parking you only needed to have the 23 so i was trying to anyway thank you it's not impactful but it helps in my understanding of the application at this time if no one else has any discussion i would make a recommendation to approve the uh or yeah make a recommendation for a resolution approving the two conditional use permits and the three variances i probably should double check but those had your the recommendations of striping in it those were in the resolutions correct recommendations for striping uh was the condition of both variances and then i've already forgotten my recommendation for this argument oh it was an encroachment agreement okay then i would second that okay all in favor say aye aye opposed opposed item 7d northeast water treatment plant site and variants nope sorry i confused everybody there we go okay thank you mr chair commissioners this is the city initiated request for a site plan for the water treatment plant shown on the screen this is on 116. i apologize for the confusion halfway through the staff report seeing if anyone is reading i switched from 116 to 101 by accident 116 and i apologize we'll correct that for the council um you saw us a preliminary plot for this site um in 2021 uh hunter's place second edition this 3.25 acre parcel was created from property owned by the lothers for this express purpose of the water treatment plant and the design team who's here tonight from stantec has been reviewing the concept plan with the city council for several months and is now ready to move the council is now ready to move forward uh with the project uh and so certainly detailed uh questions about the application can be answered by steve and ash in the back of the room this is a request for site plan approval and three variances so i'll walk through those individually two of the variances are from our new northeast district standards unfortunately this is the site plan and again to the south um is the lother property that's that south lot line butts up against the tree line if you're familiar with their property so this is the south property line if you've been um watching the if you drive by that and have seen uh some of the work that's going on out there the um there's a the well is here where there's a uh you can tell that there's a feature there or lack of a better word and a new access off of 116 will come in the well itself will be located here there'll be a stormwater retention pond and then the proposed building and one of the challenges of a public project like this is the council does something called bid alternatives um and so the plan has a two-cell treatment system but a third cell is planned and so you see the third cell that's what we reviewed the setbacks against to make sure if that did go forward with the third cell that would be meeting all of our requirements so our work was based on that alternative the principal structure does comply with all setbacks we were speaking earlier about the reduced setback from county road 116 that landowners get by right with additional landscaping and in this case the city is using that the access from 116 was approved with the platte if you recall from the county but they really conditioned that on planning for a future road connection through the neighborhood to the south and so that future road connection is shown on the plans but access for the immediate future would be from 116. the landscaping on site does exceed the number of trees required by the ordinance and this as i said is our first plan to come in under our new northeast district standards that has some requirements for resiliency options uh things that you have a selection of i think it's seven items to incorporate into the plan you have to do three of them and they've met that through the use of native landscaping xeroscaping which is landscaping for plants with lower water use and a bioretention system uh in the stormwater pond which is located in the north east corner of the site this is the landscape plan so you can see on the plan a heavy emphasis along 116 intentionally as well as a fairly intense landscaping around the pond to buffer from the landowners to the north for quite a distance and then fairly significant landscaping along the building which does also serve to provide some landscaping for some mechanical equipment in the southeast portion but this is the road as a temp is a hammerhead now long term this is where that future road connection could come through and come down to hunter but again not plan to connect at this time this is an elevation of the building final details could change with some bit alternatives that are out there but the building does this is the face that faces 116. so the main entry including overhead doors facing 116 the other elevations do have some clear story windows to add some interest to the building it does comply with our material standards in our code so there are three variances the the first variance is a request to allow the transformer and generator to be screened with plant material the northeast district standards require screening within a building or by a privacy wall or fence and that's in direct conflict with the other sections of the zoning ordinance which actually state a preference to screen with plant materials the circle on the screen does show the generator area that is screened by landscaping but not by a wall or a fence and so the variance is to allow screening but to use plant materials instead of a wall the second variance is a request to allow an overhead door visible from county road 116. there's a new standard in our code in the northeast district that does not allow overhead doors to be visible from county roads or residential