##VIDEO ID:Wru1vygxO5Y## [Music] [Music] all right we'll call the meeting to order on behalf of the Planning Commission I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of October 8th 2024 on tonight's agenda we have two public hearings we will handle those and order as shown on the agenda before we open the public hearings we have one housekeeping item that would be the minutes from our September 10th regular meeting are there any additions or corrections to those minutes no if not is there a motion motion to approve we have motion for approval is there a second second Motion in second all in favor say I I I minutes are approved thank you with that then we'll open up both public hearings uh the first public hearings a variance request from city code section 10 514b to constru conru a commercial daycare at 4640 Canen Drive the applicant is Insight development services Jared you'll take this yes thank you chair members of the Planning Commission uh this request for you tonight is for a variance for a future commercial daycare to be located at 4640 Canen drive so the subject property here is just south of Canen drive here just south of the Northfield uh Farmington clinic and just south McDonald's as well um as you stated the is inside development services uh the property owner is CL properties to uh this property is zoned Spruce Street mixed use with the sprw street overlay District um and this request is a front yard setback variance from city code section 10 514b uh for the eventual construction of a commercial daycare building uh as the commission may recall the same request was scheduled back for the July meeting um but that was withdrawn due as the applicant was working through an unresolved issue uh that issue has been resolve sense uh so this parcel is 1.37 Acres of vacant land and it was ploted as lot two block three of the Vermillion River Crossings development uh the applicant is looking to develop the site with commercial daycare which is a permitted use uh in the Spruce Street Muse District uh per city code uh the front yard setback requirement in the zoning district is that at least 50% of the building front has to be within 20 ft of the public RightWay which would be can and drive uh the applicant is requesting a variance to have 0% of the building front within 20 feet of cans and drive um I just like would like to emphasize that this request does not include approval of a site plan um this is just the variance itself uh the applicant would like to ensure the commission is comfortable with the variance before pursuing final site plan approval so the applicant did provide um a concept plan of how the building would be laid out on the site um as you can see this red line here at top of the Parc would be the 20ft setback requirement so basically city code would require 50% of the building to be within um that red line between the RightWay um as you can see from the concept plan the building is set back further than 20 ft um with the parking lot um taking up most of that front yard setback and then with a playground behind the building and again this request tonight is not approving the site plan um the site plan itself Landscaping are architectural renderings things like that would come further down the road this is just to see if the commission uh would approve the building um not being within that 20 feet of canuts and drive so the applicant did provide a brief narrative explaining their reasonings for the request uh the first one is the parcel only AB buts one street and is moderately narrow uh placing 50% of the building front within 20 ft of can and drive limits the amount of access drives needed to provide proper site circulation um additional access drives will enhance Public Safety and emergency access and then the site layout on the parcel lends itself to place the playground behind the building further away from the street and parking lot for child safety um so all in all to ensure proper circulation and child safety on this parcel the building must be set back further from the street um as the commission is aware there's uh variance approval criteria per city code section 1036 uh that variances must meet uh staff believe that all nine of these criteria included in your packet uh the application has met so the action requested before the commission tonight is to approve the requested variance from city code section 10 514b to allow for 0% of the building front to be within 20 ft of the public RightWay for the eventual construction of a commercial daycare at 4640 can and drive with the following condition is that they um a site plan application must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission uh for the proposed daycare thank you J uh with us tonight representing the applicants of Mr Graham Mr Graham do you have add to the staff report yeah absolutely good evening ladies and gentlemen thank you for your time tonight um I think Jared did a pretty good uh job summarizing our request and uh the reasons we're making this request uh I just want to emphasize mostly uh this is coming from a site circulation uh Viewpoint we want to make sure that we can get two access points into the property uh so parents can drive in drop their children off um and then easily pull out without creating any future or further traffic conflicts with other parents coming in uh and then typically we always like to have our uh playground uh set back as far as possible from the public right away uh both for from a child safety uh and then privacy standpoint we will have a six- foot fence around the playground um but again it's just uh best if possible to have as far back from the right away um so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any thank you Mr this is a public hearing if you got comments or questions regarding this variance please raise your hand the commission is not going to talk about site plan tonight this is strictly a variance regarding uh Frontage on the road there will be future uh uh meetings public hearings that'll address site plan and everything else but just tonight it's on the variance are there any comments or questions regarding this seeing none commissioner leato I have no questions that looks good commissioner snowback can I just ask that that that 20 foot reasoning um what's