so currently it's rsf2 they're seeking pud benefits which would include rezoning to rmf3 um and so in that they're also asking for seven and a half feet uh well i'm sorry bellwether is five feet i i might have misspoke there at the end um but they're asking for seven and a half uh feet there where it is ten and five feet uh under now in every in every aspect um amberly meets all of the required setbacks from the front uh the streets the front porch the rear the principal building height and the driveway depth and everything else but this is not again part of of bellwether they don't get the amenities there is no this the park being dedicated is not part of this subdivision they've clearly stated that it is separate i'm wondering why we're even including it as part of a pud the park is i just want to clarify one thing before you start a discussion the park dedication is being calculated for amberly and bellwether together so the calculations in the staff report about what's due is based on the whole development okay so just to be clear on that okay and and i'm not suggesting we've taken it out but i'm what i'm suggesting is here is a development of single-family homes that developers asking for again leniency on on with and then design standards but yet i don't see a a direct benefit okay so um i'm not against taking it out of the pud and messing up everything there the only question here is do we want to hold the standard as directed in the rsf3 zoning i mean to take them out of this and hold them to the rsf2 um that that would change things maybe even a little bit more significantly but um we've had we have comments from our community constantly and we've heard it before but they're asking for maybe a little bit more buffer now changing the the the dimensions or the width between the two properties isn't going to make this a whole lot more but it might result in a few more homes it might be at least for once we can have a development that isn't that isn't built based upon the generous askings and givings by the city for pud standards which i i think we're all getting a little burnt out on uh it would be wonderful to see you know 10 feet you know on each side of the property you know um make it look more normal um we don't i don't i don't recall that we've even had a development inside the mesa line that wasn't a pud that wasn't 10 feet apart from each other and if there's ever a case to say that these these 76 homes um probably could stand on their own without the benefit of pud protections or zoning i would say this is probably one of those cases so anybody have any comments and again the only thing that's different here is they're asking for seven and a half feet on the side setbacks where 10 and 5 would be normal so yes sir my question going back to what kendra said amberley is the single-family home right and then bellwether is at 55 and older was there an agreement from our previous council and mayor about that five foot setback on both sides to continue bell weather agreement there was a conversation with this council in january would you support this okay all right but no formal all right i just i i don't want things changing to look i know the developer is going down a road and such and i understand that i just if it was already kind of guided or they're directed to go to that i just was curious again we're dealing with that switch over at the beginning of the year of one new mayor and two new council members and such and i just i want to make sure we aren't miscommunicating either to the current land owner the future land owner then developer stuff i wanted to make sure we had no confusion there i did to your to your comments commissioner chair jacobs it would be nice if we could start sometime is this the appropriate time i don't know it'd be nice to just put her foot down and say it um i don't know well i i i mean let's all remember that as part of the pud they are getting rmf3 versus rmf2 and they are getting architectural relief here so it's not like they're not getting any benefit at all right here i'm just saying let's let's maintain what is currently on the books for the side yard setbacks and quit treating this like it's like it is purely a pud you know so and again i wanted to recognize too the the commitment of helping us find a water tower location helping us find a well location and those kind of things whether or not it's in the drawn up area or not it's it's nice to have that involvement related with the developer and stuff so mr landerman mr chair um the sole reason to request the variance from ten feet down to seven and a half feet isn't to keep the math nice it's an effort to squeeze more homes onto that piece of land and a pud should not be granted on the request for more profit it should not be a financial consideration for the applicant and i would agree with you 100 i i i don't see the pud if i see it as as anything it's a tool to get more homes and circumvent our regular our regulars here you know i mean there are some benefits that we do get right we won't play that but i think that i think you're right and in this case i don't see any reason that is not correct okay 5 and 10 equals 15. seven and a half and seven and a half equals fifteen yep i'm sure if we asked paul he would do five and ten i don't think that's the issue it's 15 feet between buildings it seemed like a non-issue to me how you get to 15 feet between buildings but if you want it to be five and ten i think you can change that and polti will do that okay well why are you asking for seven and a half and seven and a half as kendra said simpler math if you want five and ten we're finding that okay it doesn't matter to us however we we blew it earlier when we didn't talk about the one thing that is the reason we're asking for the pod and that is we finance the trump sewer to get here typically the way this works is cities bond for trump infrastructure they borrow money they put the pipe in the ground and over time you count on impact fees as development occurs to pay off the loan we paid 3.7 million dollars to bring the trunk sanitary sewer from the northeast corner of the city one mile to the site as part of this application we're going to extend that 33 inch diameter sewer another i thousand feet and it serves both amberly and bellwether and it's about 35 feet deep it's a very expensive difficult sewer we are financing it we may not ever get repaid for that we have a recapture agreement with the city whereby if certain properties develop over time we get reimbursed so developers pay the impact fee to the city you're the instrument that just converts it to us and we get reimbursed for some of the costs we have no hope of being completely reimbursed for the 3.7 million dollars that is really the biggest thing that we've done for both bellwether and the current application which warrants pud status so i'm i'm sorry i it's been a long time it's been three years and i know there's new people here too but i forgot to mention that history that is really critical here in this beauty application mr chair may i respond you may um thank you i i appreciate that and that's a lot of money for you to spend how does that benefit anyone but your buyers it benefits all the surrounding property owners now it benefits any property owners who may get sewer sunday because we just paid for it to get to this area what this does for you is a number of things it opens up other properties for development for areas that don't want development but they have failing septic systems it allows the city the option to extend sewer to those folks and resolve some septic problems okay but primarily you uh incurred that expense to pay for sewer for your customers correct well certainly this was a win-win otherwise we wouldn't be proposing of course okay thank you okay thank you all right um that that was um those were the two things i just wanted to have discussion about so um i think kendra's point uh yeah certainly it's it's another way to get to the same end um should we go through the resolution well i you know the resolution i've been through it i don't hear anybody making any suggestions to change the resolutions um so without that but i'm more than willing to do so if you have any questions and there are four there's four of them i believe there are four items we have to make a recommendation on that's correct mr chair you have an ordinance approving the rezoning to pud a resolution improving finding a fact for rezoning a resolution improving the preliminary pud development plan that's where the meat of the stuff is and there's one then the fourth one is the resolution improving the preliminary plot and certainly the commission can if you find that the standards aren't met you can make a different recommendation or you can modify the conditions in the draft solution as always but uh it is um 15 after nine and it's probably good to make a motion for discussion because we have three other public hearings okay so we hear a motion to approve the resolutions as stated i'll make that motion i'll second it with the condition that references to the 40-foot wide lots be removed from the package okay yeah we have a second any further discussion to that i think that that was an error on the map that i do not