properties this property this lot has a county road on the west and residential properties on all three sides there is no way to comply with this condition and therefore the variance is requested because the overhead door is necessary for the operation of the facility it is our opinion that the door facing county road 116 has the least impact on the adjacent residential properties and will be heavily screened from county road 116. the third variance is for an accessory structure in the front yard that's the well house and the nature of well drilling is you you look for the best place for the best water and in this case the well needs to be in this location and the alternative would have been to fence this if it were fenced it would meet the standards in the code but would we believe would be less attractive for the site and so the public works director would like to place it in a building that matches the primary building and that's what triggers the need for a variance a chain-link fence around it wouldn't need a variance but upgrading it to place it in a structure is what triggers the variance the as i said it will be a fashion to comply with the water treatment plant building um we've outlined in the staff report the conditions of the variance the variance standards we do believe that the variances have been met and outlined that in the staff report but certainly variances are an area where the planning commission and the council have a lot of discretion so the commission could certainly find differently and recommend denial of one or more of the three requested variances however we've drafted a resolution at least as a starting point which does approve the site plan and the three variances as i said steve and ash are here and certainly know more about the treatment facility than i but any of us are happy to answer any questions mr chair thank you so there's no open public hearing understanding correct mr chair uh because variances in sight planes do not need public hearings by themselves um only if there's something else that needs it okay so then uh would anyone on the commission like to begin [Music] i would so here's the deal in may of this year we voted to approve recommending the plan for the northeast district i voted against it now it's here in practice and we're told that there are errors with it the staff report says quote this is the first project to apply the northeast district standards and staff believes this was an error didn't the city take a lot of money from hennepin county which ultimately was paid to the city's planning vendor landmark to implement this plan and now in our very first application of it we're abandoning it abandoning it and calling it a mistake my point during discussions in may was that this money required the addition of 23 pages of in my view unnecessary new code and that we should be careful to consider everything in it i think the language was clear quote utility service structures such as utility meters utility lines transformers above ground tanks refuse and recycling handling loading docks maintenance structures and other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height how does this language not apply to an above ground generator or pump for the water treatment facility i do not see that there are any practical difficulties described in a way that is satisfactory other than quote this was a mistake it shouldn't apply to this utility i don't think that's right we adopted this code and now we should live with it i don't support granting this variance i think the bet has been made and laws uh apply equally to everyone with respect to variance number two the overhead door this one i find more convincing i think that the conditions here are unique to the property as surrounded by residential areas and the county road these conditions were not made by the landowner i think that this meets the variance standard i think this should be recommended for approval variance number three put putting the accessory building in the in the front yard i guess my question why is this relevant to the accessory building the staff report notes quote the northeast district guidelines require utility structures to be screened within a building or by a privacy fence complying with the requirement for screening in the northeast district will place the accessory structure in the front yard of the lot how does this tie into the screening issue it seems that this accessory structure is a variance from the urban residential district zoning not the screening requirement for the northeast district plan so to be clear the well has already been drilled in this front yard location and it was picked specifically for that reason that makes the water plant more efficient if so then i support recommending approval of this variance well is it possible to uh answer the question is it related to the screening or is it related to the accessory structure being located in the front yard well the better the question the variance is because there's an accessory structure in the front yard around the well you have two choices you can put it in a structure or you can put a fence around it and if you put a fence around it or put it in a structure it meets the screening requirements of the northeast district but if you put it in a building it meets the requirements but now you need a variance from the accessory structure setback requirements so that's why they're related try to make that more clear when it gets to the council but that's two conditions that they're trying to meet and the tool they're using to meet the screening requirement triggers the accessory structure variants okay thank you for clarifying yep i had one other question