[0:06] it's really nice

[0:20] does it have to do that does it have to have the court yeah

[0:31] um

[0:35] I grew up here like

[0:38] we came back a couple of years ago that's about Mr Johnson sir

[0:45] how you doing we were always mad over because my parents live yeah my cousins

[1:26] yeah

[1:29] I will

[1:36] well welcome to the board thank you sir

[1:45] no fireworks tonight

[1:57] [Music]

[2:02] I always wanted to tell you how nice that house looks done well thank you

[2:07] and the wife and even the garage and stuff you put on there

[2:12] finally did you speak right up from where I was born the next house that

[2:16] little Stone House yeah there's the garage

[2:19] oh yeah oh yeah that's beautiful yeah I remember that was just you know when I

[2:25] was a kid it was just

[2:30] yeah well my great great aunt had it was that who it was yeah okay yeah

[2:36] yeah yeah it's been I'm the fifth fifth generation that's at it okay we took her

[2:43] down to nothing yeah someone's going by there though aren't

[2:47] you well I I tell you what I'll be I'll be glad 24 gets here yeah you might uh

[2:54] where they're going they might be a little longer than 24. you'll retrieve

[2:58] this winter or something or reprieve on the winner

[3:02] 20th isn't it coming up here or if the weather holds out it might even go a

[3:07] little bit farther but I just assume they do and get it done which is this

[3:10] next part of it's going to go fast down here seems like it took forever but

[3:14] they had all that underground stuff yeah it was just seemed like they weren't

[3:17] getting anything done they were working with a lot I mean Mike yeah

[3:23] one of the guys said it was like just entangled mess with fishing line down

[3:27] there well we're on South Street the trucks

[3:30] don't bother you yeah at night four o'clock in the

[3:34] morning I'd like to get the newspaper and watch them come by and you can

[3:36] always see the ones that aren't stopping to keep going straight yeah

[3:56] um

[4:45] because truthfully that extra foot and half would have made a huge difference

[4:50] would have made a big difference yeah I wouldn't want to vlogier Street

[4:58] foreign

[5:35] [Music]

[7:23] so we went through it

[7:34] [Music]

[7:45] I wouldn't have let the dogs

[8:04] [Music] foreign

[9:48] looking for a new person

[10:34] College

[10:48] address

[11:33] so John I have to obviously accuse myself

[12:40] you know that foreign

[14:12] yeah it is amazing

[14:21] [Music]

[14:36] so how did your son survive an afternoon with my brother the morning

[14:52] yeah

[15:06] Haley was up there working and it just happened to be a day that was like

[15:10] Courthouse

[15:17] years

[15:23] in law school

[15:30] you guys all ready

[15:39] you guys ready yes okay we'll go ahead and call the zoning board appeals

[15:44] meeting for Wednesday November 9th 2020 to go on the road please

[15:52] here Monahan here dancing here

[15:59] we do have a corn okay under item 22z Dash 2004 approval minutes of

[16:07] the regular meeting of September 14 2022 entertain a motion

[16:12] the motion to approved we have a second second

[16:17] all votes in favor say goodbye by saying aye

[16:20] aye those both standing caring okay the next one is 22

[16:24] pda-02 this is a public hearing owner and applicant True North Quality Homes

[16:29] LLC request for an amendment to the plan unit development plan to add an

[16:34] additional 18.24 Acres Quant annexation in the corporate corporate boundaries in

[16:39] the city of Galena just uh remind everybody you're going to

[16:44] speak in this public hearing make sure you're signed in on the appropriate

[16:48] sheet back there when you come forward state your name and your address for the

[16:52] record so I will entertain a motion to open a

[16:55] public go ahead James I think I should okay I need to excuse myself of the

[17:01] record show that Jim has accused himself so I understand a motion to open a

[17:06] public hearing

[17:10] a second all those in favor signify for saying aye aye those opposed to any

[17:15] carried okay first thing we'll do is anybody who is going to testify either

[17:20] before or against uh will be sworn in by Mr Knack so

[17:24] anybody's going to testify four against or possibility please raise your hand

[17:28] promise to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth

[17:32] thank you thank you okay uh want to come forward

[17:38] and begin

[17:50] how long

[18:00] thank you hi my name is Sammy Lawrence my address

[18:06] is 3638 Ice Age 5 in Madison Wisconsin I'm the president of beyondee and I will

[18:14] be involved in the development and operations for the Parker project

[18:18] we are really excited in presenting this amendment since it provides us the

[18:22] opportunity to improve on the design of the approved preliminary PUD

[18:28] after we purchase the additional 18.24 Acres we realized the beneficial changes

[18:34] we could make to the layout of the approved QB

[18:39] Jim Beth Jake and Andy reader will be providing an overview of those changes

[18:45] under current County zoning the additional 18.24 acres are zoned

[18:51] agricultural if annexed it will come in as limited

[18:55] agricultural we are not requesting a change to that

[18:59] zoning designation because we are adding the additional

[19:03] acreage the approved PUD this will result in dual sign

[19:08] therefore in consultation with the city we are adding an amendment to the

[19:12] approved PUD per ordinance 154.923 you need resulting and plan

[19:19] review specifically at 1A we hope to show you tonight the benefit

[19:25] of supporting this amendment with a positive recommendation to the city

[19:29] if this amendment is not approved the preliminary approved PUD plan will

[19:34] remain in force I'm now going to hand over the

[19:38] presentation to Jim and team to provide an overview of the amendment

[19:43] and I'll be providing you a map that Jim will be projecting oh so this is just a

[19:47] larger blow-up Wheels

[19:51] [Music]

[20:02] hi um my name is Jim baraski

[20:06] South Industries

[20:09] um this evening our team is presenting an amendment to the previously approved