the reason why that's in place so Tony you can correct me if I'm wrong the Spruce Street mixed use District um kind of the purpose of it was to kind of create a walkable um kind of sort of like a downtown type of District where the building fronts are kind of right along the street um and so the purpose of the front yard setback would be to you know make sure buildings comply with being right along the street so follow up to that the next business that comes in um are they going to be followed by that same 20 foot standard like does that change things for the incoming businesses that could be next to it no they would have to go through the same proc process to get a variance for it um I would like to note too that this is one of the few Parcels within this zoning District that doesn't have more than one public RightWay that at a buts that just has canes and drive so it makes it more difficult for the building to um adhere to that so does the staff feel that that would be a problem for future purchases of of that property next to it like if is it would be okay if the building's so close to the road versus that one or what would you encourage them to be further away from the the street to be similar in in layout or it doesn't matter not necessarily um from a staff perspective I wouldn't see an issue with that okay thank you commissioner winshuttle no I think it looks good I agree with the variance that make sense with the building layout if that's what you are going to put up there with the playground in the back so looks good it does when this commission and previous commissions look at daycares we have one concern or really one thing in mind and that's the safety of the children and this variance and the applicant is addressing just that the safety of the children by having adequate drop off and pickup type of uh drives and also placing the uh the playground in probably the safest area they could on the lot so I I would be in favor of this variance um variances for this community are approved by the Planning Commission this is not a recommendation to our city council it would be a strictly uh decision by the Planning Commission with that i' look for a motion to close the public hearing motion to close there a second second motion a second call the roll please windsh yes Rody yes Le yes snowback yes in front of the commission then a variance from city code section 10514 to construct a commercial daycare um uh at 4640 Canen drive with one condition that a site plan application must be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission is there anything else Tony on that if that I'd look for a motion motion to approve have a motion for approval there a second second motion and second any more discussion if not call the roll please R yes L yes snowback yes windshadow yes all right thank you thank you Mr Graham with that then we'll move into our second public hearing uh this is to amend the 20 240 comprehensive plan for the properties known as Fountain Valley Golf Course in the Angus property the applicants of city of Farmington Tony you'll take this I will thank you Mr chair commission members get out of this quick all right thank you commission members uh I would like to uh kind of go through why we're here this evening specifically with the comprehensive plan Amendment um as the commission is aware um the city started a midcycle um 2040 comprehensive plan Amendment um well over a year ago um to look at not only um the downtown area but the overall Community as a whole um and as part of that midcycle Amendment we were looking at these these Parcels that were before you this evening as part of that um and why we decided to do this do these two Parcels or these three Parcels I should say separately to pull them out of that larger Amendment um is in large part that midcycle larger Amendment um is taking a little bit longer we had anticipated it being approved um around the same time as all these other approvals that we are doing for um the track project um but with um dealing with some other areas of the community and working with the Metropolitan Council um that overall larger amendment is just taking longer um and it doesn't mean it's not aligning with the time frame that we're looking for for um the track development so that's the main reason we are separating it out this evening um but but with that being said I do want to give a quick update on the comprehensive plan um the larger midcycle update as well um just to give an idea of where we've been with that and where we're going with that um update um it originally started in 2022 um when we initially started the the process of trying to update or amend that comprehensive plan uh we drafted an RFP sent it out um um set up interviews with different Consultants um then uh we ended up losing a number of staff due to them moving on to different uh positions elsewhere uh and because of that we put a pause on that uh process uh we reinitiated that process back in January of 2023 um the city council then met on uh in March of that year uh moving forward with the approval of the Prof Professional Services agreement um and that is with h KGI who was here for our work session earlier um then April through July of 2023 um what we call phase one that was our information gathering Community input draft land use planning um during that time we did uh a project website which is still active we did a number of popup events both at the police um open house and also at um um in uh a event at uh the Rambling River Park and at the library um where we had these uh popup popup events um and we also had various landowner meetings too during that period of time uh then September of 23 the Planning Commission had a meeting um along with a special Council work session again that focusing specifically on the uh vision and land use for that uh update uh and then March of 2024 of this year again there was a joint meeting with the planing commission and city council um to discuss the comp plan update uh and more specifically the future land use plan and then June of this year again there was another uh Joint City Council planing commission meeting again to uh provide an update um based uh on some revised uh plans for that land use uh the next steps then we still are trying to get that midcycle