Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Live stream is all set. We start again.

No, you're good.

Okay. One minute. How's it We'll call the April 13th P&Z meeting uh to order at 5:45 p.m.

Hillary, will you call the roll? Thompson, she's not. I'm here. Sorry. Samuelson here. Forest here. Eaton here. Henders here. Stiger here. All right. Next agenda item is approval of the agenda. I'll entertain a motion and to approve the agenda. All in favor say I. I. Someone needs a motion. Sorry. Sorry. Do we have any changes? Um, one of the items uh we had a request from the applicant to table. I'll go over that when we get to it. That's item number seven.

Samson on a motion. Eight. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. All right. Next agenda item is uh approval of the minutes of the March 23rd 26th meeting. Any changes that need to be made? There's motion to approve.

Four seconds. All in favor say I. I. I. Now welcome guests and public comments and those on Zoom. Does anyone have any public comment they want to make that is not listed on the agenda item? Does that It's not on. Okay. Yep. All right, we'll close the public comment period. That's 5:47 p.m.

All right, next agenda item is a public hearing regarding the proposal to amend property on 50th Avenue from R1 Single Family Residential to AR Agriculture Reserve and open public hearing at 5:47. Elliot, can you give us a briefing?

Yeah, so this is a 32.68 parcel of land that is currently zoned R160 single family residential. The applicant was wanting to construct an accessory building that is for a use that's only allowed in agricultural reserve. Um, the reason this property is zoned R1 was to accommodate a transaction that occurred back in 2021. Um it remains undeveloped for this point. Thought at the time that there might be a development proposal on the horizon. Um that has not materialized. So the use remains agricultural. We don't see a problem with them wanting to build an egg use building to be zoned properly to do so. That's pretty much all I have on this. We didn't receive any public comment on this. I received one phone call asking for clarity about why, which is the reasons I stated just now. Happy to answer any additional questions if there are any.

That the applicant did come to the last city council meeting and stood up and talked about the the farm usage that they want to bring back and have a horse farm. Right. So, yeah. All right. So, we'll ask the applicant. Do you have is there an applicant here want to make a comment on this request? There any public comment? We'll close the public hearing at 5:48 p.m. or for any comment from the commission. This the first time we've ever taken something from R1 back to AR.

Maybe. Yeah. I have no issues with it. We can always if if in the future development does pop up there, we can always move her back to R1. Yeah. The idea of it being AR in the first place is that it was undeveloped ground. It was annexed into the city. It still hasn't developed transaction in 21 facilitated by a zoning. This is just reverting back to that pre-transaction condition. Is this uh part is this uh in line with comprehensive use plans?

Yes. From the standpoint that it is undeveloped ground and therefore a use is appropriate to zone it agricultural. Yep. Any other comments? All right. I'll entertain a motion in a second. Motion by Henders. Second. Hillary, will you call the roll or call a vote? Forest. Hi. Eaton. Hi. Henders. Hi. Thompson. Hi. Samuelson. Hi. Stiger. Hi. And Hillary. If there's any doubt, the motion was to approve the change in. Thank you.

Thanks for clarifying that.

All right. So, Elliot, we are skipping item number seven. So, I checked with mean city attorney Jim Doy on this. The applicant has asked that we uh delay this item to next meeting. They had some supplementary information they wanted to supply the commission. Um it wasn't ready in time for tonight's meeting. Um items from this meeting and the next P&Z meeting both will be going to the May 7th council. So, that is not negatively impacting our schedule. Um, it's probably best because we've noticed for the public hearing to open it at this time and then we're recommending immediately tableabling it. That would require a motion and a second and then public hearing would remain open until next meeting at which point we would resume public.

We have a motion and a second to open the table until we need to open the public hearing first. All right. If we want to do that, if the commission wants to insist on holding the public hearing now, they can. We're not recommending that, but you need a motion to take. I Let's open the public hearing. Note the time, please. All right. We'll open the public hearing at 5:51 p.m. from one from the public that wants to make a comment on this. Not we'll close the public hearing open. Oh, leave the We will leave public hearing open. Now entertain a motion to table.

Samuel send a motion to table until our next meeting. Second Henders. All in favor say I. I. I. All right. Thanks Elliot. Is that the first time we've done that?

In P&Z, I believe so. Council does that time to time with items. All right, moving on to item number eight, the public hearing and recommendation on the comprehensive plan amendment to change the future land use classification in the vicinity of highway R63 and Debuke Street. The site recorded Rosewood North Plat from medium density residential commercial industrial flex to low density. open the public hearing at 552. And hello, can you give us a briefing? I am actually gonna pass this one off to Luke.

Yeah, I can cover that. Uh bear with me. I've been dealing with a sore throat all day, so I've been chugging uh lots of liquid, so hopefully I can get through this. Um so this property is uh property owned by Marco Properties LLC uh over on R63. At least it's got a map there. Uh it's south of the north north river. Um R63 is southwest 9th going into uh city of De Moine. It is not within Norwok city limits right now. It is within 2 miles of Norwok city limits. So we have our uh subdivision uh review authority on any proposal within uh 2 miles. So that's how this came to us initially was a request from a developer to uh develop that property. Um and this is going to get weird so uh just bear with me. Uh in our initial review of this we determined that in 1979 a final plat was filed with the city or with the county for this property. Um Elliot, I think we've got a a screenshot of that or uh something in the agenda packet um that shows what that looks like. Um so at that point in time, uh final plat was proposed for that area. It was approved uh you know 46 years ago. Um but then never developed. So as you can see on the aerials, it's currently a farm field. Um but there's a legal plat there. So, we talked with Jim Dhy, our city attorney, kind of did some review of it. And our initial city opinion of it was, uh, we don't really have any say on if that builds out that way. Um, so it's a valid plat. So, we've really got no review

authority at that point in time. um cruise development uh the the the folks uh proposing this current request um to change the land use plan um did indicate that uh they were going to work with Warren County then and uh go through a process to start uh developing it out. Um so we kind of washed our hands of it said that's that and we're done. um at Warren County, they requested that uh the area be redeveloped and a new plat proposed to uh to really meet the current standards of Warren County. Um that plat that Elliot shows from 1979, uh really a a substandard layout, substandard plat. There's a lot of stuff in the flood plane. um lot of lot of just you know issues with where uh it would access out to R63 that didn't really match up with current county um requirements. So uh Cruise Development then revised that layout, came in with a new plan for a new subdivision um and uh presented that to Warren County addressing their concerns. Um, however, that puts us in a bit of a bind because now this is a change that uh the city can and needs to review and approve. And when we review and approve subdivisions outside of our two-mile area, we weigh the proposed plan against our land use plan. Um so if you go back to the land use plan uh illustration there you can see we're planning for this to be medium density residential and commercial industrial flex um with a road do we Elliot do we have the fullon uh plan in this um to jump out to the bigger

picture um well and Ellie if you can kind of like highlight on there with your mouse cursor where we're talking about um what I want to get across is not only just the land uses but uh the city's kind of future transportation corridor of Delaware that goes from the Filillmore potential interchange uh kind of runs east through this area and connecting over to R63. So, we're in a weird spot because this area can develop residentially without any consideration of the city per 46y old plan. Um, I think everyone in this situation would agree that uh the cruise development plan is a best better residential plan for the area. Um, it certainly works better uh uh for modern subdivision standards. Um but for our land use plan which tells us uh we we don't want it to develop that way. Um so uh on the transportation side uh also just noting that the land use plan draws lines on a map. It we don't do a real big corridor analysis of stuff. Um, one thing I want to call out as challenging with this is the that dashed line that goes through all of that flood plane on the map. Um, a developer is not going to come in and build that. The city's not going to love spending dollars to build that. There's like there's no we're not going to recoup any dollars on that. There's no return on investment that that makes a road through the flood plane like a win-win for the city. Right on on the west side when we're taking it out to Filillmore, there's all this industrial ground, all this other development ground that we can use as a justification for the tax value of that.

