okay we're going to call tonight's August 1st 2024 Planning Commission meeting to order and uh I'm gonna take roll call uh commissioner Yang pres commissioner Lind here commissioner Kiki here I always say it after commissioner hares here and uh commissioner brandz here and then if you would like I'd invite you all to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me I pledge aliance of the United States of America and the for it stands Nation indivisible withy and justice for all okay and then um Commissioners or staff does anybody have any um changes to make to the agenda for tonight if not I will entertain a motion to approve tonight's agenda motion you make that motion someone second okay all those in favor say I I anyone OPP post nost okay and then we're going to move right into open Forum which is an opportunity that we give to the public who's present to um step up to the podium and um address the commission for any items that are not on tonight's agenda so if anyone is here and would like to speak about something that's not on the the agenda now is the time that we invite you to participate and it looks like no one is here for that so we're going to go ahead and um move on to approving the minutes for July 2nd 2024 meeting did anyone have any comments or changes to be made to the meeting minutes commissioner ROM I did the first chair sorry first sentence um five Commissioners I think were present at list three yeah I was goingon to make note of that as well and I think it's probably just a template because it was the same thing last time yeah but we were running really Slim for quite a while so but I made that note too anyone else otherwise I will um make a motion to approve uh the July 2nd 2024 Planning Commission meeting minutes with the um change to the number of Commissioners that were present that's all right all those in favor say I I anyone opposed say nay okay and now we're going to move into our first item of new business for the evening and all of our new business for tonight will have a public comment opportunity um the first up is the J Brown Garage cup and we're going to begin with the staff report thank you madam chair um the first public hearing item for tonight is a conditional use permit request from Jay Brown for uh a new accessory structure on this property uh the request itself is um a conditional use permit to allow for an additional accessory structure that would exceed the 3,969 uh square square foot accumulated uh accessory structure footprint for the property as well as a conditional use permit that would allow for a sidewall height to exceed uh 10 ft in the sidey yard at 22355 Oakdale Drive uh the structure itself would be the fourth accessory structure on the property uh it's located uh in the west side yard um just south of the largest shed on the property and west of the uh second largest uh shed on the property uh the structure itself uh does meet and exceed all required setbacks for the rural residential district um and the the accessory structure itself um has a footprint of 780 Square F feet which would bring the accumulated square footage uh of accessory structure space to 4,848 square feet on a 19.6 63 acre lot um which may be approved through a conditional use permit um and then again with the side wall height the applicant is requesting uh a cball height of 12 feet and 1 and 1/8 inch um which which uh is more than the 10 ft that are allowed in the side yard which can also be uh approved through a conditional use permit um and just want to note that the building itself does not exceed the 35 foot height limit uh in the rural residential district so um staff does find that the standards found in in section 1030 and 10720 uh have been met uh and with propos they have been met with the proposed conditions uh in this report so um the two conditions that we would like to um add on to it would be that the structure itself can't be used for accessory uh living space and can't be used for commercial space without first obtaining proper City approvals uh so our recommendation at this point would be to open the public hearing and take testimony uh and then staff recommends approval of the draft resolution with the added conditions that the shed itself can't be used for living or commercial uses without separate approvals from the city thank you so at this time we're going to go ahead and open the public comment opportunity um regarding the jbrown garage cup I just want to note that the public comments will be limited to in-person comments um we do request that you fill out a card prior but if you haven't you are um welcome to come to the podium and make comment but Natalie will call those who filled out a card to come first um and then we will be enforcing a five minute time limit for all speakers just so that we can keep our agenda on time so if there's anyone who would like to make public comment regarding the J Brown Garage cup do you have any comment cards I okay but if anyone would like to um we did receive an email from someone and that has been given to every single um commissioner on the bi but if anyone would like to make comment you're welcome to come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record you are welcome to ask questions we won't have a back and forth but if you have a question that you would like to ask then we'll uh make record of those comments or questions and then staff and Commissioners will um well staff will answer those questions if um if we're able to afterwards after the public comments then okay but no one is stepping up to the podium so I'm gonna go ahead and entertain a motion for uh us to close the public hearing will someone make that motion I'll make that I'll second all right all those in favor anyone opposed okay so then we get to begin our commission discussion and recommendation uh is there anyone who would like to go first regarding this issue I can um I I think it looks like it meets all the requirements I like the idea that it provides indoor storage for vehicles and I think an RV or something that otherwise would be out in the yard and it's always nicer to have those in it looks like a nice building um doesn't look like it's really visible to any of the neighbors it's set back on the lot it's kind of behind the the home and other buildings so um yeah I'm I'm okay with it is the applicant here yeah here oh hi um I'm just curious as the S Wall height is that driven by the the pre manufactur we want thinking RV This Tall needs to go in there okay thank you and for uh us as a a commission I will just say that this is what issue or time three or four this is on this this is on our um dashboard as something to review whether or not this sidewall height um limitation actually fits with the number of requests that we're receiving so question sense to have that higher because a lot of people have RVs and need to store them and you can't get those in a it's definitely on Natalie's radar definitely um is there anyone else who have has any questions or comments that they would like to make if not we can I appreciate I believe you know you were a driver in changing our EES requirement which was lovely that was nice so buildings we have another building that looks like this yeah I remember I remember it and it's got I remember the argument it made all the sense in the world so anyway anyway I love it I think it's great okay uh well if no other comments or questions are before the commission then um I will make a motion to approve the J Brown Garage cup all those in favor say I I anyone opposed okay and then we're moving on and the next issue at hand is the consideration of the rural commercial development rights zoning ordinance Amendment and and we will also begin this with a staff report thank you madam chair this is the second public hearing item tonight as you said it was for a changes to our rural commercial subdivision and development right sections of the zoning ordinance this is a part of the ongoing commercial and Industrial update work plan that the city council approved for this year the city evaluated how as part of that we've been evaluating how to apply development rates within the rural commercial CR and transitional Ro commercial TCR zoning districts uh staff received direction from city council at the end of June to move forward with the zoning ordinance amendments that memorialize and clarify our current practices of the city's development rights program the proposed amendments for you tonight are consistent with the language discussed during the joint work session with the Planning Commission and city council at the end of me uh so just for some background um wasn't too sure if we would have anyone in the audience so I'll try to run through this quickly but the development RS program has been in place since about the 1980s and is a method of managing the density and intensity of subdivisions in the following areas it includes our rural areas where Municipal services are not planned as well as properties that are zoned Urban Reserve these are properties that are technically within our Musa where Municipal services are planned uh but services are not yet available nor will they be for some time so essentially Vel mment rights were assigned to original Parcels at a rate of one right per 10 acres so a property of 20 acres would have two rights and could subdivide in up to two lots the development rights are used in conjunction with a relatively small minimum lot size such as two acres for our rural residential district it allows for some flexibility it allows for property owners to carve off a smaller lot if for example for a family member who might be interested in building a home but doesn't need the additional acreage and and potentially a farmer wants to retain as much tillable acreage as possible also allows for some smaller uses uh to such as uh within the context of a commercial subdivision a gas station probably doesn't need a 10 acre lot so it allows for flexibility but then those smaller lots are balanced with larger Lots so that we're not exceeding a rate of one unit for 10 acres so there is inconsist inconsistency within the code as to whether the development rates apply to commercial subdivisions uh section 107.7 says that the development rights map reflects the number of development rights remaining on properties zoned to Agricultural and Rural residential and is intended to show the maximum number of residential units that may be developed per individual property uh however this is uh inconsistent with the devel vment rights math itself where there are property zoned for Rural commercial that are showing development rights additionally we haven't had an agricultural zoning district for quite some time um and then section 1040 [Music] do206 in the rural residential district uh talks about the signing of development rights and it says this section identifies the maximum number of residential units or non-residential units that may be developed the development rights program is intended to preserve a rural residential environment with active aggra