[20:14] linear PDP plan for the park our goal is to demonstrate how we do the

[20:20] amendment is consistent with the zoning orders and with the goals of the

[20:24] comprehensive plan this amendment is not approved and the

[20:28] project will proceed in accordance with the original approved

[20:32] I'd like to start with an overview of the differences between the original

[20:37] approved plan and the proposed amendments

[20:40] foreign this first slide shows the boundary of

[20:46] the previously approved plan which is there

[20:50] and this is this is Blackjack for this reference and then here is uh Park

[20:55] Avenue uh the Shaded area to the right the Shaded area to the right there that

[21:03] is the additional 18.2 18.24 acre Edition which is part of the

[21:10] amendment

[21:13] this is an update of the elevation map we show the first time around here is

[21:18] the original boundary again you see here

[21:22] and then that shaded portion over there is the uh the additional acreage

[21:30] if we use the corner of Blackjack Road and fourth

[21:34] here as elevation zero zero then you'll

[21:39] notice that the creek that along here is about 38 feet below that

[21:44] the Marine hospital is up here at plus 78 feet

[21:48] the the uh the wrist line the bluff Edge is about 80 and then the new uh high

[21:55] point on the property um is up here in this upper left-hand

[21:59] corner on the new piece of property and it's about 164 feet above the

[22:05] intersection of blackjack and fourth

[22:13] thank you should also point out that down here to

[22:18] the east is where the new entry will be so

[22:22] um some of you have seen that gate I'm going to show a picture of it but at

[22:26] some point here but um just across the creek there's a bridge across the creek

[22:31] and just to the right is where the uh the new entrance will be

[22:36] likes to show this map which which is really that's showing

[22:42] what the differences are between the the original plan and now the new plan

[22:47] foreign so the elements that are shown here in red

[22:51] are elements that are being removed from the project and the purple ones that are

[22:56] ones that are being added the first major element being removed is

[23:00] this red row to the left

[23:03] here okay and that was the lower ring of

[23:09] marine Hospital Cottages um

[23:13] and uh those Cottages will go from that position and they will be redistributed

[23:19] in other parts of the project the second major element being removed

[23:24] is the original entrance off of Blackjack Road along with the large

[23:29] detention line You'll see that these two changes to the plan will

[23:35] result in us having to remove four fewer Acres of trees while at the same time

[23:41] you're eliminating 32 554 square feet of Paving surface from

[23:47] the original plant the purple boundary to the right here

[23:52] that is the boundary of the new prop 18.24 acres and

[24:00] that purple line there is the new entrance Road

[24:04] I should also point out that thin purple lines running North here

[24:10] and to the left here um those are new trails

[24:20] here's a picture of the new entrance on the east side of Davis Creek

[24:24] um many of you might know this place this this position

[24:31] so for reference purposes um

[24:35] I want to start with showing the original preliminary approve primary few

[24:40] of these

[24:43] on the right you'll see the additional 18.24 Acres

[24:52] now that 18.24 acres is going to be it will come into the project as limited Ag

[25:00] and then it'll stay limited Act

[25:04] you'll notice the original entry here

[25:09] will go away

[25:12] and then you'll notice that the lower Cottages below the Marine Hospital

[25:17] closest to the Park Avenue and the neighbors

[25:21] um will then also go away

[25:33] so when this project is completed um

[25:37] it's it's mostly the same and I could point out we could look at the main

[25:41] building which is here and then the winery which is there and then the cafe

[25:48] um that those those buildings pretty much stay where they were okay see

[25:54] between each this is the original plan their original locations and then here

[25:59] are the revised locations and you can see that they move only a slight amount

[26:03] and then the roadways are shifted a little bit and some of the Cottages are

[26:07] moving around as well

[26:11] so here is the revised project showing the additional 18.24 Acres

[26:19] with uh more Vineyard planted up at the top

[26:25] um and additional Prairie planted all along this Hillside

[26:31] but also notice in the development is adding Trails uh adding another mile of

[26:36] trails actually so there's a total of two and a half miles

[26:42] I should point out here that the trails will be open to the public

[26:49] um I know the annexation agreement has

[26:53] language that gives the owner the discretion to limit the use of the

[26:56] trails to guess but this language was added to protect

[27:02] the property and the highly unlikely situation that members of the public

[27:06] misuse the trails the fact is the trails being opened to

[27:11] the public is good for the project and the users so as long as people respect

[27:16] their use the trails will be open

[27:22] I'd like to remind you of the portion of the project that's already been

[27:26] completed which is Phase 1A phase 1A was the planting of this

[27:31] portion of the vineyard which is approximately five acres

[27:35] and here are pictures of the completed um

[27:44] so now I'm going to take you through the revised phasing plans

[27:49] show you how the 18.24 acre Edition has altered our thinking about the order of

[27:56] construction

[28:00] here again um is Phase 1A uh with its five acres of

[28:05] Vineyard because the new entrance is now on the

[28:10] far East side of the project way over here

[28:14] and a portion of the vineyard has been planted already we think it makes sense

[28:19] to build the Cottages near the Vineyard first along with the rehabilitation of

[28:24] the Marine Hospital

[28:28] you can see this existing driveway which will be the new entrance

[28:33] that driveway will be improved so it's two lanes it'll be white two

[28:39] lines and it'll be it'll be paved you will also plant another six acres or

[28:44] so a minion at the top of the property and plant a prairie on the slope to the

[28:49] road that's this Prairie right here some of you have maybe driven Pastor you'll

[28:56] see there's quite a bit of quite a bit of erosion off that Hillside because

[29:01] it's pretty steep um but we'll be using these

[29:05] infiltration bio swales here here and here as part of the Prairie and that

[29:12] should reduce the current amount of storm water coming off the hill in the