before i will echo uh commissioner lanterman's thoughts a little bit but on the memo from the um lieutenant burns it just asked the question what is the anticipated height of the building but in the lot standards it actually listed the anticipated height of the building so was that question answered after the memo okay i just wanted to clarify and then i know that there was a question only because i happened to be at the council meeting about potentially adding an architectural detail and so any architectural detail that would increase that height would be above that 33.5 foot right but that's still kind of just a crap being considered but right okay they would have to we'd have to come back for a variance from that to be clear if we exceeded the height limit right if it's within that 35 foot you're looking at options that are not going to require a vision so the council could you may not see it against it i just want to okay the council could choose a final roof design that looks different than this that would not trigger a variance and therefore would not come back but if it did exceed that height it would have to come back for a variant okay um i guess the only other thing that i and that was my thought that came up is that this really is the first thing that's going into the northeast district design guidelines and and have we made it difficult where maybe we did not intend to um so is the practical difficulty that some of this property is experiencing is it an insight into further um into future projects and that was a concern that i had as well i guess in particular maybe because this is a non-residential structure going up in a residential neighborhood but what that made me think of is that all of the area along 30 in particular that's within the northeast district is is zoned for commercial eventually but until that's all actually commercial and some of those structures go in facing residential properties are those all going to require uh variances in that sort of an instance you know i'm thinking the initial buildings that go up if they have if they have a need to have an overhead door and the other properties around them are still existing as residential uh or is that i mean maybe that's too specific or maybe that's two well we we think that when we looked at those sections for example north of nelson trucking is an industrial site it does have residential on the faces of county road on one side and has mixed use residential to the west or mixed use but it does have residential to the south um west we think when they design the buildings they will do traditional commercial be able to get additional commercial buildings where the interior doors will face each other if you think about plymouth pond down on 55. so we believe this is not likely to happen on most commercial properties because they're going to be they're large commercial properties in the northeast district that are likely going to be able to orient those overhead doors we did sketch out some when we were doing the concept plan so we certainly believe that we i think we're focused on wright hennepin when we wrote this section and just left out the screening on the fencing and i think that is probably something the council will look at and may direct us to modify but i think the overhead doors are going to be okay okay and then the last one was just that one where uh in this in the staff report you had said that it was the northeast district design was actually it let me see where the direct conflict between the northeast district design screening requirements and the actual city screening requirements and is that perhaps an error that needs to be corrected okay and was it commissioner berman staff is talking about uh figuring out a way that we can get that taken care of uh ideally quickly um so it is a conversation we're having okay yeah i just had a question too kind of around that that first variance for the utility it doesn't it just says there are practical difficulties in putting a fence around that around the generator is but it doesn't really say what the what what it is just more like it sounds more like a preference to put plants that's just is there actually a difficulty i think if the i think the design team felt like functionally they want to be able to access more readily but i think if you feel that the variance standards have not been met the solution will then be for the city to either build a brick wall that wraps around that or build a fence that wraps around it so if you certainly it does it doesn't release yeah it just says it's hard or it's but it didn't really it didn't really explain why i guess and then it just went almost like but plants would do the same thing and they would look nice they didn't really say why it was a difficulty that's fair which i think is kind of your point as well yeah i had some questions about the screening when we when we ask them to or when we say that it's okay to replace a fence or a wall or a building with with shrubs or plants or whatever you know i believe deciduous and in some ornamentals lose their leaves and coniferous and shrubs keep their foliage if i think um so when you look at the the map of sheep l-101 and you see the the planting of the plants or screening it seems like a lot of them to me at least are deciduous trees which are going to lose their their foliage and so the screening isn't going to be much screening except for trunks and branches i think so anytime we we ask them or negotiate with them that they don't have to put up a wall or a fence or another building and that they can get by with planted material shouldn't the planted material have the same barrier ability as a as a fence or a wall