businesses development rats shall be calculated based on the total lot area and rounded to the nearest whole number so previously the city's practice has been to apply development rights to both residential and non-residential subdivisions based on that language uh in the urban reserve and Rural residential districts um the specific examples where we have appli this has been the dobzinski subdivision which was a rural commercial subdivision the Public Works sub subdivision uh the city purchased a development right from um the Roki property um off of County Road 18 in oh goodness 10 County Road 10 thank you it's not 30 County Road 10 and County Road 19 um in order to create what is a quasi industrial building um and then a fir it was also as part of The kirimi Meadows concept discussions with Council the applicant had wanted to rezone half of the property to Commercial and the council affirmed that they would want to see development rates applied to those commercial um units being that you can't have it both ways you can't get the 10 development rights assigned to the property and have 10 homes plus additional commercial properties so a concept plan was reviewed by the council in February 2024 that did not adhere to the development rights within the rural commercial district and it led to a desire to re-evaluate how we are utilizing these rights within the CR District so the Planning Commission first discussed this at your regular meeting in April uh not your regular matting um the general desire was to memorialize the application of development rights based on existing practices and this was communicated to council the commission also expressed desired to hear more input from the property owners specifically nearest to the rural commercial and transitional rural commercial districts uh council did hear this feedback and directed staff to move forward with a survey which was open to the public we sent invitations specifically to the surrounding property owners and then we also did our best to try to communicate to the general public that this survey was available for anyone to participate in it was a primarily a visual survey depicting six different options of various intensities including the status quo of how properties can develop under development rights a large majority of the respondents confirmed a desire to continue the development rights program within the commercial rural commercial District so um the ordinance amendments in front of you tonight there's a few areas and the intent with this uh was to try to clarify uh anything that's kind of come up in the last few years that I've been here any questions um and also have it be consistent language throughout so we don't have this confusion anymore um so in the urban reserve and Rural residential districts it there's not a whole lot of changes we've just changed um instead of density requirements we're just going to call it development rates and then uh the units has been changed to Lots because we do allow for exess for dwelling units and I don't want that to get confusing so we're talking about the ability to subdivide um then in the rural commercial District I took this as an opportunity to get rid of home daycare facilities because homes are not allowed in the rural commercial District so just again trying to clarify it's just a small inconsistency that was discussed during the joint work session so it's a little odd to have it here but we're just trying to clean things up where we can and then uh then we get to the rural commercial development rates we've added a new subdivision technically um the new subdivision 7 says that this section identifies the maximum number of non-residential lots that may be developed develop and kind of using very similar language as the previous zoning districts um and then for the transitional rural commercial we made sure it was clear that treat agriculture is indeed allowed during the transitional phase before it's actually zoned rural commercial and then uh clarified that in order for development rights assigned to properties within this zoning District uh the property first had to be rezoned to rural commercial for consistency U right just silent on it so just trying to clarify how we would anticipate these rights to be used and then in the development rights map section um got rid of the zoning District that doesn't exist uh clarified the zoning districts where these rights do apply so it's the urban Reserve rural residential rural commercial and technically the transitional rural commercial commercial um and then clarify that it is the maximum number of residential and non-residential lots further we've clarified that development rights are nontransferable this is how it has been applied for SE a couple of decades now at least um it's been just not exactly clear in our code and this is a chance to clean that up so development rights cannot be transferred except as Allowed by U our open space and preservation plat there is a little Clos in there that says we've given you too many B like bonus Lots there's a way to use those elsewhere um however development rights can be reassigned as part of a lot consolidation lot line adjustment or subdivision application and that's how we've been applying this for at least the last two decades to my knowledge um and then the only other change was just clarifying the appeals process um that they either need to provide a where the applicant would need to provide the calculation error or other evidence of recordkeeping error to justify the objection um so that those are all the changes at this time we should open the public hearing and take any testimony staff recommends approval of the uh draft ordinance amending the various sections of code and then you also have a draft resolution with findings and fact as well thank you so at this time we're going to go ahead and open the public comment opportunity regarding the rural commercial development right zoning ordinance Amendment um but I know that these gentlemen are here for our next issue so I'm oh you would like to absolutely please state your name well you're welcome to make a question just state your name and address for the record and then we'll answer your question as soon as you're done because there's no other public comment you don't know these guys can have they might they might want to chime in uh my name is Josh mcken um my address is 1130 babon Lane North in Plymouth um I actually have done some development Consulting for some some folks that are applicable to the zoning District so I have a question because something I ran into at that point in time is there a maximum square footage of building that can occur within onew uh one development rate so there's a there's a maximum perious surface limit and some District so the world commercial District specifically has a 50% in perious surface limit so that would be the constraint that you would have to um work with so if I'm uh and remind me it's uh 10 development right or one development RS per 10 acres so I could go up to 200,000 feet on 10 acres theoretically yes theoretically so anything that's more than one building like a principal building would require a conditional use permit there we go so that's my question so because there's a because you knew there was going to be a catch yes well so I was looking at this before probably for someone you know that had submitted something like this before and the question was okay well are we gaming the system by saying okay I'm going to have 10 10 20,000 square foot buildings or one uh 200,000 Square for building and I can preserve my remaining development rights and that's so that's my question you got this figured out great than you no I appreciate because I think sometimes the questions highlight areas where it isn't um it isn't figured out and sometimes with the questions you don't know what you don't know until an issue arises and then you say oh shoot so um it's a good question um but if there's nobody else who has comments answer your question then we will uh I'll make a motion to close the public hearing and then all those in favor say I anyone opposed okay and then at this point in time does anyone I know that this is an issue we've I'm not sure um commissioner y because you're newer to this but the rest of us have kind of been um reviewing it on a regular basis but if anybody has discussion or questions um now would be the time to ask those there's somebody who wants to I do have jump in um I can't I don't remember the Clause I have section six subdivision or what page you on okay I don't know the the paragraph about transferability yes yes does that cover each four oh thank you 44 [Music] 404 in the I have okay yeah either way does that cover selling building rats or no kind of don't the idea it's not explicitly called out here and people are going to care about that so the idea is we're not involved the city is not involved with the actual sell sale of development rights and the only time where you would actually be able to do that um is if you have a shared property line with somebody else who has development rats that they can share with you so basically as part of a plat we can pull the development rights and reassign them you can't transfer from one property in the northwest corner of cork to a property more in Cal yep makes sense okay so we are kind of not calling it out on purpose okay all right well that was one question um the other question was on the um rezoning requirement okay is there any other solution I just feels like it's going to be more staff work for this so the transitional rural commercial district is intentionally a holding Zone similar to the urban Reserve so the city can uh if we're saying we're ready to the my understanding is it was created because uh they didn't want to make existing homes a non-conforming use until they were ready to turn into a commercial use the idea being it limits your ability to expand and sometimes it limits your ability to really feel like you can invest in your property safely so the idea being while it's a TCR the house is still of conforming use you're able to expand and invest and then once you are ready to redevelop the you would at that point submit a resoning application to the roal commercial so yeah so the idea we don't yeah it's a holding Zone it's really meant as a holding Zone the the solution would be to reone that area as commercial now right and um we certainly can do that it's it's just a policy decision but it also limits or restricts what that land owner is able to do with their yeah and we don't want that so okay that makes sense that was all I had I did have a question too it's in the survey results around in the middle here about what types of businesses would be in the commercial Rural and it looks like we've got lines with we do not have and you have restaurants and then you've got 24 and then you've got nothing and then you've got eight like every other one is missing am I oh interesting that might have just been because I had trouble spitting it I could certainly revise that um