That road through the flood plane is going to be challenging. We have dollars planned for next fiscal year or two fiscal years from now to do a transportation study of Delaware going east over to R63. very similar to the transportation study that we've already conducted with Snyder and Associates of Delaware going essentially from 50th over to Filillmore. So, we're planning for this stuff. We're trying to get ahead of it, but now we're in this situation where we've got this proposal before us. Um, so I can't definitively tell you that the road's going to change um from that alignment. I can tell you that there's there's challenges with what the land use plan has currently identified. Um, so at the end of the day, I think from a staff recommendation standpoint, we just kind of have to fall a little bit back on our plans that we have, right? So, uh, from a community development director standpoint, I would say the best thing right now would be to not have that area develop and wait to see what could happen. Um, unfortunately, we're in a situation where, uh, that may not be the case. You know, uh, Mr. for cruise and cruise development has a decision they have to make on purchasing it. Um they would like to go forward with something that's that's better and I would agree with that. Um if they decided not to do that, there's nothing that would stop somebody else from coming in and putting a different product in there uh and matching that 1979 plan and then we're kind of out of we're out of an ability to to to plan for that area like we have in our comprehensive plan. So, uh, you guys are in a real fun situation here of kind of what you want to decide to do. Um, I don't know that there's a right or wrong decision here. So, really, we've kind of just fallen back onto the black and white of what our plans say, right? And so, our plan says it shouldn't be uh rural residential. It should be one of these two land uses that are there. Um,

so that's our current recommendation, but I certainly uh and I think uh uh the developer and and his engineer maybe have some things they want to present to you that you know they make a good case for why the city should allow to do it uh as well. So um I'll guess I'll turn it over to them or happy to answer any other questions you might have.

Hey Luke, just one reminder, we talked about this at council too. How how long is that east west road the dash line that goes over? Yeah, I mean uh off the cuff that's probably I mean through the flood plane the east west line's about uh probably threequarters of a mile. Um I mean you're several miles because right now there's nothing exists east of Highway 28. So you know you're several miles over to probably two miles over to R63. Um, the development as it stands right now is about uh 3/4 of a mile as the bird flies or about a mile and a quarter if you drive down North Avenue and then down R63 to the area. So, um, it feels like it's on the outskirt of our plans. Um, but it's it's really a pretty close pro piece of property and certainly it's a a good pre piece of property as far as, you know, folks wanting to get into Norwalk, folks wanting to get into downtown De Mo. I mean, I understand the uh the draw for this area to develop. Um, I guess the one other thing I'll kind of leave you with is we do have sewer through the area. Um though, you know, there's not been an engineering analysis of of the ability to actually get that across, but uh those kind of dots in the red line on the map are the sewer that runs through that area. Um we have had some preliminary discussions with uh some large property owners on North Avenue just north of here about potential future annexations. So again, while we're about a mile away from the city right now, we're maybe one annexation decision and some engineering on sewer for this area to be uh a lot more uh city focused than it currently is. And whether that be I mean that could also be rural residential, city focused and not uh not commercial industrial flex medium density residential as well.

Yeah. And then what just one more comment that that road that goes between the purple and the orange if developed today couldn't go there, right? Because they already have an approved plot where that road wouldn't go through there, right?

Correct. Yeah. If somebody came out with that 1979 plan, you know, our road plan there is just kind of lost, right? Like so that's that's why I say we're in a we're in a weird bind because uh you know uh Cruise Development again wants to bring forward a good uh better rural subdivision than what was proposed in 1979. Um we uh we don't really have the ability to deny somebody to to build out that kind of less than standard subdivision. Now, maybe the county would, and I we've not really uh gotten feedback from the county other than they did confirm, you know, their request to have them meet standard uh the standards of the county today. Um, which is their right to do, right? They have their own rules. So, you know, maybe that puts it in a weird spot as far as what the county would allow to happen, but uh from the city's perspective, we don't feel like we've got a lot of say if, uh, somebody comes in with that 1979 proposal. Is there another um city that could possibly lay claim to this plat of land

or is it just like is it is it automatically Norox because we want it or is there somebody else that could come and say no this is within our two miles?

Let me see. So the what kind of governs that two-mile review thing a lot of time is annexation agreements. Um, we used to have an annexation agreement with De Moine that would have put this squarely within Norwok. Uh, we current that that agreement's lapsed. So, it's currently within 2 miles of um De Moines as well. Um, state code says though when there's a situation where where two um and maybe it's not. I guess I'm talking off the cuff. Elliot's going to measure it out there if it's within 2 miles of De Moines. Um but as he's doing that uh state code says when when a piece of property is within 2 milesi of two cities the city that is the closest uh as the kind of bird flies is the one that has review authority. So in this situation we're uh kind of the corner of uh Warrior Run uh golf course area. That's the closest corner to to them. Uh the closest corner to De Moines is all the way up on Carpenter Street. So we're the closer entity. So kind of our review authority uh uh prevails. With that said, anybody right now since there's no annexation agreement could come in and annex that ground. So De Moine could be like, "Look, we're going to come down and we've got an agreement with all these people on uh R63 and they could come on down and they could grab that." Uh there's nothing that would stop them from doing that other than I don't feel like that's real logical for them to do, but you know, people do illogical things.