or a or another building i i just i would like to see if if the intent is to hide what's what's being built there then i'd like to see more evergreen trees shrubberies those types of things because you know here in minnesota [Music] we've got four five six months seven months of winter and um so you know to me it doesn't make sense to make that trade-off knowing that they could come in and and put in um trees that are going to lose their foliage and that that defeats the whole purpose of having the privacy fence built around was that i'm sorry i'm just curious was that the intent is this isn't there some like we have regulation around like amount of trees uh right over story trees and things is that this or is this more for screening purposes or is it both because that's you're saying if it's meant for screening then is that really screening because a privacy fence is year-round right that's right if the if the screening is intended to screen the equipment it would need to be swapped from honeysuckles and dogwood to an evergreen type tree to provide the kind of screen it could be mixed in which can add some interest you know some um um evergreen trees uh cemetery trees i'm trying to forget whatever they call it coniferous well coniferous trees are the the ones that don't lose their leaves but i'm um arborvitaes [Laughter] you know something that does a nice job but certainly that could be if you were to approve it you would add a condition that said it needs to be screened with conifers but certainly um the commission can say there should be a wing wall um that wraps around this mechanical equipment if you think the variant standards are not met i'd like to see it i i just um i'm just imagining what that would look like from late october until april and you know what's what's the point of of that um but is there any other discussion okay um would someone like to make a motion concerning the the item and the variances i'll make that motion i'd like to make a motion to recommend denial of variance number one the utility services structure screening and to approve variance number two or recommend approval of the second variance the overhead door screening and is and variance three the well house oh yeah allowing an accessory structure oh and uh i would tack on to my uh motion approval of variance number three the accessory building in the front yard is it possible for me to tack on something to commissioners banterman's second if if if he approves it no so uh you would give me a second for his notion okay with the amendment okay all right so do we have a second for that emotion that motion i would second that all right all in favor now you do it no now i do now okay not a hostile one i would i would like a shrubbery i would like to see a note placed in there that more of the foliage be year-round be perennial as opposed to deciduous uh if if well to clarify he is recommending that the variants for uh variance one be denied which would require a fence around that equipment instead of plantings am i correct uh commissioner bremen i think the way that chair sherlock just did it he was saying for the site plan overall he'd like to see more oh gotcha well i was going to clarify that is that yes you're trying to so do you have a suggestion for what that means what um i mean i mean we do have the conifers on yours for you thinking a specific myth so just to provide direction i would start with green things that that stay green all year round but if you look at the the north and the east side if uh if there could be an increase of at least a minimum of 50 percent more perennials uh coniferous shrubs those types of things i would like to see that in in place or recommended at least kind of around the pond you're thinking because that in the end there's gonna be a building that's gonna probably look nice that'll have the pump in it right and then the building itself will be compliant but i just want to point out i know that there's and we're supposed to make a motion on that but this does comply with the landscaping requirements that we laid out for a northeast district which means that they are native and so where oftentimes coniferous trees are used for screening they are not native trees and they do not flourish so i'm just making that note yeah i think it would be good to not be specific to say i'd like to see more of that ashley and steve are hearing that and we can forward that to the council i want to be careful because they sometimes don't don't do great for screening in wet areas either so then we get what we get up north in the bogs and nothing but i hear you and if there's a second and that's an amendment we can keep it generic and okay all right and we have a second on that my question for clarification is in seconding the friendly that also then uh is tagged on as an approval for the first motion made which is the denial of the first variance am i correct okay okay a second where are we on this we're seconding the friendly amendment which is that is what someone is hoping for but the second the friendly amendment is attached to the motion that denies the variance approval for the screening which is the thing that's going to be corrected for staff so commissioner bremen just for point of clarification if you don't agree with the denial that's what's holding up just assume everyone else wants to deny it do you want more foliage to be year-round on the site plan itself that's basically what you would be seconding and voting on right now sure yeah you can always you can always vote no against the original motion when it comes to that oh that's right okay i'll second that okay all in favor friendly of the friendly hi friends [Applause] all right