so that that's clear for our subsequent discussions I and I thought there were more uses like you result ran out just ran out of space for catching that I do appreciate I will say that the you know being able to see the visual survey results I I feel like that um was appreciated and I know that it's not always reflected in those who have the time or those who make the time to take the survey but I know a lot of good conversations were happening even if those individuals weren't um able to take part in the survey so I but I appreciate seeing it that way um the only comment that I have is just it is not productive at all but it's just lamenting the fact that we allowed ourselves to lose our agricultural Zone um but I know that was years ago but um I just feel the need to share that I think it's a loss for the community as a whole and I wish that there was a way to recoup um that but all that being said I think that um this was uh necessary and I appreciate all the work that staff has done um over the last few months to um clarify this particular issue and what does that mean that we lost our agricultural zone no no land in the city is designated as agricultural Zone unless a land owner puts their land into an agricultural preserve but as soon as they their agricultural preserve expires or they no longer want to have their land in an agricultural preserve the city does not denote any land as agriculture so it's just an issue it's not really related to this and I did not mean to take us down a a rabbit hole but I will talk we'll talk afterwards um so that we can keep it moving um and be respectful of these these guys time unless unless you feel like it will deter from this actual issue because it is okay does anyone else have anything else before we put the lid back on hey I feel like every opportunity to highlight that is is necessary guys okay so if no one else has additional questions or um comments I will entertain not make but I'll entertain a motion to approve the city file 23-23 making the changes to the uh rural commercial development rights zoning I'll make the motion second all right all those in favor I anyone opposed right passes with everyone saying all right and then that takes us to our last public hearing item which is the hope Meadows PUD Amendment and we're going to begin this with a actually this is not a public comment that's just yeah I was just going to say this is not a public comment um but it is it does begin with a staff report so it's also it 6 I'm clearly writing these slides and um so yes the thank you madam chair the last item in front of us tonight is not a public hearing um just because at this stage the Pud Amendment final Pat puds um they're not typically something that opens up a public hearing although public comment is always welcome um the request tonight again the applicant is Hope Ministries we're talking about the area the northwest corner of County Road 30 and County Road 116 surrounding po Community Church preliminary PUD imp plat was approved for these properties in February of 2024 earlier this year and staff and the applicant team have been working diligently to work through the preliminary conditions of approval and um and as well as marketing the properties to potential buyers they have found a builder for the Villas and town homes JP Brooks this would be their first development within the city um additional areas of flexibility have been identified as we've work through this specifically uh the buffer yard requirements near the Villas and the town homes on the North End of the site a couple of setback uh setbacks that are very uh there specific lots and the size of landscaping islands and the Landscaping calculations for the commercial area so we'll start with the buffer yards uh so the city adopted a new buffer yard ordinance in 2023 it there are a significant amount of planting requirements required for the this buffer yard area and we've granted flexibility um in at least one development already where they were struggling to meet the buffer yard ordinance a buffer yard Class E is required between commercial zoning districts with Urban Reserve District and there are Urban Reserve properties where they need a buffer on the north and west side of the development the underlying zoning District of the general mixed use I'm sorry for this PUD is General mixed use and it is considered a commercial zoning District um however the areas where we some of the areas we're requiring that buffard class Fe have uses that are not as intense as a commercial use and uh also don't really have a apartment building that's nearby so these are single family detached homes and then Town Homes which are lower density products than what we really anticipated for the GMU and so the African is requesting that we consider um some flexibility in what type of class CL we are applying along the perimeter uh they are requesting Class B be applied to the perimeter of the adjacent of the perimeter adjacent to the Villas so this is the North Area Northwest area portion of the site and a Class B buffer is consistent with what we would require a single family zoning District uh to use when they are adjacent to the urban reserve and then similarly they are requesting a Class C buffer yard be applied to the perimeter into the town home so that's in the Northeast area of the site uh again the the request there would be consistent with what we would require a a town home zoning District such as a residential mixed zoning uh to use when they are near an urban Reserve District I'll also say there is significant storm water ponding as well uh so there is quite a bit of setback still in addition to the buer yard between between the town homes and the perimeter in exchange theu the products they are now proposing have reduced some density in this area so instead of 51 Town Homes as initially proposed they are showing 45 town homes and then they have 22 detached Villas where there used to be 26 Villas there used to be a few Twin Homes and those are now gone so it's just single family homes and so they have reduced the density in this area as well um in in an attempt to try to fit everything on the Lots including the Landscaping uh for the stepb backs again it's pretty specific flexibility they're requesting and and it are tailored to individual Lots so um Villas 11 12 and 13 are getting a little pinched and the Villa 11 is they're requesting a 23 foot front setback uh the rear setback on that lot would still be 25 feet as what was approved but Villas Villa 12 would have is requesting a 23 foot front and rear step back and Villa 13 is 21 foot front setback and 20.2 rear setback uh and then a setback of 10.4 feet is requested this is what's shown here on the right uh the town home building I believe it's just building one uh there is a right way that the city required to be dedicated to ensure that the uh outlots to the North had some uh connection in terms of being able to have either a driveway Road connection or utility connection it's unclear at this time if that lot will ever actually be developed and it will remain unimproved right away for the foreseeable future um and it could it it is possible it would never be used for a road it is more possible it'll be used for utilities and they're requesting that they have the ability to go as close as 10.4 feet to that property line uh in addition they would propose fence and Landscaping to provide an additional buffer from the road if there is ever a road um so that was another area that they're requesting some stepback flexibility the landscape Island islands are a bit trickier and that is why you have a revised resolution in front of you right now um as part of the preliminary approval um stat it was meat uh really wanted to see pedestrian Pathways in the Landscaping Islands I mean really wanted to coordinate the Landscaping Island so that uh people walking from their cars since it was such a big lot would have a clear pathway um that kind of separates them from walking in a parking lot so um with that the resolution that I wrote said that they needed to still meet the minimum planting requirements um and I also wanted them to have the amount of parking spaces that they're shown that was the so um I take responsibility for that so we're just running out of space to have The Pedestrian Pathways in addition to the Landscaping sizes of these islands uh for planting and so at this point in order to just be mindful of whether we're limited on space I still feel it's important to have these pedestrian Pathways I still feel it's important to make sure that we have enough parking spaces to account for their potentially busiest time of the day time of the year um Tes ing that The Pedestrian Pathways count towards that planting area um so that and then after the staff report went out taking just a double check on everything I noticed that there are some other areas besides the commercial lot um where there just seems to be some pinching um and addition to like the I'm put the pointer on this is an example so we have this drive-thru Lane we have some parking and then we have the dumpster um technically there's no end landscape Island so trying to figure out how we can come up with a way that we're still getting the land the intent of the landscape islands is to have trees throughout the parking lot to minimize the heat effect that's created when you just have a whole bunch of pavement um and so part of the proposed language in front of you uh says that areas where an end Island cannot be fully accommodated an equivalent landscaped area adjacent to the parking solve must be provided so basically I'm saying this area right here at least a 320 square feet of landscaping should be provided I see your point here oh my goodness here here thank you so basically we would want to see some shrubs right here and then I think it's more important that we see some trees along here a couple of trees and have the equivalent amount of landscaping um in this area to accom to meet the intent of that goal where it's just getting a little pinch um so U yeah basically the the language now in front of you set requests that the following flexibilities are granted for the landscape Islands within the development a pedestrian pathway within Landscaping Islands can count towards the required planting area there's a few areas in the multif family buildings where uh I noticed that that would be needed as well that was after this was sent out um and then areas where an end Island cannot be fully accommodated an equivalent landscaped area adjacent to the parking stalls must be provided and then each island must include at least one tree with shrubs and ground cover and the islands the length of two parking stalls must include at least two trees um so that should account for everything I don't believe we would need any more flexibility for those Landscaping islands and then the Commercial Landscaping formula uh the preliminary approvals had said that they needed to redo their plans to um have each commercial be treated the perimeter of each