believe it's in any of the resolutions or the staff report so i don't think we need to add that mr chair yes sir explain you are all four resolutions we're doing all at once so what we're doing we could certainly do that and that was not what you were doing i was going to suggest that okay again unless somebody has a question or wants to do them individually so the motion made by jacobs and segated by wu is to approve the ordinance and the three resolutions as drafted with a condition i think it's fair the condition that the 40-foot lot references be revised to 44 feet is that still in there or did that come off well because it was on a map we don't need it in there i think they heard that no correct just so i get it right in this discussion i want to make sure so we have a motion a second so now the commission can discuss and modify as you desire i have a question i'm new here so forgive me um these ordinance changes are related to this project right correct the ordinance change is the map change from uh okay so why would we make a decision to approve these resolutions before we have a vote as to whether or not to approve the pud shouldn't that be the order because if the pud doesn't pass why would we accept the resolutions maybe we can do them all at once which was the motion but the motioner and seconder could withdraw and do them individually if you'd like no i get that but why are we deciding on the resolutions before we have a decision as to whether or not we grant the pud because wouldn't that make the resolutions loop or am i missing something if the if the motion failed um the ordinance wouldn't pass okay so but i think um it is absolutely acceptable to adopt to make a motion to adopt them all at once whether it passes or not is another thing but if there's a friendly request to withdraw and do them individually the motioner and seconder could consider that well and again i don't i guess my my concern isn't do we do them separately or altogether my concern is why are we deciding on them at all before we even decide on the pud shouldn't the pud shouldn't we come to a decision on the pud and then make a decision to adopt or reject amendment and so their their motion would do that so i think you are doing that first and then acting on those in the way that happens but again if it's confusing you can separate them you could withdraw your motion in your second and start over and do them one at a time in the order laid out in the staff report which would be ordinance then findings of that well i i mean so we we approved the ordinance but then we would want to do the findings of fact for the rezoning and then take action and and then we'd have to well we'd have to do it in this order then we'd have to do the preliminary pud development plan before we could approve the preliminary plat not really because they're all conditioned on each other but if you want to take them separately mr chair you absolutely can take themselves right well um um we we we have a motion and a second um for all of them um if we want to do these individually let's take a vote but we should then all okay um commissioner landerman if we do one two three four in order does that seem logical it well it does but i think that we should first come to a decision as to whether or not the pud is being granted at all before we make a decision on the amendments because i think if the pud fails then the amendments are moot if the pud succeeds that's the point in which i believe we should be adopting no i don't understand why why would we accept an amendments to something that we haven't decided yet and again i'm just the new guy you guys are a lot smarter than me so are you suggesting that we discuss not approving the pud altogether for this project no what what i'm suggesting is that i think we should have a vote on the pud and then have the vote on the amendments i i guess i i'm unclear as to why we are voting on amendments before we have a decision on the pud are the amendments for something else am i confused is are the amendments for some other project or is it for this project i don't know what amendment yeah or oh i'm sorry i don't know what number the uh i'm sorry i'm sorry the the amendments to the ordinances why are we deciding to change our ordinances with the resolutions before we have a decision on the pud does that not matter does the order not matter so if you're not going to do them together the ordinance matters but the ordinance matters in this way if you are recommending approval you're not doing anything by the way remember you're recommending but if you're recommending approval of the ordinance change what you're doing with the ordinance is changing the color on the map just for this property for this these two properties the map color will change and the resolution improving findings the fact says here's why the map should change and it's subject to the conditions of the pud which is the third ordinance that's the standard the pud is a new zoning district and the pud resolution establishes the standards for this zoning district and says it's conditioned upon approval of the requested rezoning and preliminary plot and then the fourth item is the preliminary flat which creates the lots so you do if you're not going to do them all together you do need to do the ordinance first so you have a district that you're going to then establish the standards for does that make more sense i'm i'm sorry no um and i'm sorry i'm not trying to be dense it's just if the pud is the controlling factor of these amendments shouldn't we have a vote on the pud first before we decide to change our code or our our laws with the resolution laws so the people the right the resolution standards that establish the pud now what i'm what i'm referring to are these resolutions uh approving the approving the rezoning of the property and why would we vote to rezone the property if the pud fails because we haven't had a vote on that so what i'm saying is why would we re-zone this vote to rezone this if the pud doesn't pass shouldn't we have a vote on the pud and then say you know what because we voted yes we also need to rezone so let's vote on that so commissioner landerman pud is a zoning district so that so that first vote would be voting for the pud oh okay you see i'm new no it's right but when you explain it okay okay i get it i get it i understand okay thanks for indulging i'll learn to say that no problem honestly when you were talking i was thinking paul in a minute maybe i don't understand no not at all right moving along so we're going to do this in order of abcd do i have a motion to recommend approval or ordinance rezoning to pud i'll make a motion to put the ordinances written okay do i have a second second shulac okay all those in favor say aye aye aye opposed i on me you're opposed or not opposed i'm opposed to being opposed oh okay and this is only our first one all right uh item b resolution approving findings of fact for rezoning i'll make a motion to approve second bear in camp all right all those in favor say aye aye aye aye opposed okay item c resolution approving preliminary pud development plan i have a motion all right all those in favor of approving the preliminary puds say hi hi opposed and finally resolution approving preliminary plat i'm not the motion to approve the primary plan all right i'll second that all those in favor say aye aye opposed okay i believe that concludes our work for this is that correct yes for item number one that number one's done and these items uh for anybody uh this will go to the city council at their july 22nd councilman all of the items okay thank you everybody all right it's 9 25 what's our next one up on the agenda this one should be easy why don't we do gordon's country estate and then maybe we take a break take a break yeah everybody agreement so do gordon's first yep i have the question are we not voting on the pud you voted on the theory it was the ordinance it was the first one so just on the ordinance or approving the pud you did both and it's kind of two steps um i'm very yeah i'm very unhappy about that so the first motion the ordinance changes the math color to say that's the pud and then the third vote you took on the pud standards establishes the zoning district essentially for that and did we approve this plan yes with conditions yeah that that was not my intention and it was not clear to me so could i please just go on the record stating that i was confused when i voted and i vote no on all of those i can make that change if that's allowed well we can't go back we can't change but we can stay on the record for the council okay i hear that and it'll be in the minute yeah you know yeah i mean it was pretty clear where i yeah all right whatever it was i was a little surprised that it was a yes jim well i was a little surprised when i was told that this is just amending a resolution it was not clear to me that we were actually voting on approving their plan or not so if that how it actually has a light you'll go down there and have the other right you can go through the language states that i think clearly i had a question okay and i know natalie would be happy offline too or i to kind of talk through that process for the next time too i'm sorry it