We'll call the meeting to order. And do we have a motion to adopt the agenda? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> And opposed. That passes. And the next thing we're going to have is the council liazison update. Please. Good evening everybody. I hope uh we enjoyed the time off with the last meeting that we did not have that uh gave us a little bit more time to fit in a little bit more summer that uh we're unfortunately soon coming to the end of as much as we don't like it. Good. So, my report, uh, new playground equipment will be coming soon to the Booster West Park, including a kids-size zipline. So, I I've seen some pictures of this, and it's not like an elaborate dangerous zipline. It's uh kind of a new popular design that uh guest kids have really liked from what I've been told. So that would be a good addition to the Booster West. Uh the Barnaminium's ordinance that we discussed was passed by council. Uh member of the council reduced the lot size restriction that planning recommended for the 14T sidewalls. Uh the fire station will have the garage floors redone with a new floor product that should last a long time. It's similar to the uh epoxy and the chips that you put down on your garage floors. It's a a similar product to that, but uh for industrial and will hold up to the use by the fire engines and the heavy weights that they produce. So that's been a long time coming for that. Uh some members of council were interested in the city purchasing the property on the northwest corner of Sims and 65. That is currently up for sale. Um that sale or agreements did fall through though and will not be happening. uh that was proposed as potentially if we get the state bonding for the water tower of that area that that property may have some benefit towards that. That was the reasoning towards pursuing a purchase of that property. Uh the council approved a study for or approved a request for proposals for a city facility needs study. The RFP is just to get quotes, but this study would review current city buildings for any needs and forecast what buildings the city may need in the future, such as additional fire station. So, if uh the council decides to go forward uh with this with the a business that does these studies, then they would go through city hall, the community centers, the fire stations, the maintenance buildings, uh see if they need any updates to them, and then forecast any needs that the city may have based upon size and population. that the stat statistics would show that in the future that there would be may be a need for say a fire department in a certain area and with that the city can start planning uh at the very least to start putting some funds aside or something to maybe facilitate that in the future. >> Is that something that's up for bid then? >> Uh the RFP. Yes. So, any business that does these types of studies can uh submit a quote for the city. >> And how long is the RFP open for? >> How long is it open for? >> Yeah. >> Um I'm not sure. Let's see. >> Yeah, I don't think that there is a date. Usually it's open for a month or two and then or until we get a certain amount of quotes that um we'd have a good round number to make a decision with. >> Uh we have a found fall town home meeting coming up. That'll be on Thursday, November 13th, starting at 6 pm at the senior center next door. Then at 7 pm, uh, we transition into the chambers here and have a a Q&A with the public and council. Uh, that's pretty much all I have. Do you have any questions or comments? >> No, that's a city facility need study. Uh, what sort of standard or specification or metrics are considered during that? Do you know? uh that would be developed when we actually uh if we actually pick a a business that does this, they would propose what they normally do. The city can review that and say we want this this and this and this done. So at that at this time we don't have any metrics in place. is just to put out uh the request for proposals to get quotes just to at least see what it would cost to see if we actually want to pursue it. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Well, if there's nothing else, as always, thank you for your time and your service to our city. >> One question, sorry. What was the date of the meeting again? November 13th, you said? >> Yep. Thursday, November 13th. >> Okay. Thank you. And this and you said you're gonna have Q&A and is this I'm just unfamiliar with the meeting. >> No, it's okay. Uh it will start next door at the senior center at six o'clock and that's more of an informal get together uh council members will be there along with staff members and other members of the community that uh have something to share and bring to >> okay >> uh city. So it's kind of an informal get together. can mingle, ask questions, and then at 7 o'clock, it transitions here where we actually record it. Well, council will be saying up here, and we usually have some somebody with a microphone or residents can come up here and ask questions to council. >> Wonderful. Wonderful. And this is advertised on the on the on the sign on that the kiosk sign and stuff. Okay. Uh and usually uh some sandwich board signs are put out uh along some of the county roads, the busier county roads within the city to help advertise it. >> Good. So the residents know. Wonderful. >> Thank you. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brian. >> Thanks. >> All righty. Does anyone have any changes, corrections to the minutes? >> I do. Uh just one page four, line 118. I'd like that change. So, it reads, Terry noted that he agrees with the need for larger acres for these buildings. So, we're adding need for after the and changing properties to buildings. >> Okay, great. >> And Grace, you've got that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Any other changes? No. Okay. So, is there a motion to approve the minutes with the changes? >> Make a motion to approve the minutes with the changes. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. And opposed. That passes. And the next thing we're going to have is a public hearing. um from Troy and Lorie Slater. >> Good evening, commissioners. This is a public hearing for variances for the size and number of accessory structures located on property at 22206 Durant Street Northeast. Troy and Lorie Slater have applied for two variances to allow the addition of a 150x60 foot or 9,000 square foot accessory structure on their property located at 22206 Durant Street Northeast. This property is 29.82 acres. It is zoned agricultural and guided rural residential. The property to the west is zoned agricultural and the properties to the north, east, and south are zoned rural residential. You may remember that this property was reszoned from Morell residential to agricultural in March of this year. It is my understanding that staff members working on that project at that time were aware that the applicant may want to construct additional accessory structures in the future, but they did not know the applicant's exact plans. They were unaware of the size of the proposed structure and whether the applicant would be demolishing any of the existing structures before applying for an additional structure. Uh, this property currently has four existing accessory structures totaling 1,652 square ft. The location of the proposed accessory structure is pictured on the screen with the yellow box on their property. That's an approximation. It would be near the center of their lot lines um, north and south on that part of their property. This is a request for two variances that are required for the construction of the building as proposed. The first variance is for a fifth accessory structure on a single parcel. Uh, city code section 14-4 subdivision A limits properties over 5 acres to four accessory structures. So, a variance is needed to allow a fifth structure. The second variance is for a total accessory structure square footage of 10,652 ft on a single parcel. Uh this is required again by that same section of the zoning ordinance which establishes the maximum accessory structure square footage on a single property of this size as 8,760 square ft. Uh both so this is an overage of 1,892 square feet on this property being proposed. Uh both variances are required for the proposed structure to be built um as the applicant has requested. It would be possible to grant one variance without granting the other, though the applicant would have to change their plans. If the first variance were granted without the second, the applicant would be able to build a smaller structure um that would be under that maximum square footage threshold of 8760 ft. Uh if the second variance is granted without the first uh the applicant would be able to build that larger structure but they would have to demolish an existing structure to stay at that uh four accessory structure threshold. This is a sketch that the applicant has provided of the proposed building. It is 60 by 150 ft. Uh I would like to note that agricultural buildings are exempt from the state building code and the city's architectural standards. Agricultural buildings are defined as buildings on agricultural land that are used for cultivation, raising, drying, and storage of agricultural products along with the storage of machinery used to support agricultural production. Again, these are exempt from building code standards standards and do not go through building plan review with the city if they are used solely for those agricultural purposes. Uh they cannot be used for personal storage. So, this is something that we have added as a condition of approval for these variances that the structure would not be used for personal storage. Um, cities may still choose to regulate these types of buildings through their zoning ordinances even though they are exempt from um the building code. East Bethl does exempt agricultural buildings from our architectural standards, but they are still required to comply with the other standards pertaining to accessory structures established in section 14 of the code. These include square footage and the total number of structures allowed on one property. Um, so that's why this variance is being requested. I would like to also highlight that this building does meet the city's architectural standards, though it does not have to. Uh, there are two two windows on the side of the building that would face the rightway as pictured here. Um, so that does mean that this building would meet those standards even though it doesn't have to. To evaluate a variance, uh the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they have a practical difficulty that can only be remedied by the granting of a variance. We do this through the practical difficulties test. The three standards are first that the request is reasonable. This evaluates whether the applicant is looking to use the property in a way that is sensible but not