commercial lot be used in the formula for landscaping um however this is leading to a really high number of trees and shrubs that are simp there's not enough space to accommodate all of them and so the request at this time is to treat the commercial lot and shared parking lot as one lot for the um for the purposes of calculating the underlying Landscaping requirements this will still lead to a significant number of trees and shrubs we're talking like the Thousand range of trees throughout this development um so it's I don't think that we're actually losing very much from the city we're just trying to make sure there's other um concerns at play here such as Public Safety wanted clustering of Landscaping on the county roads so that they could access buildings easier and there's simply no way they're going to be able to Cluster anything with the number of trees that uh we would be otherwise be required so just trying to have those competing interests have a middle ground so at this point the recommendation is to approve the draft resolution that's in front of you with the revisions for the Pud Amendment to the Hope Community preliminary approval uh and then the applicant team is here to um I think they have some comments Sol and then they'll be available to answer any questions as well thank you Natalie um at this point in time before we begin our discussion and recommendation I I would like to give you the opportunity um to share with us uh anything that you might have to say regarding um the feud Amendment yeah of course if you just want to introduce yourself because I'm not sure who was here the last time you were before the commission so if you want to let them know who you are yes my name is Josh McKinny I'm with measure group a consultant for Hope Ministries um so I kind of worked with hope uh as well as our civil engineer Mark Anderson from sitech uh to developed the initial uh PUD so really appreciate um kind of the opportunity to come back and tell you kind of where we're at right now so Natalie did a phenomenal job as she always does in terms of explaining what you're looking at uh but certainly I would just want to point out kind of the main differences from our perspective is we're excited that you know we have a a home builder that is coming to us with a you know a larger Villa product uh that includes some some with three car garages and certainly a um a higher quality product than we had originally even envisioned for our site so shame on us for not shooting High enough I guess um and then on the town home side uh these town homes are you know deeper and wider than what we had originally shown and so same same situation we've got somebody that wants to build a higher quality product than what we had originally uh indicated on our P so that's some of the some of the U kind of dimensional uh flexibilities we're asking for really result from you know C we've lost some density on the housing product and so we're really trying to make sure we're able to kind of keep keep enough where it still works so to speak um and then also I think the last couple of these uh flexibilities really were a result of trying to clean up some of the conditions of approval from the previous uh PUD U PUD that was established and so when we're starting to go through things and realize hey you know for example if we can cut this commercial lot up six different ways and have a whole bunch of you know perimeter that's being calculated or um you know we're not we're getting a vastly different product than if we just look at this a little B more holistically it's just more kind of how you cut them by so to speak um so looking forward to kind of hearing feedback uh from you today we have with us tonight we have the civil engineer Mark Anderson we've got Brian Lo uh pastor of Hope Min or Hope Community Church and art plant from JP Brooks who's the home builder so excited to stand for the questions thank Youk you appreciate it um and then at this time if there is a commissioner who would like to begin with questions or comments I need to close the oh there no there's no public hearing for this item because it is it we already had the public hearing for this particular I just one question before we dive into comments I didn't see where I'm missing where the public benefits are stated so the from the application so the are we talking about the original public benefits okay so that I I tried to include the resolution from yeah I didn't see it in there uh the original resolution 20246 um and where it talked [Music] about whatever it was that you were referencing in your recommendation of like hey take a look at the public benefits this is our opportunity to look at that um I'm trying to find the event there there were a number of public benefits ter yeah we've added a few since the original resolution so that's why I'm standing if we want to identify a few of the additional ones that have been added as the project moves forward and the design is being finalized um we've added a a public sewer extension which will actually cross to the east side of 116 and thenit uh future development over there uh We've added a tunnel crossing orig there was just a 20 foot Regional Trail easement that was proposed now we have an easement that's about 40 ft wide for tunnel and a pretty significant Crossing for both the community and the development um over on the east side we had a 50 foot trunk sewer M that's going to be installed here in the coming weeks um that the whole Community Church property uh conveyed that Eastman the city uh We've also conveyed 50 right away over here on the North side um for the neighboring property as well so that there could be a future Public Road R so um some of these certainly benefit uh property beyond the whole Community Church project but it's just some of those pieces that need to fall into place and it's part of the reason we need some flexibility in the dimensions once we conade these there olution is not as clear as would appr to be um so I would say all that's accurate um some other things I'd like to point out the the the flexibility we've granted with the landscape Islands was because the intent was that we were going to provide those pedestrian Pathways that was seen as a public benefit um it we've also seen as a public benefit that uh we were proposing detached Villas and row homes in this area where those products really weren't called out in the general mixed use it was more meant for apartments um so we're actually having less density on the North side than what could have otherwise been approved by right so that was another benefit at the time um and then I would say a benefit that wasn't exactly tied to the Pud but I think as part of like the overall negotiations for the site is they did dedicate the water tower site to the city that did happen before the application but I do feel like that is it's is important to consider that they kind of gave that um with the idea that that was seen as a public benefit to the city and they have been an ongoing partner with our water infrastructure so yeah I wanted to see like what was written in the application because I wanted to see if like the for example where my head was going like the right ofo piece like I remember there being a public benefit stated that like Hey we're Paving the path for future development and then so I wanted to see is it referring to that one or we referring to a different one so I just wanted to see the language in the original application which I thought was in here so well if I recall the right of way was it wasn't the discussion because the lot to the north of that is uh is a private lot and they were wondering if they would have access yeah they were very concerned about losing that access um and so that that the right of way prop they had a driveway granted but in order to really give that property like memorialized access that right away the 50 Foot right away with identifi the engineering staff so so that lot oh I'm sorry I can just pass Pastor Brian L Community thank you for us to speak here tonight uh I give you a little background on the property to the north we actually owned that in about 15 years ago Tom Lial who was the neighbor to the north at the time uh wanted to acquire that 2 acre parcel so we did that with that he requested us to give him a driveway easement of 20 feet wide so we granted that 20ft wide easement to him to be frankly honest with you if I have known that was going to become a 50ft wide easement then I'm not sure we would have been as amenable at the time um and we did request it to be an easement not a r aoid but the engineers said that it needed to be a right of away so that's why we're really requesting that that point to that corner of that building to be a Varian as you look at the diagram as you go further north there's less encroachment into that easement as it goes north and when you're halfway back on the building it it does meet to setback requirements so it's not a continual 10 foot it's just at that one corner so but that's kind of the background of the history could you could you point to that on a map so I if you yep it's on the request page the one that you have the request at the top okay that's I know so this was the benefits of summarized in the staff report commissioner Lind uh we had the AR an architectural transition between existing uses in the proposed development by locating taller buildings as far away from existing single family homes as possible lessening the impact to existing residents um addition to requested flexibility for Villas and town homes in the northern portion of the site allows for a transition in density from multif family buildings to the South uh construction of Hope way or 100th Avenue that is uh still a debate an East West connection to Future development to the West I think maybe that's what you're one of the things you were talking about um because not that arguably provides relief from a future east west traffic that could otherwise have been routed through the existing hunteridge neighborhood to the north and this idea was very well received at the neighborhood meeting uh coordination with the city staff Consultants to Shi existing right away to offer more economical construction of water utility lines again going back to the fact that they have been significant Partners in finalizing our water infrastructure in this area uh coordinating with City staff consult oh no that's one I just read Improvement of existing drainage conditions for Neighbors to the south of the project area through storm water routing through their site establishment of a significant tax base to serve Corr and its residents well into the future providing a trail easement in excess of 20 ft which is the city standard to support a gr separated Crossing at Conor 116 and Three Rivers Diamond Lake Regional Trail the applican proposes to dedicate this easement from the outside of the project to allow for more holistic Trail planning alternatively Three Rivers would have needed to acquire this easement at a later point which could have