was confusing but i think we're you're on the record saying that so the council who's on the line is hearing this as well mr chair may i be permitted to send a letter to the city council on this matter you're free to do thank you thank you okay uh moving on then to item 6b public hearing preliminary platen variants for gordon's country estates first edition um staff professional staff report please thank you mr chair this is a two lot subdivision it's actually a lot line adjustment the property is guided existing residential and zoned urban reserve it's actually north of the previous amberly discussion on the north end of the city the urban reserve zoning district is in the urban service boundary it's planned to get sewer and water but right now it's a holding zone until sewer and water are provided and because of that in the urban reserve we have a 20 acre minimum lot size with 300 foot minimum lot frontage and again we do that to keep large chunks of land available for development this landowner is requesting to adjust the common lot line with his neighbor and because he needs a variance from the minimum lot size and minimum lot with standards to do that he cannot do it as a simple lot line adjustment he needs to do it as a plat these existing lots that we're looking at tonight there are two lots and there are legal non-conforming lots of record they were legal when they were created back in the 70s but the rules have changed and now they're not and it requires this variance so this is my very high tech example just for clarity the yellow line is where the lot line is now there's a house on the east side and on the west side and the green line is where the lot line would move to again we have two lots today and we would have two lots if this were approved tomorrow so lot one would increase from 1.3 acres to 2.14 acres and lot 2 would decrease from 3.02 to 2.18 no new lots are created but they're both well under the 20 acre minimum lot size this is just about moving a lot line there's no development proposal here that we're not reviewing any future development these are developed lots there is a chicken coop or a shed on lot too that needs to be moved to meet the setback of the new lot line the applicant has indicated that that's actually just going to be removed from the property the wetland delineation has been submitted and is under review that needs to be approved before final flat there is a wetland in the backyard and we want to ensure that we get the wetland buffers right before we approve the final flat variances do have a threshold this is a little bit tricky you do have to meet the practical difficulties and we did provide findings of fact where you could approve that and provided a resolution approving the variance and the preliminary plot with findings of that however if you find that the practical difficulty standards have not been met or any of the other variant standards you should recommend denial and provide findings of fact for denial with that it's a pretty simple request so i did go pretty quickly i would recommend you open the public hearing and take comments the applicant is on the zoom call i believe and we did not receive any written comments for this application okay very good thank you all right at this point we'll open up the public hearing again anybody wishing to address this commission please state your name and address at the podium anybody here anybody online um members of the public joining us via zoom if you would like to speak to the commission please raise your hand either by pressing star 9 if you're joining us by phone or by the reactions tab on the bottom toolbar and sometimes it might be accessed the raise your hand function might be accessed through the participants tab as well and mr chair i don't currently see anyone raising their hand and just to confirm the applicant is online with us okay um i may have some questions for the applicant later but we'll do that during commission discussion okay um well as long as there doesn't appear to be anybody that wants to participate in the public hearing i'll take a motion to close the hearing so very good second lantern all right all those in favor closing the public hearing say aye aye opposed and i s i didn't say i i meant to say i myself so that would be five sorry about that all right this public hearing is now closed um um you know what i'll uh i'll i'll be glad to uh start off here first um i i i was out at the site and i talked to the applicant um and i also talked to a gentleman who is going to be the buyer of of the the other lot lot too um there were no markings of exactly where that property line is but it it is referred to as a chicken coop and a fence um i'm assuming that that is actually what was referred it's actually a shed ow okay and and the fence looks like a dog run a kennel um but is that the one that is depicted back here because this says shed but i just want to make sure i'm talking about the right building yes that is the one right there in the center of the site and i swear jake said it was a chicken coop but it yes that's the one well i will cut a hole in the side um okay so here's uh here's my question um if this is going to be removed who is responsible then is it the current landowner of lot two proposed lot two or is it the applicant it would seem strange to me to require the applicant to remove a structure on someone else's land they are both party to this application the applicant jake overpass will not get his escrow back until that's moved okay so it either needs to be removed or moved as part of this project and in speaking with jake uh before the packet went out it is my understanding he's had that conversation and it's being removed now did you hear something different maybe jake i sure yeah maybe jake now it's not to say that you know jake wasn't saying something that you know he he would gladly do um but the new owner would like or the future new owner would like to preserve it keep it um i now in looking at the shed there is no foundation it's it's a wooden structure laying on the ground and there is electrical uh to the site or to that to that building and so to simply move it is probably maybe a little bit you know more involved than just simply you know i mean it it's going to cost some money and it's going to take a little bit of work not our necessarily our overriding concern here but when i look at this diagram and when i was out there and they kind of pointed out a a general face um a general location of the proposed property line i i stepped it off and i came up with about 25 feet now in the report um okay in the report on page five uh down there under um uh subdivision f it says the chicken coop and fence on proposed lot 2 will need to be real relocated or removed to comply with the 15 foot side yard accessory structure setback on page 3 um it would be the second paragraph it would be the second paragraph under the table it says uh staff has included condition that the coupe and fence be removed to comply with the 20-foot side yard setback so we seem to have a contradiction here as to whether or not it's 15 feet or 20 feet um but again and it's you know i only walked it off and and um you know we can all we can all argue about how accurate that is but to the best of my you know approximation that shed is the shed not the fence the dog the dog the old dog kennel but it's about 25 feet from the property line and so i question whether or not there is a re there there would actually be a requirement to have it removed it just has to meet the 20-foot side yard setback i'm not finding it what page did you say well if you look on page three that's 20. which is correct okay if you look on page five it's under section f okay that is an error that needs to be it's 20. uh mr chair just so you know the applicant does have his hand raised only so if it doesn't need to move as i look at the dimensions on the plan it looks like it's at it's not dimensioned which if they can dimension it and the surveyor will confirm it meets a 20-foot setback then it doesn't have to move okay now aside from that though in talking with these two gentlemen and of course there is a lot of space here between these two homes because of this vacant lot even though the lot line is going to shift you know neither one of them i mean the potential new owner would like to keep the shed and the applicant doesn't care if it stays or goes so if the if the potential new owner of lot 2 would like to keep that would he then have to come in and apply for a variance if it is found to be within the 20 feet yes okay well then how do you handle the situation though where i mean they could still subdivide the lot but the applicant isn't going to get his escrow back until that issue is resolved through the process of applying for a variant and it will be a code violation until it's done yeah because it's a non issue yeah okay all right but there but there would be an avenue for the the potential new owner to keep it if they so desired well they could ask for variance yeah but let me be clear both of these landowners sign this application and both of these landowners are party to it even if the one landowner is selling it yes i i would agree yep okay i mean but it it it there's nothing