authorized by the code. The second standard is that the variance request is due to a unique circumstance on the property that is not caused by the landowner. This is often something like the proximity of a building to a wetland or a septic site or the presence of sloping topography. Um this is usually the most difficult standard to meet. Um and that third standard is that the variance if granted will not have a negative impact on neighborhood character. So this looks at whether the proposed change will look out of place or out of scale in the surrounding neighborhood. staff finds that this application does not meet the uniqueness standard, though the planning commission could find differently and we would um thus uh alter the draft resolution. Uh the staff directs the planning commission to open the public hearing and make a recommendation to the city council. Uh based on the applicant submission, the contents of the staff report, public testimony, and other EV evidence, uh you may recommend approval of both variances if you find that they meet all three both of the variances meet all three standards of the practical difficulties test. If you do not find that both of the variance meet variances meet those standards, uh you may recommend denial of both variances. And if you find that one variance meets those standards and the other does not, you may recommend approval of one variance and denial of the other. Um findings of fact for approval and denial have been included in your packet in the draft resolutions. Um the these can be modified. I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Grace. Okay, I'm going to open up the public uh hearing for this. Does anyone want to come up to the podium? First of all, that is not Troy Slater or um if not Troy, do you want to come up and say anything about this? >> It ain't big enough. >> Yeah, big enough. Okay. Um so, no one's come wanting to come up. I'm going to close the public hearing and then we'll have our discussion. Okay. And um first of all, I just want to say that I'm going to recuse myself from the voting. Grace, do you know if I can be in the discussion but not the voting? >> I do not know that. Um >> I believe you can. >> Okay. >> I mean from what I passed on meetings >> on Yeah. with Robert's rules, right? >> Okay. So, so we'll um just take it from there then that I'm going to recuse myself from the voting since we have a quorum without me. Anybody want to have any um thoughts? >> Um when I was reading this, I thought that's a lot of buildings. Um but I've never had an agricultural operation before. Um, I was looking at the overhead map and I saw there were a few smaller ones kind of smooshed together there. What a 12 x 12, 14 by 14. Um, and so as far as uh granting the variance for more than four uh buildings, I was my first thought was well, if one of the smaller ones was taken care of, I think the addition of this larger one would I could see that being okay. I don't know about granting a variance to get the fifth building just I guess I don't know if the if the landowner just is if those buildings are full uh if it's just a pain to remove one. So that was something I was uh wanting to get more some more light on. Um as far as uh exceeding the maximum square footage by over 1,800 square feet. Um 9,000 square ft is a massive uh structure and I was thinking that it could probably be sized down a little bit. So that's kind of where I'm at right now. I'm really not in favor of either one of the variances at this moment or of recommending them. So that's where I'm at. Has anyone else thought about the the number of buildings and thought that if one were added maybe one could be removed? >> Okay. And um maybe we after the discussion we might need to call Troy up here if you have some questions but >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Without having more information as to why the the need for this building and the I agree. I agree. >> The explanation is is not does not justify the reasons that we have to come up with a variance. So there are numerous agricultural properties in East Bethl. I don't know that they've had to get variances to have more buildings or larger square footage, but I don't know that the history of that if that's the case or not. But the the main thing is number two, um due to the circumstances unique to the property, not created by the land owner. Um, again, these these out buildings, especially that 10 x 10 is pretty small. Um, I don't know why we why that needs to stay up, although it's not my property. I don't use it. So, but removing that would take care of the need for additional buildings. the size I would need more than it's small compared to the 30 acres to be convinced that it's there's a reason that I'm not aware of because it was before my time as to why there's a limit to the square footage. But that's the rules that we have and I don't see as yet a compelling reason to go beyond that. There may well be one, but and that's why we're here. >> Okay, Christina, you had some comments. >> I I I would I would echo uh Brian and uh same same thoughts as uh I I guess I'm looking for kind of what the other buildings are being used for. that um we need to now have the other building built to take care of. Um it's just unclear in kind of the the variance. I believe the 10 by 10 is exempt because it's it's a small building so it's exempt. So I think that's not part of the count but still uh so yeah I guess I think just