all right yeah and then now the original motion to was to deny variance one but approve variances two and three is that correct yes okay all in favor of that do we have a second on that we had a second okay okay all right all in favor of that proposal say aye aye aye opposed i okay okay thank you we have the planning commission updates [Music] so this is just for a chance for us to ask questions on the planning project update if you haven't staff is there with regard and only because there was a time sensitive concern with regards to providing electricity to residents of corcoran what is the um right hennepin submitted their final plant application amazing it received approval at the august 11th meeting and so then is there a scheduled date that we know of that they're going to start um commissioner bremen staff's working on finalizing everything to be released for recording i believe we're fairly close i think there's a few clauses we're still ironing out and then once they have that they should be pretty close if i could they're hoping to start on the 16th they're waiting for their wetland bank credits to go through which needs to happen before they can actually start site work so natalie's working hard with them to get everything else ready so that on the 16th they could start okay i i'm just curious what whatever happened with that one that one uh i don't know which one it was but we're there we were trying to debate we about the townhouses was that it's the hogland where the people from medina all came and that one what happened with that one that one was approved with kind of those town houses and a little extra density yeah so that that would receive final approval on august 25th and so we're just usually with these big plots it takes a while to work through the final agreements with staffs over the beginning stages of that do you feel like things are heating up again anything else about the the upcoming plans if not then we'll move on to the city council report council liaison bearing thank you chair sherlock yeah go go back to that hoagland property and such folks um i i yeah i'm not gonna put words into the council's mouth i just i think i've heard it crystal clear that we need to follow our zoning plans and those kind of things a lot better and i've agreed with that ever since i was on the planet commission i think a lot of things are wrapped up completed from everything that's happened in the past and again we all have to own whoever was on the council whoever was on the planning commission prior to us but i think us as you as a planning commission and us as a council and mayor can start to redirect in and make things kind of the way it is and planned um going forward that will that stop pd from coming and those kind of things i think it gives us the ability or gives me the ability to say more no more often than we have in the past so i love your guys's mindset one of the questions was as far as the appointment or or we still have open an open position acting mayor bottoma tabled that until mayor was going to be there so they could explain and talk about their recommendations related to a planning appointment and such so that's there and that's uh i didn't get any information i'd share something with you if i knew anything about it but i don't um and as far as heating up i'd rather not heat things up anymore i just we're gonna see a lot more activity and i've heard it clear the pushback and and the way things have happened in the past that developers kind of get their way me being one i i want to follow our plan as close as i possibly can um i think it's very very clear if you guys have paid attention or council meetings you may have been online or here i really do believe and think that we are trying to say follow the plan a lot the comments made by um commissioner brahman and then all you guys tonight which one was it the arena the writing we wish more people more developers would come in and follow those guidelines and those kind of things and that's something that i i originally signed up on the planning commission i was tired of giving in all of these things and revamping re-zoning those kind of things i think all four items this evening were excellent one being us as our city i mean those variances are something that i think we need to kind of say no to because we did set the plan going forward and we start granting ourselves variances we got to do a whole lot more right you know what i mean i don't speak very eloquently but i'm i'm trying um i don't have as big as words as mark has either i i just i bow down to mark so um but yeah we have there is tremendous amount of activity i think natalie has got a great handle on everything that's going on i think the kendra is there to help out and do everything you need when you need it and those kind of things i'm excited for what's going to happen i'm excited for a recent phone call from staff related to our budgets and originally we were starting out our budget was 1.3 million over and it sounds like i think it was like 500 000 still a lot but i don't think it was it i i've seen so many numbers and it's getting late in the day but um the last report is coming in that they will actually we will actually see our tax what is the tax number 40 some percent i don't know the number but it is actually going to stay the same remain the same or decrease uh with some recent findings in some recent conversations with hennepin county which i think a lot of us are frustrated with what's going on we keep talking about renaming courtroom bottom of county and we can just secede and join ray county again there's just so much money out there's so many things and i know i speak off the cuff a