contractually in here in the report that i saw that that is going to absolutely force them to move it or destroy it it just says it needs to be done it's condition number four in the resolution yeah okay which actually that's where the error is again oh yeah i saw that yeah i apologize i'll chat with nicholas and see what's going on there but it's a 20-foot setback the other option of course is when the final flat comes in they could shift the lot line so that shed doesn't have to move and it meets the 20 foot step back okay also just jog it all right just slide the lot line back towards jake a little more yeah i i recognize that the applicant is online but before we go to applicant i'd like to just go through the commission then there might be something else that he can address just to be more efficient here with our time okay commissioner varenkamp nothing thank you okay commissioner shulac no questions or comments at this time thank you okay commissioner lantern are we in the discussion phase or are we still in the public comments portion the public hearing's been closed so this is thank you yes i have comments so the minimum acreage required is 20 acres today neither lot complies with this minimum i think based on my read that this is due to a subdivision if i'm wrong please correct me that and this occurred when the homes were built so if so i think this checks all of the variance requirements i thought that the applicant articulated this very well in the finding there is a hardship it is not the fault of the landowner owner and therefore i believe this variant should be granted but just out of curiosity do we know how both of these lots are now non-compliant meaning less than 20 acres yes uh mr chair commissioner uh when these were planted it was in the 70s and we had different standards it was before we were part of the metropolitan urban service area so you'll know there's a lot of one and two acre lots in in corcoran that are now in the musa and so they're legal non-conforming laws so they were conforming to the rules when they got created okay and then the rules changed on them they didn't change thank you anything else commercial linderman no thank you okay commissioner wu okay um one one more question i guess um before we get to our applicant so the commission um depending upon maybe newer information if if there was going to be an effort the commission certainly could then alter the resolution to remove the requirement that the shed be moved correct you could recommend that staff will share that with the council but we'll keep it in the in there because we think it's important that if we're moving the lot line we don't create non-conformities because those do create problems over time but you could absolutely delete recommend deleting that condition okay all right um natalie um could you bring up the applicant online okay mr overcat i am going to go ahead and ask that you'd be unmuted if you'd like to go ahead and speak i can't hear him you see online yeah i know he's online and it says he's unmuted but i can't hear him i don't know what it should just be coming over the speakers right mm-hmm did you turn the speakers on where would that be oh right here it's an entirely new console set up so it's our first time using it here can we get our money back on the money it's new what was wrong with the old stuff just new for the sake it didn't work either could the applicant call in on zoom there should be a call-in number yeah i just i don't know i don't know what's wrong with the speakers because it should be coming in from the speakers in the chambers so i think it's an issue with their speakers so i don't know if it would matter if he called in unless he called my phone and then i could do that's the only thing i can think of but i don't know i understand i'm sorry i don't know what's wrong everything is great did you play it through your laptop i can't undo my laptop maybe calling in through he spoke through the phone and reading all the options i don't i don't know if it's going so he would have to call my phone that's what i mean yeah okay uh mr overcot if you can hear me okay i'm going to text you my phone number so that you can call it that i apologize for the inconvenience i feel like i'm back in dc i can't even remember my work phone number hello mr overcoat [Music] [Laughter] well you're changing the lot lines though don't you want to keep the locks oh man welcome to the okay so no i just raised my hand just to answer any questions but i really have nothing to say i don't know felt fairly simple to me but okay okay well uh as as as we talked today um you know i i was going to suggest or at least throw it out to this commission to make a recommendation um to remove the requirement that this shed be moved or or torn down okay well but but but there seems to be maybe some history in which you and the current landowner have agreed to tear it down and to not preserve it so if that's the case if that's the case i'm not going to go i'm not going to go down that path no we uh if i don't recall that discussion but if you know um i guess if that did occur i know he and i hadn't really talked about it but you know as a worst case scenario sure we could we could move it um but i think that now that the you know if the fence is removed i believe we meet that setback okay and that and that might be true but you're going to have to get somebody you're going to have to get somebody to come out there and and verify that okay sure um and then back to what you had suggested i mean if if we don't it's got to be within a foot or so um is it is it that stringent that we that we've gotta adhere to that or like you say can you make that recommendation yeah i you know um when it comes to this stuff i yeah i guess feet matter um you know i i would say i would say without a doubt what you what's probably gonna it even if the building meets that setback that that old dog kennel run is not i i could see though where that that's going to probably have to for sure be removed sure sure um and then you know back to what kendra had suggested i mean if we shift that lot line um i'm certainly not opposed to that either uh we could we could lose a few feet okay how how would that how would that how would that impact our our current work here with this resolution right now so mr chair i really don't think you want to create a non-conformity so what i would just suggest is that you consider adopting the resolution as drafted and before the council meeting uh jake can have his surveyor dimension that set current set back on the plans he's he's identified that he can dimension it and so the council will know what they're dealing with and then uh jake you and i could talk about whether it makes sense to move the lot line or move the perfect i appreciate it okay so we can go ahead and approve this get it off our plate and those changes can be made i think we can solve it and i'm happy to speak with jake offline before the council meeting and have his surveyor dimension the setback on the plan perfect okay all right mr overcat i sure do appreciate it thank you all right thank you thank you all right any further questions or discussion no all right being that there does not appear then to be any changes to resolution approving the preliminary plat and the variants uh mr chair we do need to change number four oh yes that's correct 20 foot step back not 15. that is correct nope okay so um if you recommend approval as amended the preliminary platinum variants um there a motion so move darren camp with what we just talked about how's that i think that covers everything cool okay second second she all right we have a second all right all those in favor say aye aye opposed all right resolution to recommend approval is passed thank you everybody this is july 22nd as well to city council correct all of the items on tonight's agenda will go to the july 22nd council all right it is now anybody want to switch council meetings with you all right it is uh it is eight minutes uh seven minutes to ten um should we uh should we take a five six seven minute break uh resume back at ten o'clock okay uh this hearing is in recess thank you guys for your patience i don't know if i can get out you told me he logged off a while ago i can call [Music] is i don't know if he's on the ipad oh thank you and again thanks for coming what are you here for let me ask you that you better figure do i look out it is so hot what's that it is my hero he's um is is when do you think the city will get we know what it is that was i was in uh i was in control when we were 34 925 my wife and i used to go to the project yesterday and i was i was on the planet commission and i did not stand in the way of development and changes and stuff no matter how bad i wanted to i can't take somebody that's been yeah and all 22 of us neighbors over there by [Music] four years after that [Music] [Music] you guys look familiar yeah i guess they couldn't hear well most of the time we're dark but you can see that what i'm saying from the old crosswind i used to work for the secret service so i did 2000 a lot of you provided five to eight cyber investigation you know it was later like oh no yeah yeah maybe it was like well that was two three times a