to get clarification on what the what the existing buildings are being utilized for and then what this new agricultural building is going to be um what it's going to be used for. I believe is this a B? this is a bee business, a bee honey business of of some sort or some like I believe when I looked things up of some. So there's some questions that I have. I I mean I feel like in general though we have some guidance and some some specifications as far as how much square foot you can have per acreage. I guess that was set. You're right. We have to follow that. But I mean, in general, as far as like the footprint on the land, it looks acceptable to me. I feel like it's it it looks acceptable. It's not like you're cramming a big building in between the house and some sheds. So, it it looks very acceptable. So, I think I would just need to get some more clarification of what what the buildings are going to be utilized for and understand kind of what what's the what we're using this for. >> Okay. Corey, >> I'm okay with it. It's to me the amount of acres and the size of the building and it's a farm. I I truly have no problem with it. I mean, I have a threeacre lot and the city would approve 2400 square foot building. That's not even close to comparison, you know, and he's a farmer. He's got a lot more equipment than I do. So, I I think the site, the layout, the use, it's farming. It's I'm acceptable to it. >> Okay. I mean, it's just the way I feel. >> Yeah. Well, and me, too. So, um I mean, you all know I'm a farmer and Bruce and I were trying to figure out how many square feet we have on our We have 73 acres, so it's a a little bit more than than Troy's. And we have a lot of square feet on ours. And there's farms all over the city that I'm sure have a lot of square footage on their things. And did they get variances? Did this happen before the code? Um, like Corey says, it's a farm and and you know, so many people in the city are talking about how wonderful it is to have farms and do building developments and we have a farmer that wants to put up a 9,000 square foot building and put a little bit more than what the code says for square footage. So, I'm totally um for it and and invested, too. You know, Troy is my friend and um he sells honey at our farm stand. So, I can't be um impartial in the vote, but I can state that I think that it's very very reasonable for him to have a 9,000 foot building. You know, he's he's going to come up and explain why it needs to be 9,000 ft. But that's my feelings. Troy, would you mind coming up? I'm going to reopen the public hearing and would you like to talk or would you just like the people to ask some questions? >> I'll answer some questions. >> You had some on the other buildings. >> Yep. So, just again curious on um so just explaining what the other out buildings are. >> Uh background of that place is one of the original homesteads of Anoka County. who was homesteaded two years after no became an NOA became a county. >> Okay. >> And I think uh only a couple years before this was a state. >> So there's some buildings on there some historical value. I'm not demolishing buildings. >> Okay. >> In fact, uh right now I'm trying to get some people to go through and uh it's a phase one historical thing that the USDA wants done. So, I still don't understand that one yet, but where can I get that done? Uh, 110 by 10 building is a building over top of the old well where the windmill was. Now, that well is still being used. Okay. The other buildings are are full farming equipment and TAC uh be supplies. I have part of my operation on my bees uh far as extracting in my basement right now which is kind of a pain in the eye. So once you put the machinery in this new building and you put 8,000 square bales and you put a couple hundred round bales in there for sale, um there's no room. This building needs to be another 5,000 square ft bigger for me. So, we're talking we got one over 1.3 million square feet of land and we're talking just covering up 9,000 square ft of it. If you're going to lot it off, put buildings in there, houses and stuff. I think we're going to cover a lot more than 9,000 square feet with driveways, their out buildings and housing, all that. So I guess if that's an issue, it shouldn't be. >> Thank you. Yes, I'm just looking for some understanding. So yes, like I said, I the footprint of it of how you have it laid out. I mean, again, it makes complete sense to me. I just wanted to better understand kind of what your operation was and what the buildings were that were existing. To hear that you have some historical buildings on your property and you want to, you know, retain those, by all means, I mean, it it makes sense to me. So again, just just wanted to, you know, get the picture, get the full picture. >> Your original house is still on property. >> Yeah, I see that. So, yep. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> That was all good information that had it been on here, I probably would have addressed this differently because I would have known what was going on. >> I didn't know what to give you guys for information. You know, I I guess I look at it as a agricultural property. and what we use it for and that's agricultural what we do is our income >> right >> so >> what you know in your mind doesn't translate to what we know reading this unless we have something to go with so that's why the explanation was very >> there isn't anybody up here except for Sharon that has any agricultural background >> yeah I think the the tough one was the uniqueness I mean really right and actually I can see you know if he's got historical buildings that is unique >> right >> to the property. Um >> that makes the first one very easy. That's a the uniqueness to the property. >> Yeah, absolutely. Yep. Absolutely. >> Okay. Any other questions? No. Okay. I think we'll close the public hearing unless you want to do more talking. >> Okay. We'll close that. Thank you. Okay. any more discussion from you all? >> Well, like I say, I just especially with even that I I think it's a fine use and I like that the city has something in the ordinance about not for private storage, you know, like I can't pay him to store my camper there. >> Exactly. I mean, that's a farm. >> Yeah, that's a rule. Um so actually Troy and I did work on one of the concepts together a lot is whether um an agricultural building has to be subject to your city's building codes and things and I've known for a long time that it hasn't. Troy knows it also and I think that Troy did some more research actually and one of the things is you can't use it for personal storage. You can't put your car in that garage. So, I can't put the car in our shed either, you know. That's >> seems a little extreme. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's the rules, >> Brian. >> I'm still hung up on that uniqueness part. Um I mean, we're kind of setting precedents here. if these are if these are recommended. Um he just said he's going to ask for another 5,000 square foot building a couple years down the road. I mean >> I don't think he said that that he >> he said he needed another 500 Yeah, >> he did not directly say you're right. I I misspoke. >> Yeah. I mean because it's like whenever I'm not trying to argue with you, but I'm just going to interject that you know it seems that whenever you build a building, you always need more 50% more space. every garage I've ever had. >> Yep. >> You know, so >> Yep. But I just I think that if we if we do recommend it, then that's going to set precedence for number of buildings and storage square footage. Um just um something that needs to be asked for and it won't be it couldn't be um denied by council or by commission if you know if we set precedences with this one. That's what I want us to be weary of. I disagree about the couldn't deny if we set a precedent because each situation is unique and in this case the historical buildings um that's pretty special and different than any reason I've seen before. So that's unique right there. As far as the square footage, um that's why I needed to hear explanation. Um, in general, I don't like to be restrictive of things that people need to do to do what they do. And obviously, proportion is reasonable. So, I was trying to find, well, how do we justify going over that? Um, he explained with the storage of the bales and whatnot why it needs to be that size. I did not know that just reading what he wrote. But um to me that's a practical use for an agricultural property doing agricultural work. So I don't have a problem with that. >> One more thing. >> Sure. Come on up. I'm going to reopen the public hearing. Yeah, I forgot to say that there was a big barn on that property that I tore out and a big machine shed is already gone. Now, this heavy snow taking them down, but uh so I guess we're not adding anything else really. There was more structures on that property >> to begin with. Like lots of farms. >> I said like lots of farms. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean lots of farms have many different buildings. >> Okay. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing again. And Brian, do you want any more discussion before we take a vote? >> No more discussion. >> Anybody else want to say anything? Do we have a motion on these two variances? Does that could Can they both be on one motion? Do you think >> I believe so? Yes. >> I'll make a motion to approve both variances. One for the additional building beyond the fourth accessory structure and secondly to approve the requested overage of square feet. Um adding any staff recommendations pertaining to this. >> Okay, >> I second. >> Great. >> Okay, all in favor say I. >> I >> I >> and opposed. >> I >> Okay, and I'm abstaining. So, there were three eyes and one no and one abstension. Okay. and Troy, this is going to um city council on what date do you know? >> Monday, September 8th. >> Okay. So, there's one more meeting to go to and this is just a recommendation to the city council. So, we don't approve these things or disapprove them, but we after talking it about it, I'll give our recommendation to the city council. Okay. Thank you for your patience and we'll see you soon. Okay. And the next item is another public hearing um from Tom Carla Lyle of Sherold Construction. This is a public hearing for a reasonzoning a PUD or planned unit development preliminary plan and a preliminary plat for Cliffs Anderson acres which is a three lot subdivision. Tom Carlyle of Sherco Construction has applied for this reszoning PUD preliminary plan and preliminary plat for a three lot subdivision called Cliff Sanderson acres located north of County Road 74 or 217th Avenue. Uh this parcel is currently 20.35 acres. It is zoned and guided rural residential. The properties to the south and west are zoned and guided the same. The property to the north is part of the Gordy Mickelson Wildlife Management