[29:15] Davis Creek the new driveway here

[29:24] a new driveway will continue through over to the Marine Hospital sort of

[29:30] following the Contours across the property

[29:33] and the Marine hospital will be rehabilitated in the manner in which we

[29:37] talked about it in the preliminary period

[29:40] the winery and its parking will be built in this phase along with 28 Cottages

[29:45] overlooking The Vineyards so here's the winery and then here are the vineyard

[29:49] cottages the main road going across the property

[29:56] um the main road going across the property

[30:00] uh is two lanes uh and then the um the loop where the Cottages are will be one

[30:08] lane with parallel parking on the road uh right in front of the Cottages

[30:14] the westernmost portion of the walking trail which is way back here

[30:19] that will be completed in Phase 1B along with its connection

[30:24] uh down to the Galena River Trail

[30:30] phase two will have 26 Ravine cottages and 22 cottages and a loop a sort of an

[30:37] upper loop I guess you'd say um around the Marine Hospital

[30:43] and then phase three We'll add 18 cottages and a prairie setting which is

[30:48] right through here as and as with the approved preliminary

[30:53] community plan we'll add the main building if it's parking four acres of

[30:57] gardens additional trails and the cafe foreign

[31:05] [Music]

[31:09] 26 Hillside cottages and the last section of Trail bringing the total

[31:14] Trailway to two and a half miles

[31:20] I'd like to reiterate here that the only thing that the board is voting on

[31:26] tonight is the amendment the plan we're showing has not increased

[31:31] density or intensity of the project that has already been approved we have the

[31:35] same number of cottages and guest rooms as the previous plant we also have the

[31:40] same number and size of the other buildings on the site like the winery

[31:44] Cafe and Main Building but there are some important differences

[31:48] that needed to be pointed out number one is that with medicine is

[31:53] watching Who's online

[32:00] Mary best Donald

[32:07] Trump

[32:16] foreign

[32:19] Roger Julian Galena Library Sam white Julie Spangler Dan Snyder

[32:27] Cindy Pepple Mel Granton Pam Bernstein

[32:37] oh so whoever um was just pointing out those names

[32:43] your mic is actually on and I we were maybe hoping that they

[32:49] could be turned off oh okay

[32:55] well now I have to go all the way up again

[33:03] um so I wanted to point out that there are some uh differences between uh the

[33:10] original plan and this one um and number one is that the amendment

[33:14] the landscape surface ratio has increased to 84 only 80 that's an

[33:20] original plan of the minimum landscape surface ratio for Planned commercial

[33:24] district is 35 percent the new landscape surface ratio

[33:30] um is still 80 in the playing commercial area but the overall LSR is now 84

[33:37] . and number two the four area ratio or far which is the total building area

[33:43] as a function of the total Site Area has decreased the allowable poor area ratio

[33:49] for Planned commercial history where all the buildings are located is 25 we are

[33:55] now at 4.4 percent in the planned commercial area and 3.6 overall

[34:02] so now I'd like to turn the presentation over to Beth who will discuss the

[34:07] Project's performance with the comprehensive plan

[34:16] hi I'm Beth baransky and my home is at 1015 South bench Street in Galena

[34:27] we want to know here that the amended project will come by with the Galena

[34:31] building regulations the highway 20 overlay district and the stormwater

[34:35] cross connection Control Ordinance requirements as well as the lighting

[34:39] standards all required permits permits and

[34:43] assurances will be submitted at the appropriate times to document compliance

[34:52] here we're simply showing how the project area relates to the highway 20

[34:56] overlay District a small portion of the property follows

[35:01] um which is 1200 feet of the center line of Highway 20.

[35:05] if you look um here's the center I'm sorry the center line and the project is

[35:11] just a little bit here that falls within that

[35:16] for both of the Pud area falls in the area between 1200 and 2400 feet of the

[35:21] center line for which the only guidance is listing of raw materials that are

[35:25] discouraged a non-administrative Highway 20

[35:28] development permit will be obtained as required

[35:35] if you're looking at the project relative to the comprehensive plan it's

[35:39] important to understand the role the plan plays in community land use

[35:42] development what the plan is and what it is not

[35:47] comprehensive plans are long-term plans to help guide Community growth and

[35:51] development unlike the zoning ordinance and other ordinances that regulate

[35:55] communities of land comprehensive plans are not important documents the

[35:59] comprehensive plan is a reference and a guide and the basis for Designing

[36:03] ordinance the criteria that learning board uses

[36:07] for evaluating this amendment requires that the comprehensive plan be

[36:11] considered when evaluating proposals the comprehensive plan is not a rigid

[36:16] unchanging plan nor the final answer to all problems in the future a

[36:21] comprehensive plan is based on the knowledge and goals at the time of

[36:24] adoption plans are meant to be flexible and to be

[36:28] updated when necessary then related regulatory ordinances need to be updated

[36:33] accordingly to ensure proper implementation of the plan

[36:36] the comprehensive plans are a basis for making rational decisions but they don't

[36:41] replace the decision-making process

[36:45] looking at a few of the maps in the comprehensive plan may help to

[36:48] illustrate the role of the comprehensive plan as a general reference for land use

[36:52] and development State Statute gives municipalities the

[36:56] ability to enact properties that are surrounded on three sides by City

[37:00] boundaries the comprehensive plan recommends that

[37:04] the city consider annexation of properties that are bonded on three or

[37:07] more sides by the city the proposed annexation map for the lab

[37:12] is not a map prescribing exclusively the properties that should be an accident

[37:17] it's a little bit hard to see this up here but these areas are the annexed

[37:23] area shown to be the next series to be considered for annexation

[37:29] the areas are not showing red are not specific Parcels of land designated for

[37:34] annexation for example there's a small portion of the park Parker project

[37:37] unrelated to any defined personal that little triangle down here at the bottom