week yeah so so uh what that is [Music] you know you probably have did you see what the message is certain things if we could all take our seats again uh we will resume uh the planning commission meeting and i know it's getting late please bear with us um okay so next up on the agenda uh we have item 6c which is another public hearing for rezoning preliminary plat and preliminary pud development plan for cook lake highlands and we would love to entertain our professional staff report please thank you mr chair this is a public hearing for quick lake highlands it is a again a pud a preliminary plat and a rezoning to pud this is the site you did review this in april a development proposal on this site the request was denied by the council at the april 22nd meeting and then the applicant met with neighbors council members and requested that the council allowed them to submit a new application our code says if an application is denied you cannot submit a substantially similar application for six months and that's to avoid just somebody just kind of trying to wear you down but the council reviewed it and they did approve that request on may 27th so this is considered a new application however it is very similar to the old application the four main changes are the addition of two additional conifer trees and one additional river birch to each of the twelve lots that butt up against vaseline crossings on the east and you can sort of see that black line on that landscape plan those same 12 villa homes will be restricted to single family excuse me single level homes the applewood point co-op on the east side of the site has been revised to a flat roof building 49 feet high and the memory care facility on the south has been revised to include a kitchen and a bath in each unit which now allows them to be counted as dwelling units under the hud standards and the met council standards which means that counts towards our density requirements so it is within the allowed density range for this district the property again the zoning map shows where the property is at the tip of the red arrow on the east side of the city the request is to rezone from mixed residential rmf2 to planned unit development and so when we do a rezoning for a pud a pud is a new zoning district but we use the existing zoning district as the base as the standard to review it and all of the proposed uses are allowed in the rmf2 district except the assisted living memory care those are not allowed in the rmf2 district however since people live in the memory care it is housing and you could find that that's appropriate in a residential zoning district so again the daycare is permitted and these residential zones the memory care is not a pud is a negotiated zoning district and as we've discussed already tonight it is intended to promote more creative development and provide the city benefits that would not otherwise be possible with the standard subdivision the flexibility requested is for shoreland standards almost the entire site is in the shoreland overlay district so shoreline standards for minimum lot size and width for the villas as well as the side yard setbacks from both the shoreline and rmf2 districts for the villas shoreline and arm two district standards for the senior co-op maximum building height shoreline maximum impervious surface coverage parking stall length and a six foot fence in the front and setback all of these were part of the pud flexibility nothing has changed in terms of that since the last application and it's true that the things given in exchange for the flexibility have generally remained unchanged this one with one exception the applicant is requesting uh proposing to dedicate the outlet c 8.36 acres in the northeast corner to the city in exchange for partial credit so they would dedicate the land but not take the full value of the land as part dedication the planning commission did review that at their meeting in april and did not recommend that but we are going to bring it back to them again in july so that is a potential bonus where you'd be getting more park dedication than is technically required under the code if the parks commission council the pud standards have been evaluated in the staff report the council and commission must review the request against those standards i'm not going to review them in my report because you've had a chance to look at them density was an issue so i wanted to highlight this land use requires 8 to 10 units per acre and this will comply it's 7.2 pre-development net density and 9.2 post development net density which is the density of the met council reviews for compliance so it's right in the middle where it's supposed to be and the main reason it now complies because they've changed those memory care units at kitchens and now they're counted as units nothing changed on the plan itself the pud development plan one of the benefits is this city plan they would dedicate this parcel of land in yellow but that parcel in yellow would be dedicated to the city for a lift station as part of the project in the central portion of the project the met council has a little parcel of land exception piece north of the co-op and there is a access aisle on the east side of the property that provides access to that net council lift station that same easement will allow a fire lane to service the applewood point condor this image was intended to give some context it fades out a little bit on the screen to show this in relationship with the maple grove development that's proposed to the east as well as in comparison to the vast lake crossings to the west again the mix of uses is 20 single-family villa homes on the plan staff continues to recommend removal of one of the flag lots lots 11 and 12 are fly blocks flag lot means a lot with a really skinny frontage that extends way back and then widens out to a larger parcel if one of those was removed i think it would be more consistent with the intent of the district the senior co-op units are still 102 units in applewood point the daycare and then the assisted living again the shoreland really is a restrictive application for this property and affects a lot of the development flexibility that's requested the only change on this is instead of the maximum building height being 55 of course the co-op as it was previously it's now down to a 49-foot building height the shoreland overlay district has a 25-foot maximum building height and our ordinance has a 35-foot standard this rendering just gives you an example of a different view of what the project would look like if approved the trail i skipped over i think with the trail that was built with bass lake crossings on this property would remain as it is today utilities are available and again one of the beauty benefits is they'll work with the city and the met council for access to that list station site uh behind the applewood point and we'll donate a lot to the city for a city booster station transportation improvements on 10 will be designed and managed by the city but the developer will pay for those and they are dedicating some excess land for canada just because of the geometrics of particular parcel plan the city does continue to recommend a strong pedestrian access between the assisted living and the apartment or co-op building on the north there's some flexibility for parking stall with again standard storm water the pond was moved to the center of the site and that did help the open space preservation uh again the code does not require tree preservation uh but this but it is encouraged and this plan preserves most of which would be up in that parkland area for proposed parkland potential open space some modifications to the landscape plan are required again we have nice renderings we don't have the detail for the buildings but i do believe the buildings will comply with our ordinance requirements in both the design standards as well as the southeast district the building height was one of the big changes uh this is the new concept for the applewood point uh building it's a flat roof now if you remember the last time you saw it it had a pitch with the more residential characters um these are some images of what the villas could look like she does not have myerson does not have a committed builder but that's the concept similar to fast lake crossings these are examples this is an example of what the daycare facility would look like i think generally again complies and the assisted living these are some images from a different facility there is a public sidewalk along this new 74th avenue which will connect the bass lake crossings development down to 10 and then connect into the maple grove development and the sidewalks and trails do need to run that entire length of that street one on the north american so the staff report does recommend that pedestrian crossing we do continue to recommend that connecting sidewalk be looked at the park dedication like i said the planning parks commission will be looking at this at their meeting on july 15th so i don't think the parks planning commission should spend a lot of time but again it's important to understand what's being proposed they are proposing 8.6 acre outlet c let's see of that about three or four acres are usable the