Amendment um approved either by end of the year or very early in 2025 um but from the period now through that time we'll be holding uh open house open meetings at Community meanss uh there will need to be a public hearing at this commission um for that larger Amendment um and then once that gets approved by city council um we have to wait for what's called 60-day adjacent jurisdiction um agency review um you said you can send that out prior to the approval by the city council um that is just a requirement of the Metropolitan Council and their process so by the time you submit to the the Met Council that 60-day period either has to be um ended or um a waiver uh signed off by those adjacent jurisdictions um and then hopefully uh we're looking to get that approved and then um authorized to submit to the Met Council um by hopefully the end of the year um to get that approved so that's generally where we're at with that larger Amendment um it has been a work in progress for a quite a while now um but hopefully we do see the uh light at the end of the tunnel specifically for that one um but just wanted to being that we're pulling this specific action out um from that I just wanted to give the commission an update as to where we are and why we're doing what we're doing so with that um we are seeking uh Amendment to the 2040 comprehensive plan uh this evening uh it's for uh three Parcels the first first one is the uh Fountain Valley Golf Course um which is addressed at 2830 220th Street West uh the request is to amend the uh 240 comprehensive plan land use and development staging for the property this includes a land use plan uh Amendment uh from mixed from a mixture of commercial L deny residential low medium density residential medium density residential and parking open space to what is called mixed use commercial industrial the proposed amendment also includes changing the anticipated uh development staging for the partiel from post 2040 to 2020 2030 time frame um and this parcel is about 160 Acres the next Amendment deals with the uh School District property or what we uh generally known as the Angus property which is just south of the golf course uh these Parcels are currently as I mentioned owned by School District 192 uh the amendment for these Parcels include adding them to the 2020 uh Musa which is our Metropolitan urban service area amending the 2040 comprehensive land use plan from non-designated uh to mixed uh use commercial industrial and including the parcels in the 2020 2030 development stag in time frame now as you'll notice the Angus property has a non-designated um designation right now and that's because of the annexation that had happened it comes in as a non-designated parcel uh as the commission is aware the commission did review a reone for these Parcels uh last month uh and recommended approval to the city council regarding those rezonings uh that recommendation has yet been taken to the city council but we anticipate that happening in early November uh and it would likely go along with this comprehensive plan Amendment the preliminary PL and PUD as well um but with this amendment uh it would align the zoning with the comprehensive plan if approved so therefore the action that recommended this evening is to recommend approval of the following amendments to the 2040 comprehensive plan and for that recommendation on to the city council number one p 145001 012 which is the Fountain Valley Golf Course amending the land use plan from a mixture of commercial low density residential low medium density residential medium density residential and park and open space to mixed use commercial and Industrial and changing the anticipated development staging from post 2040 to 2020 2030 in the the second one is for p 07005 76012 and 07005 0076 011 uh for the school district property or the Angus property and that Amendment would be adding these Parcels to the 2020 Musa uh amending the 2040 comprehensive plan comprehensive land use plan from non-designated to mixed use commercial industrial and including these Parcels in the 2020 2030 development staging time frame all right thank you Tony um and as Tony mentioned um this commission already addressed the resoning and the Pud at our last month's meeting so tonight it's really the uh comprehensive plan Amendment and that's what we're addressing uh so if there's any comments or questions regarding the comp plan Amendment please raise your hand come up to the podium state your name and address please yes I have a comment oh on Kathy Johnson I live at 22280 baring Avenue in um I have a comment from Nate Ryan who was unable to attend tonight and he said in his comments this hearing should have happened before the resoning vote which has already happened at Planning Commission the process is wrong um members of our group have looked at how the M Council has laid out the timeline and their order of operations and it's not being followed correctly the second one of Nate's comments is if the golf course was already U mixed use commercial industrial and a developer came and to change the zoning from muci to build Executive Estates would you approve it I doubt a developer would even ask that because why would you build a nice residential area right next to an muci but no I'm sure you wouldn't approve it because it's incompatible but yet that is what you're asking us to to shoulder uh why are you approving this compellent change um when it's in the middle of residential tax re revenue is not a reason to update the comp plan and the golf course property has already been included in that comp plan for nearly 20 years this isn't a midcycle update it's a rewrite of the comp plan because of the perceived tax revenues that negatively affect the properties around it for a Pacific Industrial project and now I have some comments of my own um most regarding the article from the Sun week um the sun week posted an article regarding data centers from Farmington elected officials several officials had visited the West de Mo W and Altuna sites one official said in reference to the Microsoft site in West De Moine that they only heard crickets they mentioned that the site was 48,000 Square ft but what was not mentioned is that the proposed site in Farmington is 2.5 million square ft the Farmington site