And you said that we're one or two more years out before we even do a traffic study to determine if that's the way we want to go. Correct. Yeah, that that Delaware East traffic studies uh funded in a future year. I believe in the 20 fiscal year 28. So, it wouldn't be this coming fiscal year um that starts in July. It'd be uh July 2027 at the earliest that we would fund that study. And then, you know, a study like that's going to take uh 6 to9 months probably to work through. So, um that would be to confirm us wanting to stick with this plan as it's

right. It wouldn't necessarily confirm it. What a traffic analysis is going to do is it's probably going to take and drop anywhere from five to 10 lines on the map connecting the intersection at Highway 28 in Delaware with some point on uh R63. And then what it'll do is it'll talk about the uh problems of each one. Right? So, just from knowing how these things work, I can tell you one of those roads is probably going to come along and then when that dashed line hits the first dark red square, uh it's probably then going to turn and go northeast up to like North Avenue and then have say the North Avenue connection to R63. Like that should become the route that is this route, right? And that takes you completely out of the flood plane. You don't have environmental concerns, right? Like that's going to be one thing. There's probably going to be one alternative that talks about making floor drive coming down be a more uh a a more main road and you don't even get over to R63. So, there's going to be a bunch of alternatives and it won't settle on one. It'll just tell you like these ones are the easier ones to do. These ones are the more negative, the harder ones to do because you can't you can't just decide on a corridor before you do environmental studies. like that's a big no no for road planning and environmental work. So you need to have like show your alternatives. So um it'll it'll probably become pretty clear that running through the flood plane is the harder thing to do, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we wouldn't decide to do it because it's the best transportation corridor. But um it'll certainly give us all those alternatives. Luke, from the perspective of uh use, how does rural residential differ from,

you know, mid density residential? Um, a lot of it has to do a lot size. So, you know, your your medium density residential is your uh has the capability to go up to be a town home, right? So, our expectation in the orange area would be there to be at least a town home development, probably not across the whole thing, but a density that equals about five units per acre. So, likely to have a mix of some single family and town homes. Very similar to uh Elliot, if you zoom into like where Shadow Creek's at, right? Like um you've got the the town homes at Shadow Creek and then you've got some single family around it, right? collectively that's meeting our medium density standard even though there's some single family in it. Um rural estates would be more like uh uh Elliot if you go out to like Silverado. Sorry I'm just directing you. Do what I tell you. Um uh so so that's going to be uh Silverado or uh yeah up there at Stone Ridge. Um, you're going to be uh at least 40,000 acre or 40,000 uh square foot minimum um mainly to allow for a septic system. So, you're going to be rural cross-section um ditch uh for your drainage um and then backyard septic systems uh and so you'll have a bigger lot because of that. So, and then likely higher lot prices as well, right? Those two tend to correlate. So,

but on our future land use map, pretty much anything that is say even R80, R60 and above is considered low low density residential. Correct. Unless it's paired with a town home project. That's why I get like it gets a little murky because if somebody came in and did like a pretty dense town home project in half of that orange area and then the other half showed like an R170 and then collectively those two met the five units per acre density then we would be able to say that that meets the project intent uh the the land use intent. Yeah. But like a low density residential is anything from like a typical residential development all the way to a multi-acre rural estates type development as far as the future land use map is concerned. Right.

Correct. Yeah. Yeah. Anywhere that's yellow would be when we would tend to think R160 all the way to RE uh RE1. Okay.

So I guess I guess in that regard you know when you look at that area there is we are showing uh residential on one half of that road. you know, um there is some rural residential development all over that place around there. So, it's like uh you know, likely we decided to make the the west side of the road more um more higher intensity just because of its proximity. You know, we have to draw the line somewhere to stop the pling boundary. So, all right. Uh, would the applicant uh like to come and make a comment? Yeah.

State your name and your address.

Uh, Dan Cruz, Cruise Development. Kind of wrote a little long speech. Luke already kind of covered most of this, but I'm going to read it anyways. Um, I wanted to just give a different perspective on why we were here tonight. On the agenda, it says we're here to amend the a change to the future land use classification. However, I don't really think that's why we're here. I think the decision isn't really if we want to change the future use plan, but more so what quality of development does Norwok want to see on this location and would they like to have any input? A final plat for lowdensity residential already exists in this location. It was the very reason I bought the property or in the contract for the property. It is a continuation of the previous platwood south and Rosewood North Plat 1 in which a total of 24 homes have already been built here. On the agenda statement for tonight, I want to read two very important sentences from the city staff. The first one is city staff informed cruise development that the existing 1980 plat remained valid and could be developed without city review. The second one is city staff believes that Rosewood North Plat is still valid and could be developed with the current lot layout without a change in the future land use plan. After a lot of time reviewing the existing plat, I realized that although a lot a lot of the plat could be built, it could be built extremely better and we could fix some of the issues that the original final plat had. Not issues that would keep it from being built, but just taking a new look at the existing plat and making it better better on every single angle. the roads, the views, the lot layouts, the entrances would all be substantially better. So, the discussion here from city staff is about vision of Norwok over the next 30 to 50 years. And while I fully appreciate the planning that the city does and how difficult that is, my vision isn't 30 to 50 years out. My vision is for the near future because no matter what, this piece of ground, no matter what the recommendation is, this piece of ground is going to become low density residential.

That decision was made when the final plat was approved on this ground in 1980. It will either be developed exactly as it was platted or it will be developed into one of the nicer high-end subdivisions that's been brought on into this area for quite some time. You see, I'm not just some out of town developer that would just take the old outdated existing plat and and not do any work to make it better. I'm a Norwok resident. I live here. My kids go to school here and I care about the community. I'm also a developer that has developed 148 lots in Timberview. I started Timberview 10 years ago and I turned it into one of Norwok's most beautiful developments. When I develop, I just don't get in, get out, sell the lots to whoever whoever will take them. Try to turn it as fast as possible to maximize profits in ground. I develop every detail of the development. The design of the homes, the quality of the builders, and creating lasting character within is taken into account. If you drive through Timberview today, you'll see how much pride was taken into that development and how great that development is to the city. And I plan to take that same amount of detail into Rosewood Estates. As mentioned before, I can build this asis without city review. But building without city review forces me into building an old outdated plat, and I would rather do things the right way and and even if the process is hard, which is why I'm here tonight. The new plat under city review would be subject to Norwok's requirements for dry sewer. The new plat would require the streets to be built up to the city standards. The new plat will have a burm with trees and plants all up R63 and two beautiful entrance signs. My vision for this property is a great one. 42 families that will someday be great members of the Norwok community. There'll be 40 to60 million in tax base that will go directly to our schools and the city nor the county will have to use valuable resources for that tax base. To wrap this up, I ask you to make the recommendation to amend the plan use

back to the lowdensity residential that it always was. Choose a higher quality development built with guidance from the city. Choose a local resident that you know will do the right thing in developing it the right way. The alternative is recommending no, but that does not change what's going to happen to this property. It only significantly reduces the quality of development that Norwalk gets. Right. I'll ask for any comment from the public. If you have any comment, come up. State your name and your address. Yeah.

Brody Wuben, 1801 Redbud. Um, I work with the estate. I was kind of Lamar's right hand for 14 14-ish years. I've been tasked with selling this property. So, the concept of if you guys knew Lamar, which I'm sure some of you did, um, this property is selling. I mean, they're they're wanting us to sell it for sure. Uh, when we originally started thinking about this and we were going to move to selling it, I immediately thought of Dan. The Timberview that development that he did was one of Lamar's farms earlier as well and he sold it to Dan and that went really, really well. So, as soon as this came up, I knew the plat that was recorded when Lamar bought it from Ivan Archer and we looked at it and I I brought it to Dan and he looked at it and he said, "I could I could build this a lot better than what's there." Um, one way or another, I'm I have to sell this. The property is selling. I would love to see something happen like it did before with Dan with Timberview as opposed to me having to sell it to somebody that we don't have as much guidance upon that's not really going to take us into consideration. Um, so my recommendation as from the landowner perspective is definitely that to proceed with the way Dan wants to do it and make it a little bit better.