other areas are wetland and ponding which we wouldn't typically give credit for that um if we were to take land and again our comp plan does not show land here so we would not typically take land if it's not on the comp plan the applicant is proposing that in response i believe to some comments from neighbors but we would not typically recommend taking land if it's not on our plan because again as we talked about earlier our comp plan identifies where we want our parks we take those when we can from developers and we use our cash to buy land in other places and trails and those kinds of things so we do like to get cash when we don't have a park park recommendation was cash at about 400 000 a little more than that the applicant's proposal again is to provide some plan in exchange for the 90 000 required for the single family villa lot which if you do the math is probably a good deal for the city the land itself is worth more than that if we wanted the land so from the financial it may be but there's a cost to taking part so this is the preliminary plat i would know if there's a condition in the staff report this doesn't match the site plan outlook c in here is divided up under the new concept the exemption piece in the center is the met council lift station and not part of this flat so uh the city does have as we talked about earlier tonight a high level of discretion improving or denying a pud and so we did prepare uh both alternatives for the commission for both approval which requires four actions an ordinance rezoning to pud which changes the map the resolution of the confining the fact of the rezoning of the map a resolution proving the preliminary pud development plan and that establishes the standards for the community and the resolution of proving the flat which just creates a lot or if you find that the conditions have not been met we have forwarded basically the last resolution you sell which denies the request the again we recommend that you open the public hearing and take comments we did receive one additional email after the packet went out that was emailed to you so for folks who sent emails that were included in the packet or emailed out afterwards those are entered into the public record and again mr chair we've given you two options and the applicant does have a presentation would you like to have her do that before the public hearing i i think we would prefer uh to have it before but if i may um just to get this out so on the resolution in our packet uh approving the preliminary pud development plan on page two the the table so the maximum principal building height under co-ops currently it says 55 feet there if we were to uh recommend approval of this resolution we would want to change that to 49. that would be correct no need to apologize i just if we need to do it so if we're going to do this again we'll and any other changes but i just wanted to get that out right away so okay all right um beth you have a presentation for us good to see you again all right i've listened to you yeah you're okay as kendra said thank you there's not been a significant amount of change to our proposal except that we've got some support and i was after the april 22nd city council meeting i was contacted by the neighbors and asked to meet with them on site that's sort of my my schtick and it was nice thank you to reach for the neighbors to reach out to me to do that it was an odd time prior to that so probably three or four days after the council meeting i did at that time i had not yet had um and about a week and i had been one of the council members had recommended me actually two of the council members that recommended that i reach out to the counselor he has a drone and asked him to walk the site and help us to be able to articulate the heights and distances and things like that um i was a little concerned not sure what what we were going to find and how it was going to go but it was very helpful he brought the drone and allowed us to walk the site together and we were able to to take this first house and show the height as it is about 26 feet high to the tip of the roof and again if you'll remember the shoreline overlay district has a restriction of 25 feet so even a one-story single family home doesn't make that restriction um and i don't know if it's that the standards have changed and what stitches have changed um so we got a chance to to look carefully at where the you know so we got a really good opportunity i brought um you know say here's where the cul-de-sac is going to be here's where these those houses will be because the end of the cul-de-sac had some monuments marked for that and then walked um and it's it's very interesting it's very different when you when you go out on the site and i think everybody had a preconceived idea of where things were going to be potentially closer so i felt that that was helpful and then we were able we had i had the engineers stake proposed versus the the existing elevations and then um councilor bottom was able to go up with the drone and show us even though we were probably sitting seven or eight feet higher than where the first floor would be he was able to subtract and show everybody about where the work would be the top of the roof and i think you know that that helped me it was it was it was interesting and then again we continued to walk down the met council this is currently a temporary easement that i've granted to the met council because there is legally at which they have been granted by the sellers of the property is actually right here and it's been just found by that council that it's just an extremely expensive intersection to build even just for their access it was about 600 plus thousand dollars just to get them access to go down so i did grant them temporary and said you know we'll wait to see what what happens with this and um and then maybe you can share in the cost to build that expensive intersection so um once we walked we we actually walked through the wetland it was a nice dry unfortunately but we're able to walk up and around and get a really good feel for um for that 3.3 acres of woodland and it is a beautiful it is woodland and it is a bit of a wildlife refuge because we've got mi homes um crossings property has this wetland as sort of a woodland wildlife area too so the reason that we're proposing this is with this plan we can do that now the neighbors asked a lot of questions and i hope i answered most of them we talked about that open space and dedicating that and i think everybody can see and when you're out there on the site you can see that that that wooded area is actually a benefit to it's not as much of a benefit to these people because they have a nice wetland wooded area here but it it really is nice for the trail so the people that walk on the trail get to get to experience that and then i would say for for this property owner that's a significant and valuable buffer um for these people looking looking south so it really does it does take into account all properties and it does it does provide a benefit to everybody um adjacent to it and i think the trail gives it i think the wildlife corridor just gets extended and i think it's it's a nice addition but when we finished walking the site we um we talked a little bit about you know they really wanted to get a good feel better understanding of this proposal but they also wanted to know that as a developer or another developer a different developer in your professional opinion what else could be developed here based on the mixed residential guiding examiner and i said as we had talked before at the planning commission and and even at the council and and even on some of the walks with council members is well beth you could you could do all townhouses here so i asked my engineer let's take the mi homes townhouses and i do have a problem down here to show you i actually um but they are three-story town houses and that are about anywhere from six to eight units in each and um so that would be a massive braiding undertaking we would have we would we would be able to do all townhouses we would only be able to get about 126 townhouses on the site it would be all townhouses and we would still have an impervious issue if not a much more significant impervious issue and we would have a height issue excuse me we would still need flexibility on the impervious calculation and on the height calculation the um guide plan we would have to ask we wouldn't need the density so with that said i've always felt that since we made the change from where the apartments were which was a significant change from our first planning commission presentation in march i think that the residential single family and 20 residential single family lots is is a great transition for what's already there i think it takes it honors the people that live there and yes there will be some trees lost but i will tell you that when we walked with the neighbors you know here's the existing trail that comes in so it does come into our property right now and then back on to the vastly crossings property these are the most significant trees in this area these trees there is a lot of buckthorn there is there are there's a stamp a line of some trees here that are box elder and the rest