[37:44] that is included in one of the proposed annexation areas with the proposed

[37:49] annexation map does do simply is illustrate areas that the city

[37:53] boundaries encompassed on three sides which should be considered for

[37:57] annexation

[38:00] looking at the map on the right the County's 1999 comprehensive plan

[38:04] initiated a Cooperative planning effort with municipalities within the county

[38:07] identifying contiguous growth areas or cgas with the express desire to direct

[38:13] development to existing Development Centers for infrastructure and services

[38:16] are readily available or easily provided vgas are defined is that area around the

[38:23] municipality in which put that community anticipates and desires grow to occur in

[38:27] the foreseeable future this language and intent remains in

[38:31] section 8.3 of the pound's 2012 Plan update

[38:35] the contiguous growth area map identifies areas the city anticipated

[38:39] and desired growth to occur in the foreseeable future at the time the map

[38:43] was created in 2007. the map is not a map prescribing

[38:48] exclusively the properties on which growth can and should occur

[38:52] if the proposed annotation map and the continuous growth area maps were meant

[38:56] to show areas defined exclusively for development they would cover the same

[39:00] areas what can be said is that the Parker

[39:03] project is located in the vicinity of and immediately abiding areas that were

[39:07] anticipated and desired for growth in 2007.

[39:14] the proposed land use plan illustrates the plan intent described in the

[39:19] narratives areas remain as undeveloped undeveloped

[39:22] Green Space are identified basically the Eastern entrance to the city on 20.

[39:30] over here

[39:34] and areas along major waterways the proposed project area was not

[39:40] designated as a permanent green space having said that a significant portion

[39:44] of the total project in nearly all of the proposed 18.248 transition will be

[39:49] maintained as open space at the time that the conference the plan

[39:52] was adopted proposed useless had not been identified for the project

[39:56] Amendment area at all therefore existing land uses are all that are shown on the

[40:02] proposed land use map in the project area

[40:05] no land use decisions one way or the other had been made for the project area

[40:09] at the time the comprehensive plan was adopted in 2003.

[40:21] now I'd like to specifically go through the ways the proposed amendment is

[40:24] supported by the comprehensive plan the proposed amendment supports the

[40:29] conference of planned Visions for growth in the efficient and attractive

[40:33] development of new land the city being proactive and annexing land to achieve

[40:37] its vision

[40:39] the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan vision statement for

[40:43] physical environment by adhering to a high standard of cleanliness maintaining

[40:47] high air quality water and soil protecting our historical and

[40:50] Architectural character and protecting and enhancing our natural resources

[40:55] areas of the Amendments propose additional 18.24 Acres will be planted

[40:59] in Prairie changes to projects roadways and the

[41:02] amendment reduce the amount of paved surfaces by over 32 000 square feet

[41:07] with the amendment the wooded areas that will not be disturbed is increased by

[41:11] about four acres

[41:17] the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals under 10.1

[41:21] Economic Development by increasing the project Trail length

[41:25] by one mile in conformance to the comprehensive plan and further develop

[41:29] the natural resource base to provide additional attraction for visitors to

[41:32] the area this could include the construction of trails and your goal 7

[41:36] tourism and by planting additional Prairie

[41:40] reducing the amount of paved Surface by over 32 000 square feet and increasing

[41:44] the amount awarded areas not to be disturbed by about four acres in

[41:47] conformance with the comprehensive plan to continue to protect the natural

[41:51] environment that provides the bay support for tourism in and around Galena

[41:55] all seven tourism

[41:58] the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals under 10.3

[42:03] stamp Transportation by combining additional parking outside of the

[42:07] downtown area and developing a shuttle service to and from the downtown area in

[42:10] peak season under goal three addressed Downtown parking issues

[42:15] and by providing an additional one-mile walking trails that are connected to the

[42:19] Galena River Trail in conformance of the comprehensive plan

[42:23] to encourage visitors to walk from parking areas into the downtown by

[42:27] creating paths from parking areas that take visitors past historic structures

[42:31] toll-free address Downtown parking issues

[42:38] the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals under 10.4

[42:42] public and Community facilities services and utilities

[42:45] by increasing the percentage of open space in the amended project which

[42:49] improves stormwater management opportunities

[42:52] Innovative infiltration and detention methods such as rain Gardens and bios

[42:56] rails will be incorporated to manage on-site storm water

[42:59] improving in conformance with the comprehensive plan storm water

[43:03] management in newly developing areas to ensure that current storm water concerns

[43:07] are not exacerbated under goal 2. and by providing increased property tax

[43:13] revenues that can be directed by the city to in performance with a

[43:17] comprehensive plan address the capital equipment and staffing needs for the

[43:20] police and fire departments as both will require additional equipment and staff

[43:24] as the community grows and tourism increases goal nine

[43:30] the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals under 10.6

[43:34] Natural Resources by planting areas of the proposed additional 18.24 acres and

[43:40] Prairie by changing project roadways to reducing the amount of paved Services by

[43:45] over 32 000 square feet and by increasing the amount of wooded areas

[43:48] not to be disturbed by about four acres in conformance to the comprehensive plan

[43:54] continue to use the natural beauty of the region to attract tourists and

[43:58] ensuring that in development is consistent with the premise of

[44:01] protecting the environment under goal one protect and preserve the natural

[44:05] beauty in and around the city of Leon

[44:09] the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals under 10.7 land

[44:14] use and development by annexing the 18.24 acre Edition

[44:19] plan all new development on the edge of the city are next to the city to gain

[44:24] access to city sewer and water utilities hole 13.