is six times larger than what was observed in West De Moine the buildings appeared to be 6 fet tall from other observers in our group who have gone down to look at them um but the site was lower the site that they sat on was lower than the street level the city of Farmington is applying for a variance to local ordinance which now restricts Building height to 40 ft and proposing building Heights of 50 to 80 ft feet a burn with Landscaping will not mask the view of these buildings from long established residences nearby and a as the natural buffering does in West De Moine a 250 fot setback is very far from an ad from adequate in accomplishing the quiet which the leaders of Farmington said they observed in Iowa as a matter of fact research reveals over and over again that the Insidious hum basically cannot be masked and Christen Dean from track emphasized that there would be noise and but pledges that it would be within State uh allowances so noise is a given one member of the environmental Coalition in Farmington who also visited the West De Moine site said that the noise could not be heard from the two residences that are on one side however ironically there's a golf course also abing the Microsoft site and yes the lwh hum and air conditioner noise could be heard there major Hoy mayor Hoy said in the article that the plans for a data center were happening one year ago but that does not alter the fact that this is spot zoning he stated that West and north of executive States is zoned industrial upon studying the comp plan it's obvious that his statement is erroneous the only areas zoned Industrial in Farmington are over on Highway 50 between Flagstaff and danmark and then there's two tiny spots one I think is the Kemp plant I can't quite make out what the other one is but they're not near the tract site uh the mentioned the mentioned areas that are west of executive states are Zone commercial in an open hearing regarding the data center Mr Rod stated that Northern Virginia home values continue to rise despite the presence of many data centers what was omitted is that Northern Virginia is one of the most if not the most competitive housing markets in the United States being near the government military and related businesses around Washington DC is what drives the housing market not data centers one way or the other what the leaders of Farmington claim to be due diligence is in fact is in need of some factchecking and is far from a comparison of similar situations it is not nearly due diligence in an article from The Washington Post Montana developer Buck who builds higher-end houses states that residents near local new industrial developments are harder to sell the same article also stated that due to AI companies like Google Microsoft and Amazon are in a power grab for land for water and electricity they target smaller towns because and I'm quoting from the article here they think people are stupid or just need the money well I think the people of hermington are not stupid and I think the revenue can be brought into this town by appropriately placed data centers like the Bengal project it's already zoned industrial or by reaching out with generous offers on some of the 45% of Farmington land that's not developed nor near residential developments I would ask that the council vote no to Res zoning what has been promised by the city is not what is happening in other cities and towns where data centers are built or proposed there's no reason to believe that the reality here is different in farington than other places again to quote the Post article data center developers use predatory tactics to promote the construction of centers end of quote like the one proposed in southeast Farmington open your eyes and see it given the proximity of the election I would ask that the vote to to hisone be postponed until after the November election and when the vote does occur vote no to Illegal spot zoning the residents of hermington are not beholden to a to the whims of a mayor who tells the constituents to just move if they don't like the way the city's being run vote no to resoning thank you thank you other comments or questions [Music] good evening Planning Commission Esther can you hear me Esther Varga 3094 225th Street as people decide where to purchase a home they look into a city's comprehensive plan and surrounding zonings what not many people know is that they cannot always rely on these complants because City officials can change them on a whim if you choose to vote to change the comp plan to accommodate a new industrial Z resoning How can any residents and voters ever trust in our local government if the city council chooses to reone you are retrofitting the comp plan and you know it to fit into your schema of spot zoning which is illegal in Minnesota now that you already voted yes on resoning now you need to vote Yes to change the comp plan as this resoning is is deviation from what this land was always purposed the master plan did not deem this land these land pieces of lands industrial that is why we all felt safe to buy and build homes here it would be a different story if we all bought and build homes next to Industrial Zone we would have little basis to complain but by resoning you bring the industry next to us by our homes this is wrong in always ways and this is a huge deviation from one zone to another the tax revenue is just a promise you can't take it to the bank you cannot know how the state or the county will allocate property taxes and these companies get plenty tax Inc incentives tax revenue is not a reason to update a comp plan and this is not a midcycle update either I'm sorry I'm repeating Kathy since you did a great research on techn ology Consulting companies that benefit your decision you are sure aware of how quickly technology changes when that happens what will you vote for to bring in repl to replace these 2.5 million square feet buildings a Foundry paper meal tenery many people addressed the Planning Commission and City Council in the past several month and no one validated any of our concerns we were told our noise concern is perceived So speaking of noise you stated that you visited data centers that you found not noisy However the fact that track standing right here was saying that the noise will