Area and is zoned Park or Natural Area and the properties to the east are part of a subdivision within Lynwood Township. This property is within the significant natural environmental area overlay. Uh this is an overlay district that is applied to properties that have been identified by the Met Council, Anoka Conservation District, andor the DNR as containing native vegetation or natural resources that contribute to the health, welfare, and quality of life for East Bethl residents. Um you may remember a significant discussion about this as it was presented to the planning commission as a concept plan on May 17th or May May 27th, my apologies, and the city council on June 9th at their meetings. uh this concept plan received non-binding approval and the applicant was advised to move forward with with the platting process. There are three request requests in this application. The first is for a reszoning to the planned unit development overlay. This is required by section 59 of the zoning ordinance for properties within that SNA overlay. Uh the second is for the approval of a PUD preliminary plan. This is again required by that same section of code for properties within that overlay. As a reminder, the purpose of a PUD is to allow for flexibility and variation in development standards in exchange for a higher level of design, environmental protection, landscaping, pedestrian access or anything else. So, a higher quality of development um in exchange for this PUD. And that third request is for the approval of the preliminary plat. This is required by section 56 of the zoning code for properties being developed as PUDs. Uh the city has a relatively high level of discretion when it comes to evaluating a reszoning and a PUD. Both must meet the comp plan standards and the PUD must meet additional standards established within section 56 of the code. Your packet contains an analysis of each of these standards. A preliminary plat is subject to slightly less discretion. Um, the city must approve the preliminary plat if the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the city's subdivision and zoning ordinance and the conditions of the preliminary plat approval. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the plat. This is a quick look at the proposed plat. Again, this is for three lots, each of which are approximately 6.5 acres, a little bit under that. Um, these lots meet the lot area and with standards established within the code for the rural residential zoning district along with the overall density requirement of one unit per acre for the rural residential land use district uh as designated by the comp plan. This won't bring us above that one unit per 10 acre average throughout the whole city. Uh, this plat features two drainage basins to address storm water runoff. Uh there are the proposed uh home locations and septic areas meet the setbacks that are required within this zoning district. Uh no new roads are proposed as a part of this subdivision and each property will be served by individual well and septic. There are also likely no wetlands on the property though a final determination is required from the TP and that is under review at the moment. Uh the city did receive updated materials on August 20th from the applicant. Uh the application has been reviewed by the city engineer and the anoka county highway department. Each have each have applied or each have supplied comments on this plat which are included in your packet and as a part of the resolution. Uh the city has found that this application meets all the standards for a preliminary plat request. Though the applicant will need to update plans prior to uh submitting for a final plat approval if this preliminary plat PUD and resoning are approved. Um the applicant did submit updated materials on August 20th, so late last week after the packet was drafted. So they are not included. Uh but a preliminary review of these materials has found that the applicant and the development team have met many of the conditions on the draft resolution uh such as conditions pertaining to the driveway access site distances, vehicle maintenance access area, the wetland determination, and the driveway encroachment. Uh many of these uh comments are being addressed or have been addressed. Uh it does appear that the applicant will still need to address some of the county's requests for additional rightway and an additional easement request for the vehicle maintenance access easement. Though staff is confident that the applicant is working towards addressing those and should be able to satisfactorily do that before applying for a final plat. Staff has found that the proposed reszoning to planned unit development overlay is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the proposed planned unit development preliminary plan meets the stam standards established within the zoning ordinance. Again, those an analysis of each of those standards is supplied within your packet. As a reminder, the purpose of a PUD is to again allow that flexibility in exchange for a higher level of design. I do want to emphasize here that I think the main thing that we're going to look at with this PUD would be that environmental protection aspect. Uh well, as staff has reviewed this application, we found that there's a very limited environmental impact associated with this development. It appears that the home pads are pa placed on land that is already bare agricultural land. There's