Thank you. Thanks. Any other comments?

Hey, Bob Frasier, 9333 Debuke Street. Mine kind of goes off of uh Dan and Brody's uh as well. Uh good morning. Uh sorry, good evening. Uh thank you for your time tonight. Like I said, my name is Bob Frasier. I am a resident of this area. I'm here to express my strong support for the proposed development. Um, this area isn't just where I live. It is home in the deepest sense. U, my parents built the house I live in in 96. Um, I've lived there nearly my entire life. In 2017, I purchased the home from my mom and now live there with my wife, raising our three daughters. This community means a great deal to me and my family, and we're deeply invested in its future. I've also known my whole life that the field behind our house would likely be developed at some point. That's what we've always been told. Uh it's just a reality of living there. Because of that, I'm especially thankful uh that this plan has been put together the way it has. Dan has created a thoughtful, well-designed proposal, and just as importantly, he has been very open and responsive with the homeowners throughout this process. He's answered my calls, replied to emails. He's uh created a level of transparency that's been truly appreciated. Like many of I think of my neighbors, uh I've stayed here because of the rural character, the space, the quiet, and the sense of community. What stands out to me about this plan is that it works uh that it works with character, not against it. The layout itself is more intentional, clear, and more consistent uh with the lot lines, and it makes property boundaries easier to understand and manage. In addition, the improved entrances from R 63 would allow for better traffic flow uh and a more organized, attractive entry into the neighborhood. Another thing I appreciate is how the plan uses the natural topography to maximize views and places homes thoughtfully on the land. That kind of careful design helps preserve the beauty of the area while stilling still allowing for development. Just as important is considering the alternative. If this plan is not approved, the property could be sold and developed in a way that doesn't reflect the priorities of current residents.

That could mean less structure, less planning, and more disruption to the neighborhood that we invested have invested in for many years. From the beginning, we have always been told that the original layout uh for development could use our gravel road and run uh access through my neighbor's sideyard. We were very much in opposition of this um because of the increased traffic and disturbances caused by that. This proposal presents a positive outcome for all stakeholders, current neighbors, future residents, and the city of Norwok. It's a lowdensity residential approach that allows for highquality development, one that fits the character of our area and supports the city's long-term goals. In closing, I'd like to reaffirm the vision that's been presented and respectfully ask for you to consider in approving Dan's proposal for development. your comments.

Good evening. My name is Randy Mason. I reside at 9259 Deuke Street and the current plot has an easement going through my yard. Um, I'm obviously opposed to that and uh, you know, got a developer here who wants to do the right thing and bring in, you know, good people to the community as far as uh, upscale homes and with low density housing versus, you know, I we I moved out to the country for one reason and that was for space. So, I didn't have people up on me. And the last thing I want is a bunch of town homes behind me or, you know, quarter acre lots. That's not what I don't think anyone in our community wants that. Um, so I just think Dan is cleaning up the mess that was presented to the council or to the zoning, you know, 45 years ago. And, you know, two wrongs don't make a right. So, I'm obviously in favor of Dan's proposal and would like to see him develop this ground with his the way he has it plotted versus the current plot. So like that rock 9338 Debuke Street and 8759 Debuke Street. I live across Deuke Street. I seen the flat since 1993 when I bought my lot. discussed with Ivan before he ever sold it to Lamar years ago how he wanted to change the plan the plat clear back then because he knew it wasn't a great plat

because of the the lay of the land and stuff and so this needs to be changed uh it's an excellent plan for the country that we're in uh I understand you're a city development and you would love to see five houses per acre doesn't seem like that fits the area and the road through the flood plane would be a huge savings to you if you don't have to flip that through there. And like you said, if you jog around that flood plane and and he's addressing the flood plane where the the flood plane had lots in it before, which obviously would never be used. So, it's a useless plan in that sense and uh looks like a much better plan for for the use of the area. I'd appreciate that it'd be approved also. Thank you. Scott Thompson, 9249 Deuke Street. I've lived there for 30 years. My land is right next to Randy. So, if they did stuck with the old plot, the road would go about 10 foot from my property, which I wouldn't like. I like Dan's recommendation and doing a higherend houses back there cuz I own eight acres. With his plan, I'd only have three lots behind me. and the other plan. I don't know how many people I'd have behind me. So, I'm all for the the new plot map. Thank you.

Any other comments for anyone online? All right, we'll close the public hearing at 6:23. One second. Can I ask one question, Mr. Cruz? U Mr. Cruz, uh you see the uh what's been articulated here by the city where there's a portion that's industrial in the north that's Y. Would you as part of your proposal, would you want all of that? Yes. Low density.

So the purple the purple that's first of all like the map that was done showing medium density has it overlaid over their low low density residential. So the the plan use map is already incorrect to start with. Um the purple is actually the northern boundary of the lots that we're planning on. One thing that we mentioned uh in a meeting with Luke and Elliot is if we still wanted to capture some commercial space there, they have low density residential right across the road. So it would be pretty simple for you guys just to flip that over the road. And we already have low density in the area. So if we want to add some commercial to that section, it could just flip across the road to where you guys are showing low density now. So would you want It would all be yellow. Yeah. All low density and red.

All low density. I just need clarification. Thank you.

Right. We'll close public hearing at 624. Hillary. All right. Open the floor for deliberations on the commission. Well, I I I appreciate Luke and his work on our our vision. Um, I also appreciate that we just converted uh a plot from R1 back to AR. we have somebody who wants to take uh and develop now and and get going and improve our tax base. So, I I it makes a whole lot of sense to me. I think it also sets up well for where like it's going to make our our community that much stronger having some large acreages that people can move to. And and again, I know the school will not be at all sad about having that kind of tax base roll in with a few number of potential students.

Well, it also alleviates the entire concern of an inferior product going in, too. I mean, I think that's just as much consideration as someone going in there, slapping a couple homes together, and getting out. Um, that's kind of the main thing for me. Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate um that the land use plan obviously provides a roadmap for the future but has to be flexible

and this is one project that I think certainly demands strong consideration for what it's going to do with that land that's out there and I think the timing based on when we're looking at doing that road study there's plenty of time to make adjustments if you need to. That's right. I'm a bad guy. I don't want rule states anywhere within that two mile boundary. It's going to limit our future growth, like I said, 50 years down the road. So, I just I don't like the concept of rule states anywhere within anywhere of the city that's going to hamper us when we go. Anything that we've had that's come before us has been controversial of existing things that are within the city nor limits um has been rule states and somebody comes and develops lands that

uh is just what it is. I don't know how many things I've been called uh during P&Z meetings by real estate folks for developments that we shouldn't have done 20 years ago that we're still paying the price for. So, I guess that's my only thing is that when we when we take land out of what we think we want it to be, uh we're limiting ourselves in our future potential. That's that's But it sounds like it's going to be developed into lots either way. So, it's either going to It's either going to be that old messy way from 45 years ago.