be within legal limits is in fact an admission of noise please read critically and listen critically your comparison of those centers is not Apple to Apple you saw a data center that was not online yet you saw a data center that was 400,000 square ft not 2.5 million great job at Gathering data and I'm mentioning that Dakota Electric has been talking data center since at least 2017 published in Republican Eagle yet this commission denied it and we were called spreading rumors about a technology park when it when we first brought it up considering that the chair of the commission is a former vice president of operations of Dakota Electric the electricity provider of the technology park even though retired in 2018 according to Pioneer Press this is still a great conflict of interest if the city votes on resoning we will litigate and look into this conflict of interest I extend exactly as much compassion for you as you expressed towards us thank you thank you and just to confirm uh Miss lger is correct I did work for Dakota Electric and I did retire in 2018 anybody else have a commment question yes Terry my name is Terry Pearson 2475 225th Street West the Farmington mayoral candidate Forum showcased two candidates the question put to the the candidates that I thought was most interesting asked in Your Vision what will Farmington look like in 25 years 25 years ago I could not have imagined that we'd be here talking about a data center Trenton Technology Park covering the Fountain Valley Golf Course and the Allen Angus farm if the properties are rezoned industrial this would be the largest data complex in the midwest united states only a fortune teller could have predicted this dedicating hundreds of Acres of green space and farmland to multi-story buildings would create a data desert for an uncertain Financial benefit for the city the true cost of a data desert would be borne by the neighborhood's closest to it if the homes were each a business with a $400 to $800,000 investment would the city be deaf to our concerns and blind to our demands if the computer technology continues to evolve at present speeds will the data center become obsolete in 25 years and be discarded and vacant will they have sucked up valuable Water Resources making the Farmington area a true desert unfit for farming will they have gobbled up huge amounts of electricity causing disruptions for residents I'm no fortune teller but in 25 years I'll bet the residents of Farmington will still be shopping dining working and maybe even attending schools in the larger cities to the north thank you thank you Terry yes hi my name is Kathy perago I live at 5081 13 Street in Farmington so the data center would be just south of me um so I live in the Park Place um residential area which is I believe around 3 miles from you know from where this is going to be built maybe maybe less anyway I'm sorry I don't have as you know my my notes as well written out as others but I will mention um several concerns that I have one as everybody else has been talking um the home value for those that you know live in the area that would be affected um affected in ways both known and unknown yet because um my understanding is there have been Health impacts um for people that in other areas such as in Texas where they have a Bitcoin um processing center where their hearing has been affected and um they've had health impacts as a result um probably one of my biggest concerns is the enormous use of water the impact of um that water use on our local aquafers my understanding is that the um the aquafer that that we draw from may be the same one that um is being proposed um to be drawn from from the for the niagar water bottling plant in Elco New Market that alone if that goes through and when it goes through because my understanding is groundbreaking has already been done is 871 th000 gallons per day which would already impact our trout streams and other um water areas that we enjoy my understanding with a data center such as this is that it could draw up to 450,000 I'm not sure apparently um that amount hasn't been disclosed but I would think it would be about 450,000 gallons per day um and another person mentioned noise inside the data center one could typically expect 820 to or 800 to 120 DB about the sound of a of a heavy heavy metal band and around 96 DB around that if it's 55 DB nearby that is going to be enough to bother residents in the area so lastly why have a comprehensive plan if you don't honor it what good is it plans should focus on environmental and physical impact and on Pro property valuation thank you thank you hi I'm Nancy Arad 22165 balmont Avenue um I'm going to go over some points some negative impacts and unfairness of you changing this comp plan um it undermines long-term planning of this city because it undermines the reason we have long-term planning an unfair advantage to select parties this benefits a particular developer at the expense of the broader Community prioritizing private profit over the public good incompatible land use by changing the comp plan you are creating in incompatible land use between industry and our residential homes this can lead to conflict between land use and it will precedent for future spot zoning allowing this comp change you open the door for future cases making it harder to maintain zoning Integrity in the future each time you change the the zoning this could set a precedent for additional reclassifications leading to the gradual erosion of residential protection and neighborhood stability who is next it disrupts Community expectations residents move into an area based on the existing zoning and neighborhood character by you changing this zoning and changing the comp plan it breaches the trust between the city and its residents as people have invested in their homes based on expectations of stable land use we have all built and bought homes next to residential low low density commercial we did not buy land next to Industry industrial zones you are bringing that to us and forcing that on us environmental and infrastru infrastructural strain you are going to place unforeseen strain on local infrastructure and especially on those homes around the new zoning reduces predictability for developers and all homeowners you are creating