[44:31] the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals under 10.8

[44:35] intergovernmental cooperation by maintaining the default limited

[44:39] agricultural zoning designation upon annexation of the proposed 18.24 acre

[44:43] Edition by planting the 18.24 acres in Prairie and Vineyards by enhancing the

[44:49] Project's overall park-like atmosphere through an increase in the landscape

[44:53] surface ratio to 84 percent and by reducing the floor area ratio

[44:59] that is the ratio between building floor area to overall project area down to 3.6

[45:04] percent in conformance to the comprehensive plan

[45:08] to protect and maintain the rural character of the city of Helena and the

[45:11] surrounding areas as the city of Galena and the region continue to grow

[45:19] and now I'm going to turn the presentation over to Andrew Reeder

[45:22] senior project engineer with Fairgrounds

[45:37] hello asbesta my name is Andrew reader I live

[45:41] at 2366 North Lynn Avenue in Freeport Illinois and I'm a senior project

[45:45] engineer with aircraft I'm also a certified floodplain manager certified

[45:50] professional and erosion and sediment control and licensed as a professional

[45:54] engineer in Illinois Wisconsin I will be discussing the view slides

[45:57] related to The Post site

[46:00] the first slide shows a proposed layout for the site roadways and site water and

[46:05] sanitary utilities at completion of all construction phases

[46:09] as Jim previously discussed this construction will be phased and the site

[46:14] improvements will only be constructed as needed for each phase of the development

[46:19] utility plan has been updated from the previously approved preliminary plan to

[46:25] match the adjustments that have been made to the roadway alignment of

[46:28] significant additional changes have not been proposed

[46:32] the previous and current land include a sanitary sewer alignment with a crossing

[46:37] of the Galena River this is not an uncommon but unsafe design or

[46:42] construction activity and it is clearly Allowed by local and state regulations

[46:46] in fact there is already a similar River Crossing currently in Boardman

[46:51] the river crossing would be uh

[47:00] this exhibit identifies the proposed preliminary site stormwater management

[47:04] plan the development team plans to make the

[47:07] project a low impact development by incorporating creative structure

[47:11] approaches approaches will include minimizing

[47:14] ground disturbance minimizing impervious areas incorporating small local bmps

[47:20] best management practices looks to the point of discharge like rain guards

[47:25] infiltration bases and biosoils to reduce the size of the larger project

[47:29] facilities and minimize slow protection needs

[47:33] rain Gardens infiltration basins detention basins and wet bottom

[47:38] attention bases will be designed to accommodate runoff in excess of the

[47:43] local BNP capacities hold protection through a variety of

[47:49] best management practices including minimized disturbance revegetation

[47:54] biotechnical stabilization heart armor bio retention with stuffed pools and

[48:00] bioswales will be incorporated into the site design

[48:04] lastly and most importantly the final site stormwater design will not increase

[48:10] the peak stormwater discharge rate and will meet local and Regional design

[48:14] requirements

[48:21] this exhibit provides the existing boundaries of the site natural resources

[48:25] including wooded areas

[48:32] Wetland boundaries

[48:38] and the 100 Year blood plane shown in the blue hatch

[48:44] as required by the city of Galena the proposed project complies with the

[48:48] natural resource protection standards for Woodland and Forest protection and

[48:52] for Wetlands protection

[48:59] these nuts show the design steps investigations reviews and approvals

[49:05] that are still anticipated prior to the start of construction

[49:09] these steps include the city of Galena for preliminary PUD Amendment review and

[49:15] approval which we are currently seeking before moving forward into the final

[49:19] designs of plan development the final design of plane development

[49:24] phase will include completion of the final stormwater management sign or

[49:28] models will help develop the exact details of the stormwater measures

[49:32] previously discussed stormwater pollution prevention plan

[49:36] will be developed to ensure compliance with Illinois Environmental Protection

[49:40] Agency regulations regarding construction stormwater discharge

[49:45] the geotechnical investigation will be completed including soil borings and

[49:50] infiltration testing the investigation will identify existing soil conditions

[49:55] to assist in the design of the proposed improvements

[50:01] after the final design and plan development are completed permit

[50:05] packages will be prepared and submitted for review and approval to all

[50:09] applicable local safe and federal Regulatory Agencies

[50:13] these include submitting design plans to the Joe Davies County highway department

[50:17] for accessibility approval

[50:22] submitting design plans reports calculations and investigations for the

[50:27] city of Galena final PUD review and approval for phase 1B

[50:32] plans and permits will be submitted to the Illinois Department of Natural

[50:35] Resources for review and approval related to The Fish and Wildlife

[50:39] coordination Act Illinois endangered species protection act and the Illinois

[50:44] historic preservation pool the joint permit application will be

[50:49] prepared and submitted to the Army Corps of Engineers the Illinois Environmental

[50:53] Protection Agency the Illinois Department of Natural Resources the Army

[50:58] Corps of Engineers will review the project for compliance with the rivers

[51:01] and harbors act Federal Water Pollution Control Act agreements and section 404

[51:07] of the Clean Water range the Illinois Environmental Protection

[51:11] Agency will review the project the water quality certification pursuant to

[51:15] section 401 of the Clean Water Act and will also make a determination of

[51:20] additional permit and regulatory requirements which similar to the

[51:23] Illinois public pollution control board rules and regulations

[51:27] the Illinois Department of Natural Resources office of Water Resources will

[51:31] review the joint permit application for compliance with the rivers lakes and

[51:34] streams add the fish and wildlife coordination act

[51:38] the Illinois endangered species protection act and the Illinois natural

[51:41] heritage preservation Act plans and permits will also be submitted

[51:47] to the Illinois Environmental Protection agent agency or review and approval

[51:51] under the national pollutant discharge elimination system

[51:54] this will include the preparation and submittal of a

[51:58] notice of intent in a stormwater pollution protection plan

[52:03] sanitary sewer State construction and operating permit package will be

[52:06] submitted to the iepa water pollution control division to review the project