I'd rather have him develop the old messy way that's already on the books than for us to be This is make me sound horrible than us for us to be overly accommodating. I think we're if if we go out of our way to be accommodating it. I get that we'll end up with a better product potentially in the end, but uh I'm okay with the hurdle.

We don't even know like we don't even know if this is how Norwok's going to go. we're not going to even do this traffic study for x amount of years. And maybe at that point we'd be like, "Yeah, well maybe we don't want to do it this way." And now we're stuck with these lots from 40ome years ago. Like we don't like there's it's just not even set for Norwok. We still have so much to do before we even think of developing over there. Could you could you put up the current law back up on that and actually look take a look at that? Really look at it good. It makes no sense at all. I've looked at it. I I understand I'm one out of the six people in here. So,

I think one of the statements was that that's been approved for someone to come in do the development. Now, with this new plan, it gives us some control of kind of making it bring it up to date. So, it allows us to write or wrong. I mean, not not call, but it's the devil you know versus the one you don't, right? And having the ability to to not put our foot down, but to have say of what will eventually be there. I mean, as Brody was saying, if something's going to go in and it's going to be sold, it's better to have control over what will go in as opposed to just leaving it up to the chances that, hey, maybe this won't get sold and 50 years from now, we'll still have the land to develop, excuse me, develop it commercially. I like

Sure. Luke. Luke, what's the remind me again with this proximity, what's the requirement to meet city standards for roads and possible sewer in the future.

Yep. So, yeah. So, when we do a two-mile, the whole point of our two-mile review is that we can require a development to be built as if it was uh in the city. So that you know understanding that we might annex something in the future and if we own those roads if we end up owning the stuff we want to be seeded um that it's more easily obtainable for us. So the the really the two main things that we require on that regard are they have to install a dry sewer line along the roads so that we can come in and if we're going to provide sewer service at some point in the future, it's easier for them to disconnect their septics, hook into that sewer, and then easier for us to hook that sewer into our sewer trunk. So that's number one. Number two is just the uh the the design and quality of the roads have to meet uh the the urban standard. uh city standard that we have. Um so if we do ever take it over, even though these are going to be private roads, a lot of times when we take over a development, bring it into the city, one of the requests from that private development is for the city to take ownership of the roads. We did that with Stone Ridge, we did that with all of Lakewood, right? So that's for us to make sure that we're getting a road of the standard that we expected it to be uh when it comes if it if it were to come into the city. Um, you know, so

that would too many things that would apply Luke to both the 40 to 50 year old plot or the new version that's being discussed too. I don't believe because we the other one's already done. I don't believe that we could there's there's not a mechanism for us to review that, right? Uh because you do preliminary plat construction documents, final plat final plat's already done. So, the road easements that are there, in our opinion, we don't have a whole lot of say in that. There's no we don't have a lot of say that we could make them go in and do a dry sewer or all that stuff. Um, so yeah,

for me that that's a big deal, right? Like I don't know vote for you guys, right? But for me that's a big deal. If all of a sudden we were to grow that way and the roads were put in bad and there's no dry sewers and we want to annex that area in it becomes like there's other developments that are large estates that have roads and infrastructure I don't think we ever want to take those over and if we have a builder that's willing to follow some guidelines I think we have to give that some consideration right those parts of town that you don't want to take over that infrastructure or you or you maintain those as private roads y is the is the out there

I will say on the annexation standpoint. Uh a that's a fair statement, AJ. There are situations where we're forced to annex something in. Um certainly this is such a large area, I don't know that we would ever fully encompass it, but if you play out the like go way out into the future into you know 200 years from now or whatever, right? Like the state says at one point if we swallow up a piece of property and we've we've got it on all sides, we have to annex it. So like uh things like Twin Lakes, I I know that area we've been very resistant to the idea of annexing them, but the reality is at some point we're going to swallow them up and then they'll probably become city. So, you know, you're talking again very long-term type stuff with us surrounding this development and being forced to annex it. Um but we deal with long range planning, so uh it's it's something to consider

if we we'll use the Twin Legs example. So, if we were to annex Twin Lakes, would we have to accept that infrastructure or would those roads remain private? We would not. Uh, that would be a council decision at the that point in time if we were going to take over that infrastructure or not. So, and then we'd have to decide if we, you know, had to do a project to improve those, would we, would we assess or what would we do in those situations? But Twin Lakes is a prime good example of a neighborhood, right? If we approve these changes though, wouldn't this project need to meet city standards? Yeah, the roads

it would they'd still be private roads, but we'd we require private stuff to be built to public standard. So, in that regard, they'd be built to to public it later. It should meet standards. Standards were that were in place at that, you know, Yep. Where is that? Where's the newest sewer now? Is it along the north river or along the river? This is that alignment. Yeah. Yeah. On Elliot's map there, it's the the orange dots with the red line. Got it.

That's about 500 ft. Now, we don't know. We just know that that's there. I don't know that anybody's looked at the depth of that compared to the river compared to the height, right? Like yeah, it still has to gravity flow down to it. So I I wouldn't represent that it can be sewered other than it's within a proximity. I want to that flood plane through the bottom there. It's a little bit on the south side of but it extends almost pretty much all the way to the Macinch property on the north side. That's a wow. Okay. Yeah, it's really flat through there.

Flat. I mean, essentially all that land is mostly undevelopable if it's in the flood plane without a lot of dirt work. Yeah. So, I guess this rural state development goes in, chances of them having neighbors to the north of them are essentially slim and correct. Yeah, probably. That's always going to remain agricultural land just based upon the flood.

Yeah. you know what what we've kind of said in our land use plan for that area is uh and that's a really wide swath for it to become a park but the the the concept is that we want a North River green belt right and traditionally you would identify that through uh um through the flood plane. So, you know, there'd likely be some kind of park accessory or park use um out there or just farm field. We anticipate Southwest 9th becoming kind of a majorish corridor in and out of the De Moines metro.

Man, it's got the capacity to it. Um De Moines's definitely planning for it to be uh on their portion of Southwest 9th in Warren County. um you know, you run into the same issue that we run into on Highway 28 south of the river. Um the farther you get into Warren County, the more the county has approved subdivisions similar to this, that really just limit the city's ability to grow, right? So, um just like when we looked out uh going growing the city west to the interstate, you know, that was really a function because we couldn't grow the city south anymore, right? Uh if you look on the map south of uh Norwalk on Highway 28, it's all small lot development. Um so thus we went west. Uh when you go east, uh you're okay uh a little bit. I mean, R57 has a lot of houses already on it, so even getting past R57 with the road is going to be challenging. Um but yeah, any any growth as you go south is going to be more and more difficult uh because of those lots. And thus I would expect um I'd expect more rural subdivision requests as uh that area grows. And that's going to put yeah traffic onto R63. It's not going to be a lot because there's not, you know, there's not many cars are going to be generated from a a a 40 unit subdivision as opposed to, you know, something higher density like we've got. But um certainly that road and and the attraction to downtown could probably support uh a higher intensity of use if if it were allowed, which is why we've shown it there, right?