uncertainty for future development as it signals that zoning laws can be altered arbitrarily in Farmington violates public trust by rezoning and allowing this comp change this can be perceived as an act of governmental overreach or misuse of power communities are built on Mutual trust between government authorities and citizens breaking that trust by approving this zoning undermines faith in local government equity and social justice issues you are using your power to undermine your residence who is next you have been there have been hundreds of R residents that have begged you not to go forward with this and you continue to go forward with it none of you live in the homes by this land so this is easy for you to vote on residents trust their cities not to do this and um by doing this you are causing Division and distrust amongst the community I beg you to vote no thank you thank you anybody else seeing none we'll bring it back to the commission table again this is we're just addressing the comp plan um Amendment at this point the rezone has already been done um with that we'll start with commissioner winshuttle no I have no questions commissioner lto no questions thank you commissioner snowback no questions Tony I got a question um and you did a a you explained at the beginning why now um You and I have had this conversation recently and that's maybe why you explained it but um these residents have been here now that I've seen at least three times this year um the timing of the comp plan could have been done at our last meeting could have could have been should have been you said that in your stand report the comp plan could be done with the larger cycle Amendment but I understand you said that might raise some conflicts I don't know how but it could have so I mean I I hope that the planning of these types of things when it affects residents like this is looked at closer in the future I mean our residents deserve that our city council I know you're going to try to package this you said for our city council they deserve that also um I mean the commission here is where we take them as as we get them on our agenda but staff can certainly work on that Tony if you do that um with that you know um I want to just repeat some things Tony went over them and I want to explain them a little more we've had several meetings over the last what 20 year year and a half with our city council you know we've talked about you know when we do comp plan amendments like this you know we do big plans at a certain times we do what they call upgrades at certain times um it's kind of a a a changing plan you know I've seen changes in the past um we've talked with our city council at length about utilizing our main corridors of this community you know with more and the residents have said this with more commercial some more industrial I mean yeah we've got Highway 50 to the West that is got a lot of that but some of the other ones you know Pilot Knob you don't see a lot there um if we had to do that again you know that might look different you know other communities do design their main thorough fares differently and I think that's what the community is looking at so this is not the first time and the the city council and this commission have looked at doing these updates uh for quite a while this was one of them that was included Highway 50 out there was you know one we talked about at length too Highway 3 you know we're going to let that all just be houses all the way up on both sides we don't don't think so um but you know I we've already made the recommendation to our city council to reone this ours is a recommendation as this will be also our city council will have to address it both the reso and the Pud and then the comp plan Amendment Anton I hope you package those together for those absolutely okay I appreciate that um but the res Zone's already been done I appreciate you coming you group of residents you've been concerned you've done a good job you've come you've been respectful you've been knowledgeable um you've done your your homework also I appreciate that um I hate to bring you back for the third time like this um but there something that that was on our agenda we have to address it but you know I would support this comp plan Amendment as I've told and talked with the city council over the last year and a half um this is um not something that's brand new to us so I would also support that and with that i' look for a motion to close a public hearing I I'm sorry what was that can I a question before you v i I didn't hear question yes you certainly may can you come up to the podium please okay I'm not trying to be schneide or anything I really don't understand what's the purpose of this public hearing if you already knew what you're going to decide um this is part of the process if you're going to rezone something you're going to you're going need change of comp plan also again I I I mentioned the staff this could have been done at our last meeting and maybe should have been done at our last meeting that would have been packaged together so that's why we're taking care of this this is a requirement this is part of the process thank you with that I look for motion to close a public hearing motion to close we have a motion is there a second second motion a second call the roll please snowback yes Wing shidle yes Rody yes Le yes in front of the commission then is a recommendation to our city council uh for the amendments to the 24 comp plan um for the two Parcels I'll name them as Fountain Valley Golf course with the Pud and Angus property with the Pud two puds is there a motion for a recommendation motion for recommendation we have a motion for a favorable recommendation to our city council is there a second second any more discussion if not not call the rooll please Lo yes snowback yes windshadow yes Rody yes all right that concludes it thank you um that concludes our meeting with that Tony was there anything else from staff I have nothing sir anything else from the commission if not I'll remind our uh viewers that our next regular meeting is November 12th and with that I'd look for a motion to adjourn so moved we have a motion is our second second motion second all in favor say I I we're officially adjourned thank you everybody [Music] [Music]