is is a lot of brush but the neighbors said you know we like that brush the covers it does it gives the trail a really nice feeling so i i said to them i will do my best um to say what i can as far as that brush is concerned but really honestly the more i can save the more valuable he's locked out too so you know and again i just want i want to go back and just remind everybody that we we have been pinched what's been happening but hennepin county has come and is requiring you know 40 feet but an additional 20 feet so we're giving them 60 feet and that council has taken needs um 15 feet uh for their access and four pipes so they've already put the pipes in here and this the city actually has 15 feet for their water pipes too so we've got a 30 foot easement on this side means for future development to ignore and then we've got the trail that comes along so we kind of and we have the net console property that was purchased from the landowner and that serves those are all those are all infrastructure elements that serve the rest of the community and and it was interesting when polti when paul brought up when you discussed that the trump issues and the infrastructure and the cost and right now the city of brooklyn doesn't have a mechanism in place that can charge and this particular intersection that needs to be built that way is a is um is an example of that and it's a million over a million one in in the feasibility study that i did and and when that happened when we got that feasibility study i said i can't afford to do that and so i reached out to the met council judy johnson and she's the district representative and she met with me and i said that council i really need some help from that council to pay for this because it's their access too and so they've stepped up and we're in negotiations with them and the city of maple grove does have a trunk mechanism system in place and they'll they'll be paying for part of that too so that helps um but that they're paying for it also because they have their uses in this access for their project so it's been a lot of collaborating and coordinating and working together to make this work and and the neighbors have asked me there's a couple of different things kendra did mention in the report but the neighbors and i came up with i thought it was three at first but then it became five and i and i was it's the um it's the additional trees the additional three and it's that i have said that we will commit to doing one story there's been discussion about um trying to to continue this trail so the city of maple grove is going to we're going to have them tie into our fire lane here and um and this fire lane is going to be privately maintained by applewood and the net council we're working on an agreement with them and it will be for pedestrian public pedestrian traffic it is a fire lane that is required in order to have the fire protection for the fire trucks to be able to get all the way around the building but i think sharing it with that council a portion of it with met council and then also allowing it to serve as a public connection um did i miss anything with the neighbors the trees um the trail we talked about we did talk about and i i you know i i can't commit to building a trail through a wetland so we thought maybe we talked a little bit about do we just mow it and we have something that people can walk i don't think you know but this is kind of a nice connection to make um okay great thank you um and and i'm no doubt there will be some sure so um can can we ask the questions while she's standing there with the mic absolutely if you have one sure oh guys thank you um do i understand and hello it's it's it's nice to meet you do i understand that this is a but did i see one of the buildings is that four-story yes could you tell me how many other four-story buildings are there in corcoran my goodness not that's a great question go up or anything like that um so but you know i um yeah so so if i were to build those townhouses we would have we would have a more significant impervious issue so it does it does allow for so it does help okay i just i do i just have one follow-up question for you make sure you don't drop them so and i and i mean this very respectfully okay on april 1st this commission denied this project 4-0 on april uh 22nd the city council voted to deny this five to zero and here's where i get to my point the section 1070.010 of the zoning ordinance reads whenever an application uh for an amendment has been considered and denied by the city council planning commission or city council kind of redundant shall the word shall i think is very instructive there shall not consider a similar application for an amendment affecting substantially the same property again for at least six months this is not october 15th and i understand that the city council you know agreed to this can you tell me why i i'm trying to understand why are we listening to this before october 15. um great question there also is that the city council has the right to waive that if they so the neighbors contacted the city council and asked them to do so and wrote a letter wrote some letters to the city council to reconsider this because they were in support of them all right listen i i haven't seen any of the letters i saw a letter that was written uh from i believe you isn't this you know truck development yeah the city you can check with the city you wrote on 519 21 a letter to the mayor city council and staff that's the only letter i've seen but originally originally there was a letter written there were letters written to the city council for that particular reason for them to waive for them to consider mr chair it was in the 527 uh council packet it did not come to you it was part of the request to revisit it so if anybody's interested in that they can find it but again beth should be talking to the commission not the audience yeah and and i think at this point it it's it's not it's it's it is a fact that the city council did vote to grant you the ability to do this application within that six month period so i i don't i i don't know that i'm gonna dig up the questioning of the reasoning or the legality of that i just know that it has happened correct and that's what brings you here today you know six months or not six months the city did grant you this right and if the city wants to revoke that that'll have to be them we don't have that power to do that could i could i ask you one very quick follow-up question to me it seems unusual that people were just proactively on their own write letters asking for a development did you ask them to do that or did they do that on their own okay do you know how many is it two or three okay up okay say i i'm gonna have to i'm gonna have to stop this right now because this is a public hearing um and so to that extent um if you have those comments you're more than welcome after her presentation but there people can't hear what you're saying and we can't get it on record okay so let's let's stick with your presentation and when you're done then we'll be glad to take up issues from anybody and i'd else like to say that um thank you okay um anything else for beth at this time all right um let us open up the uh the public hearing again um if you wish to address the commission uh here in person please address it at the podium and give your name and address and i believe you have cards already filled out okay first up we have sue zappa uh it says on may 12 2021 i was in the group of neighbors that walked the land that has included the new cook lake highlands pub development plan i was very appreciative of the time baptista took to explain and point out where various structures would be located however there are many items that i still feel need to be addressed for a recommendation single family villas are requested to have 3d flexibility for number one flexibility from the shoreline standards to reduce the minimum lot size and width for the village number two flexibility from the shoreline and rmf two district standards to reduce the side yard setback for the villa home lots shown as requested as five feet the previous council and its city council has discussed single family district standards at a july 25th 2019 work sessions and the consensus was to name between buildings from my experience as a resident in brett bass lake crossing the five feet setback is not adequate for access to the back of the homes for deck building patios dilation or firing emergency etc it was like right now if i have to take anything the density of the villas are out of proportion to the natural characteristics of the site the natural resource inventory map indicates a high quality maple fast wood natural community and a rare species occurrence on the site which will be impacted by the number of components the villa sites layouts should be reworked lots 10 and 12 don't meet the minimum 53 long staff report recommends removal at least one lot to meet the minimum wage lots eight through 12 have the existing trail running through the backyards it would seem impossible to build a depth or have two conical slash vertebrates that beth has stated she will provide another one walking on that trail there are eight driveways on this cul-de-sac