Yeah. I guess a lot of that land to the further to the east that's out of our boundary to the de mo area, I mean, that's that's rough ground that's really not going to develop into any sort of residential type of ground. from an overall like acreage standpoint. My biggest thing I I I don't like giving up potential of commercial areas or medium density residential. Are there other areas in the future land use map where we would look at potentially bringing I guess when's our next comp plan? Is it still like four years or 10 years away? Yeah, I mean um pro probably three at the closest, you know, for planning projects that I've kind of identified is uh one would be uh we're going to be looking at the S-curve inve out a little bit better. Um then at some point we need to really take a holistic look at our zoning ordinance and rewrite that. So then the question becomes, do we do that before or after another comp plan? Right? Right now, from a budgeting standpoint, I have it happening before, but I can certainly understand the maybe desire to look at the comp plan first before we did that. Um, as far as land uses, that maybe could change. Um, you know, when you look at where North A hits into uh into uh R63, that area, you got a lot of single family and and medium density up there. You know, maybe a land use looks at that changing and maybe that again, maybe that Delaware kind of follows the flood plane up to North A and that kind of becomes the Filillmore to R63 uh corridor uh right at where G14 North A hits uh R63 Southwest 9th. Um and then you look at doing a little bit more there, right? So there's certainly the

ability to look at that. Of course, now we're getting into De Moines area where in the past that had been future De Moines. So, um, yeah, we'd have to obviously sit down and have conversations with them. Luke, it was probably a long time ago that that industrial that top purple part was put there versus the cross the road R1 residential, right? Or was that a recent change or

No, that was pretty recent with the 2022 comp plan when we approved that. Before we used to pretty much just stop if you drew floor drive south that kind of line was where we stopped on our plan. So it was like a real road going south and floor drive going south and then we just kind of planned that area. This plan kind of blew away those boundaries and said what happens we go farther east and farther west. Right. So this this idea of commercial industrial flex and medium density down there is really the first kind of blush thought at what this could be. And it's really just a reaction to Delaware getting over to R63. And if you've got Delaware and R63 meeting, those are two major roads. You tend to put busier stuff at two major roads, right? Um I will say I there's I'm very positive that our consultants didn't do a subdivision review of stuff. They do look at existing land uses. They do look at existing lot splits. And so like if the count if there would have been a few houses built in here and the county had already split all these lots out and they showed up on a GIS map, we probably would have called this a different color on the map. But since it didn't, we showed it as the industrial flex. We show it as medium density. And then we even show a little bit of that existing lots as medium density just to understand again, you know, guys, we're talking a land use plan that's trying to predict way out into the future. you know, houses go away. People buy and redevelop property all the time. So, while yes, it's not that today. What could it be in the future? Because we thought that that was kind of blank ground. That's why that medium density kind of extends outside of this area. Um, I do think we would have had a different land use there, uh, if we would have had all this info at that point in time, but it's just not a level review that we would do for a a comp plan process.

uh Hinder's uh motion to amend the comprehensive use plan uh for Rose Rosewood North area um to a low density residential for seconds. Hillary, you call vote. Henders, hi. Thompson, I Samson. I Forest. Hi Eden. Hi Stagger. Hi. I just want to say thanks. Thanks for thinking about how you can make a a 46 year old bad situation better.

It's been the easy way out has been building a battle, but I like to take the hard way. I feel like this is truly the right way. Yeah. Thank you guys. Thank you guys. Yeah. Thank you everyone for your time and for your thoughts. All right, we're going to move on to item number nine. Request from Norwok JB22 LLC for approval of the per preliminary plot and site plan of Dun Primary Property Plat 3. Elliot, we get a briefing.

Yep. And I'm going to talk about the uh item after this as well since it's related. Um, this is a site plan down near Madison Street, adjacent to Madison Street. Um, it is for a 40,000 square foot uh, currently drafted out as 8 bay um, industrial uh, building um, combined phase of course, but they've got it drafted out for for splitting up to eight at some point. Um this is a pretty similar build to what is across the street to the east. I think actually the elevations tell um a little bit more of a story about what you can expect. So pretty similar architecturally and designwise to what's across the street. Uh same applicant, so there's there's sense in that. Uh the way that this has been designed, um the property contains an on-site storm water detention facility in outlot X and then also a draft lot uh for a second project that will need to go through site plan review. Again, I'll note that uh we're working with the design engineer right now on a really small edit to this. Just that u because of sewer availability not quite being there for lot two yet, we're probably going to have them put that into an outlot, we don't want to have a lot be buildable if it's not sewerable. So they'll come back at a later date with a prelim plat showing utility alignment including that sewer that's needed and then also include a finalized building footprint and building elevations. So that's the only thing that we're shaking out before our council that's scheduled to go May 7th. I'm happy to answer any questions on

this. I think we have Corey. Corey and I haven't met actually. So, hello. Um, he's here to comment on the project as well. Yeah. Well, the applicant, just state your name and your address.

Cory Marsh with Snder and Associates, 2727 Southwest Snider Boulevard in Inken, Iowa. Here on behalf of Norwok JV22 LLC. It's hard to remember all the LLC's that you've worked for, but uh uh we are seeking the approval for specifically lot one. Uh like Elliot was mentioning, we are looking for 40,000 square foot kind of a flex space. So you're going to see the type of users that you see kind of uh on the other side of the street there. Um utilities, sanitary coming from Delaware Street. Uh waters coming off of uh Madison Street. The regional basin outlot X would accommodate for both lot one and the future lot two whenever that comes in. So we kind of designed it and sized it that way. um that is kind of the breaking over point for that property where everything else kind of south of that drains south. So, uh when that ends up coming in front of you guys, uh you're going to end up uh seeing probably another detention basin down there. Um like Elliot said, there's eight bays shown right now. Uh we don't know how that's going to be broken up in the future. um whether that's going to you know somebody comes in and wants uh two of those bays or three of them or the entire building that'd be great. Um uh so we don't know exactly what the user is going to be right now. Um what you see is lot two. Uh the sanitary sewer is coming from the south like Elliot mentioned. Uh we have been talking uh via email the last couple days uh on what to do with lot two and how to remedy that. uh whether we build that now. We don't know necessarily if this is what the site's going to lay out. It's just a conceptual plan for lot two. So, kind of our main focus there is on lot one. Uh we do we are showing the two access points, one off of Delaware, uh one off of Madden Madison Street. Um,

as part of the platting process, we are kind of uh dedicating I think 10 feet along Delaware Street based on kind of some traffic studies that we're going through there that uh for potential future widening of Delaware. So, uh kind of the first project along that corridor that is kind of accommodating that aspect of it. Uh we are showing some future uh parking stalls on the north side of the uh drive. uh along Delaware Street. Those will kind of be depending on usage of where we uh end up on who comes in, what tenants come in. Um if they aren't needed, they aren't going to be built. Um you know, if somebody comes in a sports facility or somebody that needs some more parking they requested, uh you know, those future parking stalls will be installed as needed. Uh we do have some landscaping along the front uh along the Delaware Street corridor and along Madison as well. The site does sit down uh in relation to the intersection of Madison Street in Delaware. So you're kind of going to see kind of the top half of those those buildings as you're coming down. Uh it sits quite a bit lower. So be happy to entertain any questions uh from the commission. I appreciate that you have a plan for future parking stalls because that facility over there's not much parking. So it's good that you have that option. questions for the applicant.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Open the floor for deliberation among the commission. Is staff comfortable with the future parking kind of arrangement of this?