delayed the trail underpass project and lead to land conflicts in order to expand the corridor uh the project Serv as the vital link for future development in the city of Corran uh the flexibility and applying the requiring landscape across the site will allow for more buffering near the edges of the site the flexibility to bypass the parking Island parking Bay requirement within the commercial parking lot will allow for more unified pedestrian walkways um replacement this one ended up not making into the final resolution though I know I'm sorry I tried talk to me I tried I tried I was even actually gonna talk about something related to that tonight um so I would say that yeah there are a number and then um to Mark the engineers point they've added a couple more since we've worked through this process um and and they have further reduced that density for the buffer yards um and um I would say the the additional request for landscaping Island flexibility continues to be because of those pedestrian Pathways that I'm stressing uh we could remove those um and that could uh reduce it but I I think that would be um at the expense of pedestrian safety and in those parking lots and I think it'd be better to have Pathways be a part of those planting areas um especially if they're seniors yes no that's very true so I think I think some flexibility there makes sense and the overall intent is again to provide trees and I think we're still meeting that intent uh is we're just having a slightly uh reduced vegetation area thanks for walking through that I think it was really important sorry that that wasn't the staff report be sure not after Council Sher kazaki you have some questions yeah The Pedestrian Pathways so you said the landscape islands are public pathways are they are they intended to just get people safely through the parking lot or they intended to be an extension of paths for people that are that are going on Diamond Lake Regional Trail eventually when that becomes or well there are sidewalk connection and paths inside the development I'm not really clear where all those are yes there there are areas where they're extending it from the public sidewalk um like between the islands between the proposed retail B and proposed medical C so that sidewalk does connect to the Trails um and yes so there's a couple areas where there's uh proposed retail e you're seeing some through proposed medical D you're seeing some uh sidewalk from the trail to get to those buildings as well through the landscape Islands and then it's also areas with it for people who are parking their cars and um walking to those buildings as well okay I guess my other um comment on it as a whole as far as the buffer buffer class um the lots to the north there's like three two acre lots that have a lot of cover on them already but I know the one that's farthest to the West it has a building almost right on the southern property line and then the one that's farthest east the home is pretty close to the east property line and that town or the Villa number one is very very close then to to that house and I guess my question is it looks like there's quite a bit of tree screening happening there where I'm not clear is the area the West yeah right in there um there's great out trees on on the one map I'm looking at but I don't know if that's trees that are being removed that are that are showing on the edge of that field ones are actually being saved and theer one being added oh okay so it does look like then there is a pretty good tree cover all along that Northern boundary there just to clarify the buffer yard variants when it was created was not intended to utilize uh like the Landscaping the buffer yard was supposed to be on the developed property so not using so just wanted to make sure that even though there is like a significant tree the intent of it was to ensure um and exis vegetation wasn't used right apprciate that it looks that it sounds like you guys have already um reduced the number of Villas and town homes on the property to to make more space if if we do the buffer yard proposing a fence to which I think provides some screening so they're they're not saying they aren going to the buffer yard they're just asking that um the CL I mean if you look at it change the class sure and it makes sense because they are they are residential I guess so that does make sense but you know right past those you've got a four-story building you know just to the south of the Villas you've got a four-story apartment building the active senior and then right down that that culdesac road you've got the senior housing which again is a big four-story building so within sight lines of the existing homes you you've got some pretty high density so I guess my my question is if we go with if you did go with the new buffer yard option we reclassify that could they go with maybe the minimum number of trees on the classification D even though they're reclassifying as B and C but I don't know if there's even space for that once you you know once you get away from the 30 foot minimum in D to 20 or 10 foot minimum B and C I could suggest to with the application the formal application with the city there was an aerial VI with the site plan over late in that area view which shows all the trees that are on this particular diagram and that gives you a clearer idea of where the lot lines come where where what trees are going to remain on that Northern Edge and that was one of the goals that we had was to retain that 80y old line that was there yeah uh some of them obviously are probably need to be brought down just from age and lack of good health but all in all there's a significant screening all the vill is to the property owners to the Norther and particularly the property owners homes are significantly set back so that they're they're not even going to have a view of the water tower never mind never mind water tower is quite high so there has 165 there hasn't been a lot of objections from the nearby land the adjacent land owners there were a number of people who came out yeah when it and they had the opportunity during the public comment to share I'm new to the council yeah no I appreciate so so just so when we were looking at and having discussions with City staff through this buffer yard discussion so there's we kind of are running into this uh this in this case distinction without with a difference of like zoning versus land use so you know our alternative the underlying Zoning for this whole PUD is the GMU you know rather than going and saying well no The Villa is our single family we're going to Zone those R1 we're going to Zone the town H home's medium density we're going to you know really kind of get into the Weeds on each individual area from a zoning perspective or instead looking at the the use and what we're actually trying to accomplish we're trying to go and that was really a goal from the outside which is to align you know uses with uses um and this was just one of those things where you know I'm sure we get we all got into a spot where we're like we need to get this into to Natalie and we didn't ask the questions either regarding these buffer yards until we start digging in further like whoa whoa we're we're aligned here from a use standpoint we should we should look at this a little bit closer and I will note the original concept that went to to council did look at a scenario where if we didn't do it as a PUD did it as like a plat by right where we had basically this area rezoned this this area reson this Council even got so overwhelmed like let's just do a PUD first time ever heard that say that so um I would say that yeah that the the I I do think that there could have been a way for us to have reson these areas based on the used proposed that would have resulted in the last buffer yard requirement um but because of the Pud and treating it holistically um are we requiring a a level of buffering that doesn't quite make sense because these this isn't where the commercial uses are um and there there hundreds most of the toer buildings are over 150 feet away from the buffer areas yeah which which more than is enough for even a declassification right okay good questions anyone else have any questions or comment um the senior housing has that been designed or is it just the placeholder uh right now we have it just as a a placeholder uh we're actively marketing that that site to senior developers uh I would say the state of the markets probably impacting interests in terms of interest rates as well it's just seniors very difficult product at the moment with some regulations the state has put on so we're working on it uh would would love to to have something start you know in 2025 on one of these multi it be the senior or marker R so the reason I ask is you to amarate the the issue with buffering yards could The Hope way shift to the South yeah so that these dimensions in terms of the the building itself uh that's a pretty standard Dimension uh and so we're we're basically you know up against the Wetland buffer on the one side so really pinched in that area with parking and building Dimension so that almost really set the hopeway alignment off to the West uh at one point in time I actually think we had swung that road further south and we just couldn't make it work okay so that's how we landed where we're at today I had to ask the question oh I appreciate it absolutely uh also I noticed that in the report that mentions town houses and on those the engineering drawings Ro I I can explain there was a distinction with a difference within the zoning code of what could happen within GMU at one point in time so we were calling him whatever the zoning code said until we got to the point of the Pud and now we can use them pretty much interchangeably I'm using them interchangeably too so that might even be something that I put at one point I said Ro homes because I think it said rooll homes on the plan um but they're town homes in terms of the definition in our zoning code we uh we don't really Define ROM we Define town homes and and they've qualify as town homes they should left that on our drawing we can take care that yeah uh the other question I have is with respect to the uh buildings on the far north south again going back to placement could those shift to this line right here yeah that goes right there those shift to the east good catch um we Mark I think we actually looked at that one point in time was we get pinched with a driveway in that corner okay and that's kind of the dimensionals constraint for us we what's that yes that's another good point um we just if we shove this building South we're just going to end up being in a spot where we have two driveways they connecting there colliding there so we I wish we weren't in a position where we needed to ask for the the the setback we're just kind of inched all sides with the 50 EAS Minal on Highway 116 for uh for sewer and then we've got another 50 ft that's taken out of that piece of land for right away in that particular location I have also a question regarding