[52:11] for compliance with the Environmental Protection Act and the regulations

[52:14] developed by the Illinois Pollution Control Board

[52:17] lastly a public water supplies Construction in the operating permit

[52:21] package will be submitted to the iepa division of Public Water Supplies to

[52:25] review the project for compliance with agency regulations

[52:28] as you can see this PUD Amendment hearing will be followed by many

[52:32] additional steps and reviews to ensure the project is constructed in compliance

[52:37] with about one state requirements thank you for your time and

[52:40] consideration and we'll hand it back over to you

[52:43] okay

[52:51] so um

[52:54] I'd like to highlight a couple of aspects of the project as they relate to

[53:00] the natural resource protection section of the zoning

[53:04] so the city sent us review comments after we submitted our proposal back in

[53:07] September and asked how we were meeting the buffer

[53:10] yard requirements in table 154 605.3 while there are residences located on

[53:17] Parcels immediately adjacent to the accrue preliminary PUD plan and the

[53:23] proposed acreage added as part of the amendment these Parcels are generally

[53:27] zoned limited AG original buffer yard is required

[53:31] the medium density residential zoning District to the north of the property is

[53:36] separated from the development by a right-of-way you can see that

[53:41] okay

[53:49] you see that right there because there's a right-of-way that runs right through

[53:52] here um

[53:56] and so perfectly in the zoning ordinance 154 605 F2 Buffy yards are not are

[54:02] required along only interior property lines that have bought another property

[54:06] and that along streets or rights of way therefore no buffer yard requirements

[54:11] apply to the approved preliminary PUD plant or the proposed amendment

[54:16] however for General reference a Type 3 block yard is required to be at least 30

[54:21] feet wide the actual distance between neighboring

[54:25] parcels and our nearest Trail ranges from about 80 feet to 350 feet

[54:31] and the buildings are further still there is also a significant change in

[54:36] elevation from which further reduces the impact also for General events a Type 3

[54:43] buffer yard would require a minimum of about 565 landscape points for 100

[54:49] million feet based on the actual tree survey

[54:52] conducted around the Marine Hospital there are about 10 six inch caliper or

[54:57] larger existing trees per 100 million feet in the wooded areas of the slopes

[55:02] separating the project from the neighboring properties this would

[55:06] provide 750 landscape points without even considering all other existing

[55:11] landscape elements such as smaller climax climax trees and shrubbery

[55:19] another question was regarding the protection of steep swap areas as

[55:24] required in table 154 503.1 this map shows steep slope areas the

[55:31] green areas and our slopes from 20 to 30 percent and the yellow areas show slopes

[55:39] over 30 percent the areas in red show the areas of

[55:44] disturbance within the 20 to 30 percent slope areas and the areas in dark blue

[55:51] show the areas of disturbance within the over 30 percent exposed

[55:56] according to table 154 503.1 for steep slopes and 20 to 30

[56:02] percent in non-residential uses seventy percent of the area shall be protected

[56:09] the total protected area within the 20 to 30 percent slopes at the Parker

[56:16] how he was this is 92.81 percent

[56:21] also according to the to table 154 503.1 for steep slopes over 30 percent in

[56:28] non-residential uses 80 of the area shall be protected as you can see the

[56:34] total area protected of over 30 percent at the Parker is 91.38

[56:44] I would now like to turn it over to Sandy for a summary

[56:56] but Beth is just handing out a copy so you can follow along

[57:01] um with the next section

[57:06] so our hope is this presentation is provided everyone with an understanding

[57:11] of the positive changes this additional acreage provides

[57:15] next I am going to provide a summary of our Amendment submission as it relates

[57:20] to the sudden zoning approval criteria from ordinance 154.920

[57:27] so if you put up the seven valve going through so people can follow along

[57:34] and see approval criteria the first point whether the existing text or

[57:40] zoning designation was an error at the time of adoption

[57:44] this criteria is not applied the approved preliminary PUD plan has an

[57:50] underlying plan commercial zoning District which is appropriate for the

[57:53] project and the 18.24 acre Edition is currently

[57:58] in the county and in the general agriculture District so the city's

[58:03] existing texts and Zoning designation do now apply

[58:07] number two whether there has been a change of

[58:11] character in the area or throughout the city due to the installation of public

[58:14] facilities other zone changes New Growth Trends deterioration development

[58:19] transitions Etc there have been changes in the character

[58:24] of the area including the following hey the new Siege the new sewage treatment

[58:30] plant was built with excess capacity to allow for Community growth and the new

[58:35] location South of town altered the sewage treatment plant service area

[58:39] making this proper property readily serviceable

[58:43] the tourism and outdoor recreation have

[58:46] increased in this area and the approved PUD and proposed amendment align with

[58:51] these changes the development of the Galena River

[58:55] Trail is a significant recreational amenity which can be directly accessed

[59:00] from the project and Horseshoe Mountain Preserve has been

[59:03] developed in the area with Blackjack Road access

[59:09] three whether the proposed rezoning is

[59:12] compatible with the surrounding area and defining characteristics of the proposed

[59:16] zoning District for whether there may be adverse impacts

[59:20] on the capacity for safety of the portion of the street Network influenced

[59:25] by the rezoning parking problems or environmental impacts that the new Zone

[59:29] May generate such as excessive storm water runoff water air and noise

[59:34] pollution excessive nighttime lighting or other nuances

[59:39] the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and the defining

[59:44] characteristics of the proposed zoning District in the following ways hey

[59:49] this brings the 18.24 acre parcel into the Pud but maintains The Limited

[59:55] agricultural underlying zoning designation resulting when the parcel is

[1:00:00] annexed into the city the it increases the percentage of open

[1:00:04] space see it reduces total paved area

[1:00:09] the it reduces the project floor area ratio that they are

[1:00:14] e the added acreage is consistent with Rural and agricultural nature of the