from lots 9-16 it appears this will make for no on-street parking or room for adequate slowly the pud flexibility requested by the developer results in deviations from the applicant provisions of the zoning ordinance they're not offset by the pue benefits proposed by the applicant and therefore are in conflict with the applicable provision of the ordinance i would like more information on the location of that containing walls the city of corcoran does not have a tree preservation limits however the applicant does provide a tree conservation plant which shows thirty percent only thirty percent of the woodland areas on site came for earth preserved i will miss that other seventy percent uh there's a bullet point in this houston's narrative dated 519 2021 it says community and corridor infrastructure collaborate with public entities and neighboring community to coordinate and share in the cost to construct the shared access intersection i'd like to know what the cost would be my concerns for the park and trail will be addressed so thank you for your time thank you okay thank you next up we have jerry tucker and then just a gentle reminder that if you could speak directly into the mic i keep getting messages from people over that they can't hear yeah i can't tell you thank you very much jerry tucker out of it 7402 in your packet i'm lot number 16 my lock backs up to sits next to 74th avenue and the walking trail goes around two sides of my house you also have a letter in your packet from me and my wife and i'm not going to read it other than say two things at the earlier presentation about bellwether people were talking about being good neighbors beth has been an exceptionally good neighbor and has listened despite all the picking of myths by the neighbors she has listened well and has offered a number of really good high-tech compromises that make this a much more attractive place second thing is commissioner jacobs said this at the march meeting when the apartment building was still in play and it all got turned down that this was not a good look for corker i could sit on my patio and i can look at corcoran lions park and i can look at a self-storage facility that's being built across the street and i'll tell you that's not a good one and i think that has done exemplary work putting together a program it isn't perfect if they're you know everybody would like to see a hundred percent of the trees that i would too but she's done a heck of a job listening to the neighbors making compromises and putting together a package that i think is attractive for a person coming in corporate and as commissioner berentamp said you know development's going to go on that land is going to get developed one way or another and i think this is an excellent alternative thank you and then next we have lynn alberts my name is lynn alberts and i live at 74.90 for lane it's nice to see everybody instead of zoom i actually can see people um there's been many hours of discussion concerning quick lake development over the last few months you've all been involved i would like the planning commission to address some concerns i have about the current proposal which has not significantly changed for the last submission if the memory care unit is approved how will bass lake crossing be assured that another commercial property will not be allowed to be built on that three acres at the entrance to mass employees that's a big concern because that would set precedents to have another commercial property in three years there's no light plan for applewood point in the pod i'm concerned about the amount of light that will be used for the parking lot and building the building is u-shaped and faces vast like crossing if you drive by haven wood at night it looks like a baseball field lit up and everybody's concerned about trees i grew up in a small town so i love trees i am concerned about how many trees will be cut down for the 12 villas on the bass lake crossing off-road trail the landform review states that at least one lot should be eliminated the last planning commission meaning there was a discussion about having eight driveways entering the cul-de-sac there was also concern about flag pole drivers beth has eliminated the 20-foot trail easement between the last 12 and 13 that was going to tie into the trail the off-road train so lots 11 and 12 could be eliminated and lot 10 could become the end of the cul-de-sac and the light like next to lot 13. this would save approximately 150 feet of trees along the side of the trail this is a unique trail because it allows people to actually walk through woods rather than somebody's backyard corcoran wants to have a rural atmosphere this would be a great way to have that in a residential neighborhood now you're talking about the seven and a half feet also this plotting is at five feet so if you add another five feet each now you're adding another 50 feet so then you'd have a problem getting all 12 units along that that low so i guess somebody needs to look at that so you could you can immediately eliminate one or two more blocks beth has talked about the trail that i that we talked about at one time stated that the trail could be built a trail could be built at the access road north of bath lake crossing and follow the buffer zone to the fire road by applewood point nothing is mentioned in this pud concerning this trail this trail could be made from crushed concrete i know beth said maybe you've got a wetlands area but it would not have to be maintained by the parks and trails not require a 20-foot easel this trail could serve as an interpretive trail and does not require a 15-foot setback from the edge of the bumper zone this trail would help compensate for the loss of the trees along the off-road trail this trail would be used by 102 applewood point units bass lake crossing north and south villa's a quick lake highlands it could also be used for the new horizon children to teach them about plants birds and wildlife in corporate this trail would also allow everyone in the community to enjoy the same views of the lake and golf course that applewood point will enjoy the city has a tremendous natural resource asset in cookware it is one of only five named lakes in corporate the views from applewood point are million dollar views of the lake and rush creek golf course this is a natural resource inventory map identifies this property as high quality maple basswood natural community with rare species occurrence on this property there are sandhill cranes that come back to this property of the year there are also turkeys pheasants owls ducks geese deer many varieties of songbirds hummingbirds and even kites page three of the land form report states the city may impose reasonable requirements in a pod not otherwise required if the city deems it necessary to promote general health safety or welfare of the community code section 1040.4140 subsection two e states that a pud should preserve and enhance natural features and open spaces code section 1050.010 subsection two a5 states that the purpose is to provide wildlife habitat and thereby support the maintenance of diversity of both plant and animal species within the city i guess the last question i have is is a city getting more benefits from the pod than what they're giving thank you sir all right so this time i don't have any cards was there anyone that did not turn in a card that would like to speak okay and then members of the public joining us by zoom if you would like to speak uh please raise your hand if you're joining us by phone you do this by pressing star nine on your computer you should be able to find the raise your hand function along the bottom bar of your screen under the reactions tab and some mobiles might have this mobile devices might have this option under the participants tab and mr chair no hands are raised at this time okay um is there a lot of people online right now it's gone down to eight so yeah a few people but okay all right uh being that there doesn't seem to be any further input through the open public hearing um the chair will take a motion to close the hearing so move there kim i'll second lantern okay all those in favor of closing the public hearing say aye aye opposed all right this public hearing is now closed and we will move to commission discussion and recommendation is there anybody that would like to jump in first is levels versus stories and also this height calculated from the average grade plan because when i look at this graphic that was provided to us that's but i'm just looking at it more as much for my education as well as to how this is construed as a person how you get to four stories because at 49 feet and five stories mr chair commissioners we don't uh have a zoning district that um measures by number of stories or levels all of our districts are measured by building and building height does measure the average grade and then depending on the roof line it varies so it's the vertical distance from the amplitude of the building the top of the corners correct it does not include those those are allowed to exceed and i don't have a dimension for that so certainly if this were to move forward okay and then i did have reservations about memory and that's to do with my background