the walkway that we were talking we want to go to 5 ft what what is what about reducing the parking spaces I I would highly recommend we do not reduce the parking spaces we've already provided that's that was again a fight that I fought um they provided a traffic study the um parking study I'm sorry and the amount of parking stall that they have um will meet their highest demand so if we reduce the parking spaces we're saying some people are going to have to park somewhere else and I we don't allow street parking in this area so um I I don't think at this point I I strongly believe the amount of parking that's shown it should be there um if we really don't want to reduce provide any flexibility on the Landscaping Islands then I think we need to say goodbye to The Pedestrian Pathways because that would be the alternative is it all surface parking for the apartment building no the apartment buildings have some underground parking the commercial area uh does not have underground parking obviously the medical and Retail spots are where the issue is I mean don't want to probably do this but one less building we our problem as well they do have preliminary entitlement to the building sizes that they're showing okay five parking stalls doesn't seem like a lot to me but I have I'm I'm relatively new we I know that discussions have happened there are discussions at the state as well regarding parking um that are get quite interesting so I would say if you are if that is a topic of interest you I would encourage you to investigate I think it's hard to solve um but I do hear in my head the song you know we paved paradise and we put up a parking lot so like I get it but at the same time you would it's a scenario where you would hate to not have enough um for the for the buildings and then run into that if there was proof of par if there was an area for proof of parking I think I'd be less concerned but there isn't so I I want to make sure that we're setting this area up for Success um and um again that's been in conversations that me and Josh so so uh you know we've had a lively discussion over this before we paid for a parking study it is what it is so here's what I'd say is we're preliminary entitled to that amount of square footage on the ENT on the uh commercial space and we're going to do everything we can for it to fit that way the likelihood that this develops in exactly the form and fashion that you're looking at today is extremely low yeah despite my best efforts right because that's also phase four and that's what wanted to point out is that the phase one and two are really the Villas and the and the town homes but everything else until you have someone who's providing you a product uh like this scenario here he now has a builder and so now they can say okay what really will work and what won't and and to that point you know we're M this is our maximum square footage per the Pud theoretically we have less square footage we have less parking generated so it's possible you know we don't want to pay anything we don't have to you'd end up with a larger landscape situation there anyway given the given the total area you know we're not changing our 15 Acres of you know commercial and this this is 15 acres here that's a finite amount so then if it's not Paving it's green you know yeah okay one thing you see also in areas that have overdone it on the parking ridgell is a good example yeah I mean they're starting to utilize that space for other things um over on the side with the library and there's apartments over there they carved out a nice little land escaped I'm not sure what it is is it Transit Center or a little Park oh yeah very very nice if I turn out to be wrong I think we can all be have I would rather be wrong in this scenario because there's less or there's L demand we can deal with that later and into other opportunities um than to prove that um I was right and we have less parking than what we frankly we'd all like less car Centric development but we all drive we all have to drive we don't have Transit viable transit in this area yet when it comes and we don't need that parking it'll be converted into something else it's just I mean to your point is a great example we got these car outs for things like a park but also five years ago there wasn't any apartments around or senior apartments around Richdale you didn't have you had a Sears that was failing now it's going to be kowalskis like it's just they kind of those commercial SP kind of take on you know a little bit of an ecosystem and Nal and I are both young enough where I can't wait for her here I'll be there it'll be a few years what are you saying about us I'm gonna say okay uh well did you have any comments or questions you wanted to ask commissioner y otherwise no yes okay the one that I just wanted to uh touch on and and it isn't because I um am trying to push back on the request for the um setback variants but is there any way to ensure that that WR way would only be used for utilities and not become a road and I guess I'm thinking of a future residence of that property not so much because I don't want to Grant a flexibility but I would hate to have to be the person who says oh sure go ahead you know put 10 and a half feet there and then and it ends up being a road so the to keep in mind the road would only be about 28 foot wide okay so there would still be some green space between the setback of the building and the actual pavement of the road um and then that's why I think think some landscaping and a fence or something there would also be helpful to provide a buffer so that it is a little bit more like a little bit off of the or provides a little bit more separation from a future road but it wouldn't be 50 feet of road that goes there if that helps at all with the visual yeah no it does it's just it it's like we can't guarantee that the that those properties aren't going to develop and at what density they will develop when they develop and so it's more just because we can't ensure that which was a lot of the selling point right I just wanted to say well also the same potential for for all of those selling points also exists on the opposite and so I was just trying to think about who is going to live there in the future and how can we protect their best interest as well um without you know without putting them in a spot where it's really not only like undesirable but maybe who who purchases it or what have you then loses value in selling because when they purchase it to when they sell there's been a change and now they're an end but not only are they an end you know what you know what I'm saying like all of those rabbit holes that you could go down so that I just wanted to see if there was a way to be like hey it's going to just remain toing I'm boarded with that but I from the conversations I think what it's most likely to be used for would be utilities uh but the that outlot that it's leading to right now does not have any road Frontage so it is possible it could be a road um what what what I can guarantee is it's going to be a 28t Road um we could probably memorialize that even if our rideway standards change so we would not want to see the road uh pavement exceed 28 feet so that there is some more separation as well I would think the only way it's an issue is if they tried to develop that two acres into really high density that they would need well I just want to point out that sometimes in neighborhoods when development is on the cusp neighbors will cooperate together to sell to one landowner so it is possible that just not that two acres get sold do you know what I mean mean um and so anyway and if that's true too there might be other Road opportunities we don't need to use this one but again we'd rather be proven wrong later maybe the city should purchase it and put a little Park in there I don't think that property owner wants us to purchase it though as of right now yeah I mean it's a nice wooded ACR okay that was my question just uh again wanted to do what I could to look out for that potential or future resident um but all that being said if um if there isn't which it sounds like there isn't then I didn't have any uh questions or concerns regarding any of the other um requests for the Pud Amendment so I wanted to make another comment on behalf of like my community fellow community members you know you heard it the the concern of traffic every almost every single person that came up here that lives in that area talked about traffic I don't see it's also one of the most dangerous intersections that we have in our city it was just a we just honored some Citi that helped with an accident and helped I don't see a public benefit listed of any way that you're enhancing the security or safety of these roads and in fact we're I didn't see it listed but we we're maybe maybe it is implied somewhere that I wasn't seeing so because I just saw it quickly but I I just I felt like we we heard that from the community and it was like well we did a traffic study it's going to be fine and I I just I felt like I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that even after that meeting people at least in I live in this community so I talk to my neighbors they're very very very unsettled about it so if we Council can negotiate any public benefits and this flexibility I would say if it could be considered to be in that Arena I don't know the solution but that would be my comment yeah I think so I comment noted I understand completely what you're saying uh in this case I think contributing towards that end in terms of reduction of traffic is we do have you know reduction in the amount of units it's it doesn't seem significant for this in the aggregate however for what we're discussing in terms of this particular home builder it is a significant reduction going from you know what we're showing right now or what we did show to what we're showing now and I was just gonna add to Josh um there are going to be improvements so you can see the turn lines down here on 116 that is a city project um I'm not sure if I know the timeline of it off hand if that's still going to get underway this year that's next year's project is the city paying for that so the developer will be paying for it so we haven't even started the design I don't think on the turn lanes for it but yeah so that that's part of the project there were some Road require Road offsite Road improvements that were required both on County Road 30 and 116 yeah so this this intersection will get rebuilt with turn lanes and then there's additional turn lengthes of approaching 30 and in the future there's going to be a pool intersection out here so not all the traffic has to go to 116 then we'll be able to go two different directions so those those are part of the traffic study and our commitments that you'll happen as development occurs and I will say we're limited on like in terms of like a signal or something we we are limited by the county too if they has to meet warrants I don't believe that they had said that this this by itself had met