lot that we do not all of us on the council and the mayor do not want to increase our taxes we weren't at all pleased with with the uh new assessments that came out um on everybody in our city uh related to the assessor putting numbers in and seeing excessive valuations may i ask a question related to that excuse me i'll do my best counselor well i just know that prior to i think it was quote me if i'm wrong like two or three years ago that the city of corcoran switched from an independent assessor to using the internal hennepin county property taxes we didn't switch the our assessor that we used used was a contract person okay that worked for us and did all of those things they retired and our option was to find somebody else or have hennepin county do it i was just wondering is there a term on that it would is there a term on that again like at a certain point you can review as a council whether you want to continue with what i think we can it's just i don't know the specifics around it but again a lot of it is determined by a number of people and i've always made the i've always had the mindset that hennepin county doing the assessing for everything in hennepin county it's kind of a conflict of interest they can i can get into all kinds of discussions and that can be that i just was looking for whether we had committed to like a con a contractual length of time with hennepin county and then it comes up for review but i can just figure that out later we can get back yeah no problem i'll ask that question next thursday and uh i'll get it back to you um i i'm trying to think it just there's not a lot of what can i say it assessing groups out there that are available can we can we hire our own assessor right now no because our staff is complete and we don't want to increase our taxes so we're following this but when i look deeper into all of the properties there is a significant rise in valuations and such all over minnesota all over the country related to whatever this event was the last two years i don't want to call it anything because i think it's a little crazy but it's a huge huge i'm i'm not pleased with a 140 000 increase in my valuation whatsoever i can't imagine what you guys have had but it's kind of the dish we've been certain so to speak so terrible but it is nice that we are going to increase our amount of tax in our city when i think the number was about a 14 increase in costs related to the past couple of years of everything that's going on i think our city staff has done a really good job to keep everything in line so long story short i'm i'm happy with that none of us were going to say yes to increasing our taxes in our cities so other questions i didn't get a summary sheet if you guys did you guys get a sheet of everything that's coming up it was on the diocese oh the project line yeah yeah it wasn't included in the packet but it was on the diet when we came and i guess there they all are is that his council did decide to go ahead and make a put a moratorium on the sale of the edibles [Music] i don't know what the sale of the thc edibles until there's more direction from the state yes okay we that was matt made strong recommendations and we followed those and to turn around and allow it in our establishments here and stuff we need a little bit more guidance before we start doing that much control yes other questions have a question uh on the tavara project yes north of hackamore in the northeast far northeast corner of that property so north of hackamore where my understanding is the plan for lennar is to start constructing the larger single-family homes i thought that that was occurring in four to five years from now uh they're digging now the landscape plan was but this is in the in the northeast corner of that property which is phase eight so what are they digging so they have uh the council approved the fourth edition which is just not as far as there and that what they're doing is mass grading and bringing that sewer pipe across um and north up to blue bonnet and there'll be a temporary lift station up there so they're starting the grading work north of um 66 horseshoe um but there is no housing going up there but there is some grading happening okay so it's like utility stuff sewage stuff okay thank you uh we're up to phase four so just on that note with the approval of phase four with dedication of the parkland in that neighborhood and then some of the twin homes um that surround that park and then a few of the single family homes near that so still down by 66th or horseshoe which you guys saw if i remember right that's all the further has happened anything else nope nope all right uh make a motion oh thank you sir thank you guys i try to say it every time we haven't talked since june but thank you for everything you do it's it's neat to see it i can't wait to get a fifth person input with you guys glad to have all you guys on board thank you [Applause] [Music] oh okay so there's been a change in the schedule uh i'll be moving ahead to september 8th and uh we're going to shift shift to the left yeah yeah and i'll i'll email you a corrected calendar through the confusion there so i'll do that next week all right so then that means that and okay yep we would we're likely to have it change one more time once a quick is inserted so yeah for now we'll do it based on the four that'll likely change out our october meeting but we're all gonna like so i won't be on 10 13 i'll be on 9 22. correct nobody else can leave for at least two years two years all right uh can i get a motion to adjourn this meeting i'll make that motion a second [Applause] thank you all one hour and 45 minutes congratulations i wish you all the best