I think so. I I mentioned in the breakdown of the in the parking section of the staff report that depending on the uses that go there, the amount of required parking could vary considerably. Um so, you know, the private side's only going to lease to folks that they can accommodate, right? And if they can't do that, well, then that raises a problem that we have to deal with. Um, I did put something in there about um a a motion of approval. I would recommend putting in a waiver of new open space requirement in case they need to get that additional parking built. I think they get slightly below the 20% um requirement if that gets constructed. Their storm water calcs accommodate for the entire site. So, it shouldn't affect things in that way. And see how parking uh needs paramount with certain cases. That seems like an acceptance.

Is the parking thing of bill one, Bill? That was going to be a question I had, Howard, right? Like what does that look like to just grass until something is needed and then what does it look like if somebody does need it? It would be graded and then stabilized into a you know premoving condition at a later date. You're not going to put a curve on the north side of that lot. I'm assuming in the current form. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And then if you needed to do it, you just cut the curve and put in Yeah. And it is it is graded out too kind of for future parking.

Good to know because it looked like on your landscaping plan it wasn't graded. So it's good to know that that's right there. It looks like you got trees in that future parking lot. That's just the canopy overhang. You said you do have a curve on I guess you got intakes right there, don't you? Y curve in. So would it be an all or nothing deal where if you put it in for, you know, the first two tenants on the west, would you do just directly north of there or would you do it all the way across?

That's an adsis. Yeah, I mean if if there's somebody um takes down the you know the west half that ends up just there's more deliveries and you know using the back half or the back side of those buildings they don't need them and then somebody um you know the east half gets broken into four different ones after parking. Yeah. So Elliot, did you want a mo the motion to include a waiver for the storm?

We would recommend that that a motion for approval recommend a waiver on the open space requirement. For what it's worth, I believe I calculated that out to drop. So it's required to be 20% in industrial. I think this drops it to like 18.7. Same a motion for approval of the preliminary plant with the caveat that it be allowed to go underneath the open space requirement. That sound good? Second. All right, Hillary, will you call a vote? Thompson. Hi Samson. Hi Forest. Hi Eaton. Hi Henders. Hi. Ster.

Hi. Thank you. Next item is a request from Norwok JV22 LLC for approval of the final plat of done property plat 3. Elliot, will you give us brief? Not much to add. This is just the document that formally subdivides the land. Do we need to do the same provisions here? No. Okay. A motion. in your second. Hillary, will you call a vote? Samuelson, hi. For Boris, hi. Eden, hi. Henders. Hi. Thompson. Hi, Digger. Hi.

All right. Thank you everyone. Uh, next item is election of planning and voting commission chair. I'm going to talk for just a minute about how we're going to do this. Um, I talked to Jim Doy, our city attorney before this meeting about how this is supposed to be done. There's nothing in the B&Z standing rules about procedure. So, we can sort of make it up. But what he would like to see is anybody who's interested and Elizabeth, if this is you, speak up. Anyone who's interested in being the chair, raise your hand at this time.

So, one, we have one self-nominee. Would anyone like to nominate anyone else to be the chair? Anyone else want nominated? Elizabeth, you want to nominate? Uh, I do not, but thank you. I raised their hand. We assume tonight you're an automatic candidate. Who raised their hand because I could could not tell. Sorry, Elizabeth. Brent raised his hand. Has been Brent has been a chair of board of adjustment in the past for

13 years. is he he has chaired meetings on the rag so to speak. Um so what we would need is a motion from someone else uh to elect Brent chair and a second and then a vote force to a motion second. All right. So Hillary, let's take a vote to um elect Brent as our new ENZ chair. Samuelson. Hi Forest. Hi Eaton. I Henders. It's my best instinct. I I if you said Thompson. Yeah. All right. Stiger. Hi.

All right. Well, thank you for volunteering yourself. All right. Next is city council update from Andy. Um just a couple things. Maybe you guys know for sure, right? But the the first part of the annexation to the west, project west, like that was all officially done. You guys know all that's good. We've you guys have talked about that. I missed the last council or the last PNZ meeting, right? I found out about that today. Oh, you did? So, it was Yeah, I think it happened formally happened between the last meeting and now. So, yeah, that's the voluntary annexation that we phase one of that crater. Exactly. Just the Sheper Patterson property. Yep. So, just know here. This is not the greatest visual, but the stuff that came to us like a month ago,

I generated a map for this at the end of the day. And so what it does to the city limits render properly because that so the person who wanted this did not want aerial but um so Delaware Street right up here Madison next to the site plan we just got through it's everything down in this direction. We can't see it on the zoom Elliot. Yeah. Sorry here.

Sorry. probably better. Just trying to prove that I was doing my Luke. All right. So, it's uh this right? Yeah. this

it's approximately that if the selection cuz why would it anyway it's down in this area. Yeah, we'll get a new we'll we'll update the the geography on it. Get a new map out. We can send that to y'all all you guys as well. So, it's not selecting for Elliot, but um yeah, and it's going to take you all the way back over to the other project now. Wonderful. You got a little beacon. Did you intentionally make that look like it's two legs with boots? Little Italy kind of thing going on. Yeah.

Impressive. Elliot adding some art to this thing. Yeah. and a leg. Cool. Zoom out. Isn't there another leg on the other side? So, a name for it. So the other part of the annexation right is still

so that is so the bigger annexation um I believe it just had I think there's a recent milestone last week where there was um some due dates on the appeal that that's passed. So now everybody submitted everything on the appeal and uh they're moving forward uh with that appeal process. So So we have more to come there. That'll be that'll be