warrants for a signal at 116 and hunters or hopeway whatever that ends up being right there the um right here oh no I don't have any there Madam chair the east west road yeah the the the things that we did to thank our citizens that helped in those things all of our roads need review but the council and the mayor have been extremely um hard on our County Commissioner he has sat in front of us we've literally had many conver that the one conversation we had we just had the large accident at County Road 19 and 30 and then the uh intersection of 117 and 19 is another one of our concerns this one has lights all of these improvements it's not something we as a city can do we are at the mercy of the county owning both those two roads and we are doing everything we can from the county or from the council and the mayor to we need traffic control we need something what is the plan there's another thing that's introduced into this whole thing for all of us that we are all very concerned about and that is that 610 extension when it ends up just east of 101 while this delivers and ends up putting in a number of things it's going to be over a certain amount of time um it's not going to be built like this overnight it's going to take some time so as things get added that might trigger a few of these pull some of these levers or flip some of these switches that says okay the County's got to make these improvements and do these changes believe me I I've been out here just as long as most of you guys do and our drive-through traffic is just that it's drive-through traffic they're public roads we are at the mercy of the county but we are all Advocates to try and make these things safer and better so um very very heard heard very loud and clear lindsy and thank you madam chair for let me say something too it's all very much in the Forefront of everybody here Natalie thinks about it th you guys are all over it but we are we are constrained we can't tell the county what to do we're at their mercy so but I do think that the way that the the approach that we're going to wait until the traffic is there and then we're going to disrupt the traffic by creating construction is a backwards approach to good planning and I do think that we we uh we can do better right um unfortunately that's usually what just shakes the dollars loose is the demand for the severity of incidents before it happens um so with that being said does anybody else have anything they want to make note of and if not um I will make the motion to um recommend approval of the Hope Meadows PUD Amendment City file 24-19 and just to recap I did make that motion um for approval I'll second okay and all those in favor say I I anyone opposed say n and I'm really sorry about those Basswood trees but thank you I I I know was onard I know okay okay and then moving on we just have um any other business um so Natalie I'll let you take 7A and B if there is other business or a planning project update um she does hand out the information so if there's any questions from us feel free to ask those now for I will say we don't technically have any other business scheduled tonight um however before we get to item eight I will add that the leaz on program has changed yes um so planning Commissioners are not expected to attend meetings on a scheduled basis um there may be some updates that we'll ask the chair to provide on a quarterly basis that part has to get flushed out and you're um you're welcomed to attend anything that you want to and then if we have a really big item such as another hope which hopefully we won't have but if we were to have another large devel M the well yeah but that one there we'll put a pin in that one all right um but there's a large development that we are processing we might ask to see if anyone is available to attend the council meeting where it will be reviewed at um so it's going to be more of an as needed basis um and then as you would like to attend so so this lays on calendar we can can strike strike it um that is one significant change that hopefully free up some time may ask a question what is the general like status quo of speaking as a Lea as a commissioner at a council meeting I asked this because I found myself being vocal and I'm not sure if it's appropriate because I'm not on Council like I'm you know and we've already given my opinion on these things before at our meeting so I'm like we're fairly flexible as a city um I would say generally you you want to approach the podium if you know you need say and you can raise your hand and they can choose to um recognize you U and I think with our current Council they they will recognize you and um so if you go to the the reason why we ask you to the podium is because when you're speaking from the chairs it's hard to catch for the minutes um so that's really the only thing I would add is like um if you were to do that like the the the chorum would be to go to the podium and be like asked to speak to something and and I'm sure that they would take the opportunity to hear from you so would you do that during the public comment so public comment is more for you want to raise attention to something uh well sorry open Forum I'm sorry open forum is more for you want to raise attention to something that's not on the agenda um and you can certainly you can certainly speak to that um and then the public comment if you um if you do have something that you want to say about a specific application um just be careful like you might have individual views that aren't necessarily the commission views so it's important to say like whether you're speaking on behalf of the commission versus you're and whether you're speaking as a resident there's two different hats that you're wearing and be very careful about what you're saying that when you're representing the commission but you can certainly always speak on a development application as a resident uh you just want to just clarify that that's what you're that you're speaking from your perspective um and then yeah and then during the council deliberation then that's when if you if you want to kind of interject or provide some uh context that they might have not been really speaking to quite yet you could approach the podium and just um kind of wait for a break and the mayor will usually um indicate that he'd like to hear from you so does this also mean then that the reciprocity of liaison at commission meetings is R not at this time we will still have a council a on for the for at this time that could change in the future and then um is this something that we are granted permission to provide feedback on if in you know six months two years time we feel like it's really created a lack of cohesion um so it's not something that because we did we were requested to take a survey did you all get the email and were able to answer the survey regarding this issue I believe the way we left things is we were going to continue to evaluate how it's working and what changes can be continue to be made at this time there's nothing that needs to be changed in code for the changes that we are making so if there yeah if there was a change in code um which would be removing the council a on um that there would definitely be a public comment opportunity for that yes and we we probably ask for feedback from the commissions again so I think it'll be a fluid decision so okay um what was my question I don't I'll ask it later regarding that okay and uh so does that wrap up I know that that uh strikes eight as our agenda item do you have anything else for a or b no I don't have any unless anyone question so unless anybody has questions regarding the um planning project update that Dwight puts together um we will move on to city council report from councelor man thanks again great discussion I wanted to just talk about the survey and such too um a number of the folks we understood the leaz on was trying on our volunteers and such so that's kind of the way that was delivered to us I took one thing out of it I I don't get hurt I don't anything but if you all want a different council member to come here let me know okay I love coming here I love listening to you guys this is your meeting I hope I have never guided or misguided you on the way you're running or doing I'm here a lot of you guys are new you're doing fantastic but if there's something I can help with let me know if there's a question tell me I'll do my best to give the council's feedback if you want my feedback I'll give that to you to but again there there was comments that there was now I don't know if you heard it I heard that there's guiding and those kind of things and I hope I don't do that to you guys okay if I do tell me to stop tell me to be quiet so that's number one um as far as any updates I will I want to listen to what you guys if you guys have questions and stuff Lindy great comments about the traffic and stuff um the two major incidents that happened we are so lucky to have people like you and our residents that stopped and such that did what they did and probably changed the outcome of both those situations I mean made them for the better so it is unbelievable it was neat through those presentations and stuff um very very cool people just as our volunteers are I can't say that enough not but if you guys have questions um please don't be shy all right I I would recommend I think I know last council meeting there was the discussion on um like meeting with developers and I think it was kind of left with like a general best practice but I think maybe it could be worth we're going into a new election cycle of the council members quite a few and so I'm just wondering if like we want to put a policy in place or if that would be something that Council wanted to adopt as a as a policy as far as when they get a request to meet with a developer how did they handle that and who should be in it or should it not happen or what I just am thinking about the future and you know the the tribal knowledge and context of like that conversation last month in six months from now somebody might not have it you know if it's not a policy my my put on that and this is me um I do not want land owners citizens not having full access to us as council members that's our job the mayor too developers I've had conversations but when it gets to a point of this is what we want what do you think I'd rather you meet with a councel I'd rather you meet with the mayor the city admin administrator and the Planning Group then to take my input I'm one of five okay the thing that I'm afraid of if we put a policy in place that we cannot talk to them the council meetings are going to get very long okay there are two of us maybe three of us that are open to give them our thoughts personal thoughts and stuff on it and such and then there's two that don't want to at all I just don't want the council meetings getting so long and they're guessing and Natalie th being being newer and stuff I think they might have start getting us figured out maybe we throw them for a loop sometimes but I I don't want to just all of a