a small number of trees being removed for the driveways and there really is a limited site disturbance. Uh that being said, as the planning commission, you can impose additional conditions on the approval of this plat um pertaining to anything, but specifically in this case, you could impose conditions related to environmental quality. So that might look something like applying conditions related to requiring a certain number of native plantings on the site. Though staff does staff has not recommended any specific conditions because again we find that the impact is very minimal. Additionally, the applicant is not requesting any PUD flexibility. So the proposed plan meets all of the standards within the zoning ordinance. It just has to go through that PUD step because of that overlay district that's already on it. Uh staff directs the public or the planning commission to open the public hearing and recommend approval if you find that through the content of contents of the staff report, public testimony and other other evidence available that the ordinance to approve the resoning and the resol resolution to approve the preliminary PUD plan and preliminary plat for Cliff's Anderson acres meet the standards for approval. If you do not find that these uh this ordinance and this resolution uh for the reasonzoning PUD preliminary plan and preliminary plat meet those standards, you may recommend denial uh if you can identify uh one or more areas of the code uh that are not being met. Uh staff does not recommend this option. Um any of the resolutions can be uh can be the draft resolutions can be modified to reflect your findings and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Grace. I'm opening the public hearing for this and if anyone would like to come up to the podium, please do. And Tom, would you mind coming on up? >> And if you could just please state your name and >> Tom Carl >> into the microphone, please. >> Tom Carile Sho Construction. >> Okay. What would you like to tell us that Grace already hasn't said? Well, like Grace said, we've just got a little tree row along the road that we're going to have driveways in. Um, it's been a corn field. Um, so we're not disturbing any other trees. Um, the topography works out really good. There's a kind of a natural uh ridge that runs across there, so we're not doing a bunch of excavating. We've got some obviously some drainage ponds and so forth. Um the wetland um the lineator didn't find any wetlands and I think then there was some more questions. Grace can straighten me out on that and then he he answered those. So I don't believe you're going to find any wetlands. Um and yeah, I guess and it obviously backs up to the uh Nicholson Wildlife Area. So should be great. Okay. >> Shouldn't really impede anything. >> Okay. Before we close the public hearing then, do you people have any questions for Tom? >> Anybody? >> I didn't This might probably for Grace rather than Tom, but I you mentioned a vehicle maintenance access and I don't know what that means. >> Oh, that's uh for the storm water ponds. Basically, those are um under the maintenance of the city. So that's a ease meant to allow city to the city to access those and maintain anything that would need to be accessed. It's very standard for developments. Um pretty much everyone has that. >> Okay. >> No other questions. Well then I think we'll close the hearing. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much >> for coming up. Okay. Discussion. >> To save time, I'd like to make a motion to approve the PUD portion of this. >> Fabulous. Is there a second? >> I second. Okay. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say I. >> I. >> And opposed. Okay. That motion passes. So Tom, so we are recommending that according to the the motion from Mr. Terry that that this be approved and it will go to city council on September 8th. And again, we're not approving anything. We're just recommending this. >> Just to be clear, that was just for the PUB. We still have to discuss the preliminary preliminary. >> Okay. There's Okay. I'm so sorry. >> And the the reasonzoning by ordinance is also that needs to be approved. The separate motion too. >> Isn't that what the PUD is? >> So, it's three separate applications. The PUD is by resolution. Um, but before you can approve the PUD, you have to approve the resoning to put that overlay district onto the property. I'd like to amend my motion if I'm if it's still may to include the reszoning to PUB overlay. >> I just had one question. It said in our engineer report that wetland >> What did it say here? >> Uh wetland report is incomplete. So you know about that? >> Yes, that's something that's being addressed. There was um I believe some photos left out of it that were needed for completion, but that has as of this week been forwarded to a review panel for review. So that that won't affect it. >> Okay, perfect. >> Yeah, it was my understanding that wasn't quite complete, but they weren't expecting anything. >> Sounds good. >> Why don't we make a new motion? >> Right. I make a motion to uh approve the reszoning to a plan unit develop overlay and to approve the PUD preliminary plan. I'll second that. >> Great. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion? >> Do you want to put a provision in this about subject to approval of the wetlands? >> Okay. >> I think it's I'm confident it's covered >> agrees >> and those have already been included as conditions of approval. >> Okay, great. >> So, all in favor say I. I. >> I. And opposed. >> And that one passes. So, again, Tom, that we're We're making recommending approval of that. Also, >> we're not done though because I that was two out of three. >> Oh my gosh. >> We didn't do the preliminary preliminary plat. >> Okay. >> I just thought that deserved a separate motion. >> Okay. Do you want to do one? >> Well, if there's no discussion, but there might be, so I left that open. Okay. Sorry to do this this way, but anyway, uh I make a motion to approve the preliminary plat with the recommendations from staff included. >> I second. Fabulous. Any discussion? If not, we will take a vote. All in favor say I. >> I. And opposed. >> And that passes unanimously. Okay. Any more? No, I'm done. >> This is why you are here. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And what do we have next? We have a staff update. >> Yes. I have two quick updates. Um, last night at the city council meeting, the city approved the hire of a temporary part-time staff member for the community development department. >> And I'm so sorry, but that was closing just as I didn't hear what they were approved. uh they approved the hire of a temporary part-time staff member for the community development department. I'm sure some of you are aware that about 90% of the city's property files are paper. Um so we need some help getting those scanned in and digitized. So this temporary employer will be helping us scan and digitize those files. So it'll not only improve staff efficiency, also eventually hopefully residents will be able to look up their own property files. Um and that will just boost everyone's ability to access the information that they need without having to go through us as staff. So that's my first update. The second one is that looking ahead to next month, we have at least one project, possibly two or three, um, that will be up for review at the planning commission meetings. So, expect to be back here on September 23rd. That's that's all I've got. >> Okay. So, and thank you. You did great tonight. >> Thank you. >> Flying solo. >> So, Grace, I got a question. When we have these and we're having a public hearing on a property like this, do residents, how do they get notified that we're having a public hearing? >> Yes. So, we publish a hearing notice in uh the newspaper. I believe that's the Chicago County Star. Uh so, those get published there at least 15 days in advance, I believe it is. And then we also mail out public hearing notices to everyone within uh it depends on your zoning district but typically 350 ft of your property lines or 1,200 something feet. Okay. >> So they're mailed out. But that's typically why we set deadlines to get those land use applications is because as staff we have to meet our public hearing notice deadlines. >> I thought I knew that. But I'm very surprised how few people come, you know, I to >> when there's lot splits and different things cuz I just thought more neighbors would have input for or against either. I'm not saying either direction, but >> when they have issues, they certainly show up. >> Yeah. But we we generally have pretty low. So that's why I was curious if we did actual mailings, but >> Yes. >> But I thought we did. So, all right. Thanks, Any other comments? >> Oh, um, are there any applications for new planning commissioners? >> Um, so the term for the new planning commissioner would be up in January of 2026. So, I've talked with uh the city administrator and administrative staff. Um, they can publish for a new um for a new planning commissioner. They have not yet, but if you would like me to talk to them about that, I can get that in motion. >> What do you guys think? >> Who would they be filling a place of >> the last Well, there was >> Elden or No, Elden wasn't approved. So, >> right, >> we had we approved two. So, it was Gabe and Gabriel and um Diana. >> Christine, I don't remember who you replaced. >> Gabriel, I think. >> Yeah, she's in Gabriel's spot. So, I'm guessing that's >> Yeah. Yeah. Diana kind of quit in the middle of her, >> right? >> So, um two, three, five, six. >> Do we need another? I mean, how many do we >> seven is what's um in our code? I think there are some advantages to having seven when it comes to um you know quorum and um making sure that you don't have a an even number. You it's a bit of a problem if you have an even number. Um but so far you guys have not encountered any difficulties with that and >> um it's up to you on what you would like to do here. >> Yeah, it's mostly the quorum that I worry about and you know as long as we have four um two of us can be gone. Three, right? Two. We have six. Sorry. Farmer math. >> Okay. Um, should we just leave it or try to fill it? >> Let's try to fill it. >> Fill it. >> Doesn't matter to me. >> It would be nice by the first of the year to have a full form. I mean, I don't know if we have to fill it before that, but if we could get seven starting in 26, I think it'd be nice. Okay. So, there seems to be consensus on that. Could you ask him to please post it? >> Yes, I will ask that to be posted. >> Okay. So, then that term would be up. >> It would be up come January 31st of 2026. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Nothing else. Anything else? Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Great. All in favor say I. I. And opposed. >> Okay, that passes. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you.