[1:00:19] area F the project addresses traffic and

[1:00:22] Parkinsons through the provisions of the shuttle service from the resort and

[1:00:27] through encouraging use of the Galena River Trail

[1:00:30] the additional 18.24 acre Park parcel increases the total percentage of open

[1:00:36] space from 80 to 84 percent creating greater opportunities for Innovative

[1:00:42] storm water management and age the project uses dark sky lighting

[1:00:47] techniques and fixtures preserve the views provided in the night sky in and

[1:00:52] around the wiener thank you

[1:00:57] four whether the proposal is in conformance with an inference of the

[1:01:02] implementation of the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan

[1:01:06] other adaptive plans and the policies intents and requirements of this coach

[1:01:10] and other city regulations and guidelines

[1:01:15] the proposed amendment complies with City plans policy codes regulations and

[1:01:20] guidelines the amended project shall meet all requirements in the Galena

[1:01:24] building regulations Highway 20 overlay District requirements stormwater

[1:01:29] detention cross-connection Control Ordinance and lighting standards and

[1:01:33] requirements we will submit all required permits and assurances at the

[1:01:38] appropriate times to document compliance the proposed amendment is in conformance

[1:01:44] with an inference of the implementation of the goals and policy of the

[1:01:49] comprehensive plan hey the proposed amendment supports the

[1:01:53] comprehensive plan vision statement for growth in the efficient and attractive

[1:01:58] development of new land with the city being proactive and annexated in the

[1:02:03] next annexing land to achieve its vision the proposed amendment supports the

[1:02:10] comprehensive plan vision statement for physical environment by adhering to a

[1:02:15] high standard timeliness maintaining high air quality water and soil

[1:02:19] protecting our historical and Architectural character and protecting

[1:02:23] and enhancing our natural resources in that areas of the proposed additional

[1:02:28] 18.24 Acres will be planned temporary changes to project roadways and the

[1:02:35] amendment reduce the amount of paid Services by over 32 000 square feet

[1:02:41] the wooded areas that will not be disturbed is increased by approximately

[1:02:45] four acres see the comprehensive plan identifies

[1:02:50] planning goals in eight categories these are listed in the comprehensive plan

[1:02:55] under element 10. as Beth provided our proposal our proposed amendment supports

[1:03:03] six of the eight categories the other two categories relate to

[1:03:07] housing and historic preservation the housing category has now apply to

[1:03:12] this project and the original preliminary PUD

[1:03:16] submitted does conform that the historical preservation category

[1:03:22] within that the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals

[1:03:26] under 10.1 Economic Development by increasing the project trailing by a

[1:03:34] mile to further develop the natural resource base to provide additional

[1:03:38] attraction for visitors to the area this could include the construction of trails

[1:03:43] as outlining all sudden tourism planting additional Prairie reducing the

[1:03:50] amount of paved surfaces by over 32 000 square feet and increasing the amount of

[1:03:54] wooded areas that will not be disturbed by approximately four acres

[1:03:59] this continued to protect the natural environment that provides the base

[1:04:03] support for tourism in and around Galena which is goal seven tourism

[1:04:10] indeed the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals under 10.3

[1:04:15] Transportation by providing additional parking outside of the downtown area and

[1:04:22] developing a shuttle service to and from the downtown area at each season which

[1:04:26] is in goal three address Downtown parking issues and providing an

[1:04:31] additional mile of walking trails that are connected to the Galena River Trail

[1:04:35] to encourage visitors to walk from parking areas into the downtown by

[1:04:41] creating ads from parking areas that take visitors past historic structures

[1:04:45] which is in goal three address Downtown parking issues

[1:04:51] each the proposed amendment supports comprehensive plan gold under 1024

[1:04:56] public and Community facilities Services services and utilities bye

[1:05:02] increasing the percentage of open space in the amended project improved storm

[1:05:06] water management opportunities Innovative infiltration and detention

[1:05:11] methods such as raining rain Gardens and bile swallows will be incorporated to

[1:05:16] manage sites storm water improving storm water management and making developing

[1:05:22] areas to ensure that the current storm water concerns are not persons which is

[1:05:27] angle too and by providing increased property tax

[1:05:32] revenues that can be directed to the city by the city to address the capital

[1:05:38] equipment and staffing needs for the police and fire departments as both will

[1:05:42] require additional equipment and staff and the community growth and tourism

[1:05:46] increases which is what's in goal nine

[1:05:51] at the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan goals under 10.6

[1:05:56] natural resources by planting areas of the proposed

[1:05:59] additional 18.24 acres and query changing project roadways and reducing

[1:06:04] minimum paid Services by over 32 000 square feet and increasing the amount of

[1:06:10] wooded areas that will not be disturbed by approximately four acres

[1:06:14] continuing to use the natural beauty of the region to attract tourists and

[1:06:18] ensuring that development is consistent with the premise protecting the

[1:06:22] environment which is listed in goal one to protect and preserve the natural

[1:06:26] beauty in and around city of Arena being the proposed amendment supports

[1:06:32] the comprehensive plan goals under 10.7 land use and development by annexing

[1:06:40] 18.24 acre Edition to meet the goal that all new development on the edge of the

[1:06:45] city annexed through the city to gain access to city sewer and water utilities

[1:06:50] which is in goal 13.