sudden say I'm not talking to you you got to come to the council because those meetings there's some of the meetings have been 5 six hours and we start getting really goofy towards the end of four hours so I I I that's my opinion on it and that's what I was going to talk about the next council meeting was was those things um and on the other hand I'd rather not meet at all other than a two-hour council meeting two times a month and everything is done in that time that's what I'd rather have but I don't think I'm I'm serving our community you guys land owners are the are the number one folks serving the the developers and stuff they we could we could do something as simple as we don't do puds anymore we have ordinances you have to follow those ordinance you have to follow the zoning blah blah blah I I don't think that's going to build a good Community I I want all your guys' input I'd love to hear the council's important stuff that that's me but just letting you know the flip side of that that I could see is that if certain people are continually approached for an opinion earlier on does that are arguably give them more input or discretion over what eventually is brought before someone as a concept plan um and I only ask that because there has been an opportunity even once uh to be a a um preliminary preliminarily of a part of something and um and and I would feel like I don't know I do feel a little bit of a a tension around someone else having earlier access to information the other thing I'll just add to that makes it tricky or I think a policy can certainly clarify things I don't know that necess be a danger in just having a clear policy to refer to but one thing that can be really tricky is um developers are land owners and so if we're going to say well we'll meet with land owners but not developers how do you that and you have to treat land owners within the same district similarly like that's the whole point of some of our quotes so you just want to make sure that you have something that can be consistently applied and a lot of times too like with a Community Church the land owner is the developer um and he has been a significant part of helping with water infrastructure and stuff so if they had if the city had just kind of like we don't want to talk to you because you're a developer too that could have really led to some unintended consequences as well but by not having conversations that allow for collaboration so it's just a really tricky line um and so but I do think a policy could help just be like at least I I think it does make sense that if there is going to be a meeting that staff is present so I agree I think somebody could drive that forward at Council a and I don't mean to oversimplify but the policy could be you know staff a member of Staff has to be there and a recap is sent to the rest of council recapping what was discussed and that's it like it is wild west and the risk is way too big without any sort of policy and we might have new one two different members of council I don't know and I just I feel anxious about there being no policy and it being just like no rules just like yeah and and I will and and that's very and and I'm not opposed to a policy so I think that that's I think that's great feedback um and I think just so that you um can be rest assured at this point the meetings are happening typically with Jay if not myself in the room cool so um it and again it's this is in as side I just the reason I I listened to the discussion and I was like wow no this is a really good important discussion and then I felt like some people might have been Pro some sort of policy but then nothing happened I was like like well it might be good to double click on that at some point yeah yeah I think the intention was to resume the conversation it was just yeah and I know it got long sure what the solution was that night and wanted some time to think on it so yep cool I mean I would also say I know that uh so I'm I'm a little bit I'm gonna chew on the liaison role being removed and I know that it frees up our time but I feel like it's a check and balance as well and it sort of keeps us like there have been so many times when I was able to be like oh hey this topic is on the meeting because I was there and I know that we still all personally have the choice to be there the reason I'm talking about it at this point is that um by the time uh planning items get to us they a lot of times they seem like they've already been chewed over by so many people in that concept plan phase and so um it is a volunteer role and you don't want to ask too much of your volunteers but if ever there was a value and a benefit to having someone um from the Planning Commission which I know whatever but some of us can't I I we could send an email letting you know when a concept plan is going yeah we could send an email to the group and you know well I am now trying to create more work for you and I will look but I have appreciated the fact that it has kept me engaged in um in because those things don't come before the Planning Commission and so to be able to hear and then sometimes to offer valuable um feedback at that juncture rather than waiting until it gets here um so anyway good point yeah we can we can certainly add that to our process for concept plans that we send an email to the the commission when uh when we anticipate a concept plan to be discussed and because that's not available anywhere else like a concept plan just comes before the C just staff report and the so I can totally see how that would get lost so we that did we have because because the way it was delivered to us as a council is most of the the Planning Commission the parks and whatever else would be out there the the um the survey stated that a majority of the people did not want to continue that did we do we have information broke out does the Planning Commission want to keep doing it as a whole does the Parks want to keep doing as a whole you know what I mean I I um I've just asking question sounds like you all want to just keep coming I mean I guess the question too is like if it's valuable to it's probably Val it's valuable for our learning and being engaged but if it if there if there's a way for it to be valuable to council as well right I we didn't have Leons when I was on the Planning Commission so I wanted something and and it developed into a leison type deal and somebody came but it was there was changes there was a lot of things going on it was extremely helpful for me it's great to hear it's extremely helpful you for you guys so maybe it's one of those things we if it's something you're interested to continue maybe we continue with the Planning Commission and Parks is the one that said no you know what I mean if did you all do the surve I find it valuable yeah yeah you can maybe take that back to it's Natalie to yeah well so we can certainly I mean I wasn't trying to take anything away from you guys we were trying to give you hours back so if you would like to continue then we can certainly keep the schedule in place I don't see why Council would be opposed to that I I would we can certainly bring that feedback to council disp that's what we decided as a group that we're gonna continue regardless of what you say so I guess I guess the only the only uh the only other thing is that it had been mentioned that there would be an increase potentially in work sessions joint work sessions and so I guess for me if there was like an exchange of something um maybe I maybe I don't know that I just I appreciate the FaceTime because you get to know um the council um and so and then again just the the checks and balances of maintaining a lot of um attention and focus on what's coming before that Council for things that wouldn't come before here but I I am happy to just um not I don't want to make that a thing for folks if they're if they're not they is it something you'd rather have the council members rotate in this instead of just one Yahoo sha uh I mean not NE no not necessarily especially like on please I mean I do miss being lanterman I I miss I miss lanterman but no I he told me he was gonna come every time and he's listening he listens meetings later yeah I you just saying those options please ask I I I'd love from not you guys just yeah it's schedule it's hard I mean that's a lot this is full-time jobs and everything you guys all know and have been there so we got going on should work sessions okay you can just be like no okay but should work sessions be like on a quarterly basis or like scheduled so we can plan for them with work travel and also so build up agenda of things to talk about to align so Council has also requested that there really be no work session yeah to say never mind unless it's a development that we would love to hear inut prior I think that's what we said and and I think Natalie kind of said that too if there's something big coming we should do a work session in poet get the get the everybody before we send down the PIP yes I think there's some discussion still on what our work sessions look like but yeah there there has been some desire expressed that we not to your point that we not have work sessions because the meetings are already so long and then to add two hours on the front end or an hour and a half on the front end no I think ends up being about two hours by the end of it yeah um that that just makes the night even longer and then there's other things that we absolutely need to have work sessions on throughout the year that can be hard to kind of have like a a when we have a quarterly joint work session um it just limits the ability to like okay we need to do a work session on the budget because we're typically scheduling work sessions out by a couple of weeks not necessarily on a quarterly basis and things come up where we really need to have a discussion versus um a formal business meeting so the uh I think that we can certainly continue figuring out what the look like um but I don't know I don't know if a quarterly typically we've done an annually work session and that's sometimes been difficult to get scheduled as it is um so I don't know if quarterly would be really feasible May semi I think it's still all up in the air and being discussed exactly what we want that to look so I think it's good feedback to bring I remember now the council the work session thing yep so yeah it's cool okay with that being said it is not a requirement but if you would like to follow the commission liaison calendar listed um at least as of now until we revisit that's our approach um so with that being said um I will adjourn tonight's meeting and I don't need a motion for that so I'm just gonna g and we're adjourning did we change that was that in the script or do I I do need a motion I'm sorry you guys it's been really long day okay I will save that for after but I drove five and a half hours to get here thank you for your I'm gonna make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting do I have a second second all right all those in favor say hi okay anyone oppose no