um Elliot in chat I just put a link. Um so Council Member Brown, one of his initiatives is just kind of like community pride and neighborhoods inside of uh inside of Norwok. And so I think maybe at the um him and Holly talked about this at the last meeting, there's some upcoming meetings coming up and this is really kind of their first initial thought of maybe what um as we start to think about how would we break up Norwok and think about it, right? Like so what are the different villages? Jason likes this concept that make up Norwok. Um and this this pictorial kind of has maybe some rough ideas of what names could be. Do we need more areas? Do we need less areas? So, this is kind of an interesting thing that's a work in progress. They're trying to get some neighborhood ambassadors from each of these areas. Do we like these names? Are you really one area? Are you three areas? What What does this be longer term? So, we could start to have more community pride in the in the area you live in. Right. I live in the Echo Valley neighborhood. I I quite often refer to it when people ask me where do I live? I say Echo Valley. I know people that live in in Lakewood say the same thing. Right. And so is there some community pride within this that goes along with that? Um, you know, for city council, one of the things George Mkey's also talked about as we grow and get bigger, do we maybe elect by wart? You know, maybe you throw a ward overlay on top of these villages and maybe it doesn't exactly uh flush itself out. But maybe you know um Echo, Holland Point, Norwok Central and Lakewood maybe that's maybe becomes a wart or roughly but warts need to be you know evenly spit population and other things but this kind of gives us a way to maybe start to think about our our neighborhoods and and maybe we how maybe we think as we grow what do we want certain areas to be what feel they have as people come to Norwok what's the feel of of this given village air quote in in Norwalk I don't know if I love the name village but garden of Norwalk Okay. So, so I thought

it was an interesting update from from Jason and Holly. I can email out that link at the end of the meeting. That's so cool. Told Jason you don't like the word village. He loves it. He loves the word village. But has he talked with um parks and wreck? Because right now it feels like a lot of those villages parks and wreck is just empty grass fields. Yeah. be nice if parks got on board with that and got some pride in their parks. I know him and Holly are kind of going on a tour. Luke, you probably know even more than I do.

Yeah, you know, uh I I think those are some of the next phases of stuff. I know they've kind of involved me um in some things, you know, starting to get other other departments involved. Um I think they presented to the chamber. Um

but I definitely think that, you know, we've got there's all these bigger council goals, right? And so Jason's was kind of Norwok identity and pride and and all that stuff and like that starts to bleed into other areas, right? So like uh you know I think one of Kelsey's initiatives, Kelsey Porter, our other count new council member um along with Andy is uh parks and getting parks built out and what can we do with that, right? So you can see how those start kind of connecting together. Um and we can hopefully use each one to kind of help influence the other.

Yeah, that'd be amazing because I know we we approved so many plots for park land and I can't tell you the last time I saw a new park get put in by normal parks and wreck.

Right. I know they've got I know parks has has got some stuff coming up in budgets to to build things out, but uh we actually just had a meeting uh probably two weeks ago talking about like what can we start what how far could we push some of our regulations to start getting things built out quicker, right? So, you know, can we require things to be built? Can we take less land but have them build things out? That that type of stuff. So, uh we're certainly moving that way. probably the last 10 years, I'd say, we focused a lot on just getting the ground. So that's why we have so much empty parkland. Um, so I think that's kind of changing now.

I feel like Elizabeth Holland and that walking trail is probably the last big thing that we've really done as a city and in in one of these given areas that and Warrior Park kind of happened about the same time. Well, and then I mean the fieldhouse is technically part that we diverted a lot of our plans to do the fieldhouse. So, you know, Yeah. There's only so many dollars in the day. Dog parks to the parks. Yeah. Everybody's got a dog. But the fieldhouse doesn't really help each one of these villages that you're talking about. Correct. It's in its own village. Air quotes, right? It's Norwalk Central. So, all right, Elliot, I know we kind of bled into you. Do you have a an update for us?

Uh, not really. Just that we had that one agenda item get pushed to the next meeting. So, we will have a next meeting. Um, otherwise nothing really to add. I've had a lot of people ask me about that item, the uh, future land use um, amendment that was done tonight. I guess the one kind of point of emphasis that I've tried to make for the folks who've asked me about it is just that in this day and age uh land that develops now especially but even in the past pretty much stays that way forever. It's when we lose commercial ground that's a that's a thing that needs to be thought about seriously. Um so that's kind of been the main point of emphasis. Um, I think Luke, you know, would echo some of that too,

right? I think, you know, but

and I think you guys covered all this, so I won't blavorver the po point, right? But like it's hard because uh you guys have lived it when we do something new near people that built out in the county. Well, I built there and I wanted to be away from everybody and I and I built there to be away from everybody, right? And uh that's why we have a two-mile review, right? Um that's why the county the county actually its land use plan defers to our land use plan. So uh the county in making their zoning decision has to consult our land use plan and then our land use plan has to conform with whatever they end up zoning it. So uh it's hard like this is a weird situation. I wish that the county wouldn't have allowed a subdivision to happen there 46 years ago. Um, I wish the county wouldn't have done a lot of the subdivisions outside of the city a long time ago, but they let that happen. Um, good news is their comp plan is better now and it does include ours more. So, in other areas where we don't have this old subdivision that existed, we are going to have better control over growth outside of our our city limits. Um, so it's just this is a weird one. So, I appreciate all your guys' thoughtful uh discussion on it. I think it was good.

When we do our next comp plan or when we look at zoning, is there an option to draw a tighter circle around what we call low density residential and like uh rural states? Because right now that in the future in the future land use map, right? That that low density residential covers a huge swap of housing product. Right. Right. Technically, if somebody were to come with us with a real estate in say land further to the west that we're annexing, that would fit the comp plan, right? Although, we really it would fit the comp plan, right? But we really don't want rule estates gobbling up Norwok land, right? And so I just I just wonder if there's another category there.

Yeah. you know, we could uh probably what we would do and I guess I mean I don't want to get into a whole long discussion on it, but you know, we would I don't know what our current land use plan says when it talks about low density if it's definitive that I mean we have like some some lot acre minimums. Um so, and there are some density caps that you have to meet. We could certainly look at like being more deliberate and be like, "Look, if you're going to be low density out here, like you at least got to be uh 70 foot wide lot. You can't go out to, you know, 3 acre lots, right? We could put a a density cap and say, you know, you've got to be at least four units an acre, which is about a single family development, right? So, um, we do that in the medium density where you say the medium density has to be at least 5 acres or five units an acre so that we can ensure we're getting density in those areas." Um but uh not so much on the low density right now.

All right, the next meeting is April 27th. Is that correct?

Real quick, just wanted to mention uh one other thing on development update. Um thanks for getting Brent elected. Uh appreciate being able to move on with a chair going forward. Um, Brent, for you to think about, uh, our chair has typically been part of our economic development, uh, workg group, which meets before council meetings. So, you're certainly invited to come to that. If that doesn't work for you, or if you don't want to be involved with that, let me know. And then at the next meeting, we'll probably see if any other planning commission member wants to be part of that. Um it has been helpful to have a planning commission member again had been the chair in the past be part of those meetings so they can kind of be up todate and ask question in those and kind of know what's going on economic development wise.

I don't know if I can make it from the office on time till you know. Yeah. Yeah. So they'd be they're they're at five usually. So just let me know and we'll we'll figure it out if we need to open it up to a different uh P&Z member. So no I'm good. Notice they told you that after. It's always after. It's always after. Okay. Can I get a motion, a second to adjurnn? Course motions. Second, Anders. All in favor say I. I. We're officially journed at 7:09 p.m.

Thanks everybody. We didn't need to recognize share. All the signs.