[1:06:54] H the proposed amendment supports the comprehensive plan rules under 10.8

[1:06:59] intergovernmental cooperation by maintaining the default limited

[1:07:05] agricultural zoning designations upon annexation of the proposed 18.24 acre

[1:07:10] Edition planting of the 18.24 Acres century and Vineyard and increasing the

[1:07:16] Project's overall Park light Atmosphere by increasing landscape surface ratio to

[1:07:23] 84 and reducing the lower area ratio to 3.6 to protect and maintain the World

[1:07:31] characters of the city of Galena and surrounding areas as the city of Galena

[1:07:36] and the region grow going back to the fifth point from the

[1:07:40] ordinance whether adequate public facilities and services are available or

[1:07:45] would be made available concurrent with projected impacts to development in the

[1:07:49] proposed Zone adequate Public Service facilities are

[1:07:53] available to serve this project the partner will be served by Six Flags

[1:07:58] who are the sewage treatment plant was constructed with excess capacity to

[1:08:03] accommodate growth and there is also excess storage in the water system to

[1:08:07] accommodate growth the project will have access to City police and fire and to

[1:08:12] EMS services the sixth point in the ordinance whether

[1:08:18] there is an adequate supply of land available in the subject area and the

[1:08:22] surrounding Community to accommodate the zonings and communities

[1:08:26] there is an adequate supply of land available in the subject area and the

[1:08:30] surrounding Community to accommodate the zoning Community needs

[1:08:35] both the existing 78.79 improved preliminary PUD area and

[1:08:40] the proposed 18.24 acre Edition are adequate to accommodate the zoning and

[1:08:46] communities and the project is located on the

[1:08:50] southern end of the corporate limits where land Supply is

[1:08:57] and the seventh Point whether there is a need in the community for the proposal

[1:09:01] and whether there will be benefits derived from the community or area by

[1:09:05] the proposed rezoning there is a need in the community for the

[1:09:09] proposal as the proposed amendment will increase the community tax base and

[1:09:14] increase recreational amenities with adding a mild Trail

[1:09:19] the community will derive benefits from the proposed amendment including

[1:09:24] increased walking trails by one mile provision of a destination amenity

[1:09:28] supported by City Water and Sewer the additional 18.24 acre parcel allowing

[1:09:35] for increased open space from 80 to 84 percent

[1:09:39] reduce treatment removal for the overall project improved opportunities for

[1:09:44] Innovative storm water management a reduction in the Project's paved areas

[1:09:49] by over 32 000 square feet and a floor area ratio reduction to 3.6 percent

[1:10:01] and

[1:10:08] we hope our actions today reflect that approach

[1:10:12] on behalf of our entire team we thank you for your consideration tonight and

[1:10:18] we're very excited to work with you on this and we welcome the questions we may

[1:10:22] have any questions for the applicant yes a couple of questions

[1:10:29] so appreciate what you've shown us very nice uh my first question runs around

[1:10:34] you mentioned that uh doing this could potentially increase the staffing needs

[1:10:40] for the police fire departments and EMS services and that you'll have access to

[1:10:45] that have you spoken with those departments to understand how much this

[1:10:50] will impact them so um actually what we stated in this is

[1:10:56] that as part of the comprehensive plan it's identifying that there will be a

[1:11:01] need to support increase Staffing that happens through tourism and so what

[1:11:06] we're saying is the tax base will allow the city to pay for increases

[1:11:12] um there was um

[1:11:15] foreign

[1:11:21] PUD on the emergency services and talk around that

[1:11:26] um [Music]

[1:11:31] so during the April 25th uh 2022 city council meeting Gary West and Meyer

[1:11:37] stated he had talked with the fire chief the police chief and EMS and they all

[1:11:41] had no problem with development so that was from the original PUD I do

[1:11:46] understand that I did read that in the package I received that they have no

[1:11:50] problem with the development my question was more around the I'll say return on

[1:11:55] investment for the city how much in tax dollars this will supply US versus will

[1:12:00] it impact us from a staffing perspective from our Emergency Services well I I

[1:12:06] can't answer that because I don't know the numbers of Staffing that you

[1:12:10] currently have or what your group would project they would need additionally

[1:12:13] thank you um

[1:12:18] one quick question I realized this regards the original already approved

[1:12:23] plans but we're refreshed by memory 4th Street on the map here shows us that

[1:12:28] it's still a viable student if I remember correctly that was going to be

[1:12:33] for emergency purposes only yeah and the plan we have talked about will have a

[1:12:37] date there so that it can be used if need be but it won't be used for

[1:12:41] visitors no one question when this was originally

[1:12:47] approved by the city council and we had the public hearing there was a lot of

[1:12:52] talk about erosion from The Vineyards and you're gonna add

[1:12:57] several Acres of Vineyards to this with the additional

[1:13:02] 18 Acres was there an issue with runoff or erosion from the original uh

[1:13:07] Vineyards that were put in I would I have not heard and I have not received

[1:13:12] any complaints or heard of any complaints in the United States

[1:13:22] it's the the area between the roads it's grown

[1:13:27] it's green it's not dirt so there really issues the only reason I asked because

[1:13:35] it was a big issue the last Republic hearing about it and I was wondering if

[1:13:39] there wasn't any issue with it well I'm sorry most people tell me to be quiet I

[1:13:44] said that the last meeting there was concern about erosion from The Vineyard

[1:13:48] that we're going to be put in and I wanted to know if there was any issue

[1:13:52] with it is this additional vision is going to

[1:13:55] God's problem and to me it sounds like there hasn't been an issue with the

[1:13:59] original opinions that were put in as far as any erosion we did have quite a

[1:14:03] bit of rain here this last year that would have caused it if it was yeah

[1:14:08] you'll see that it basically is it looks like

[1:14:13] um brass but uh and you know with some uh

[1:14:17] thick thicker leaves in there and things but it's pretty much green but the rose

[1:14:22] down the middle okay that's all I wanted to know thank you

[1:14:26] any other questions hey everyone um yesterday the uh

[1:14:31] we had an election and there was a referendum regarding uh

[1:14:37] increase in or development one or the other

[1:14:41] of EMS tax uh are all of these units subject to that tax

[1:14:48] I would say they would be well they could be and again I don't

[1:14:52] know if that passed or not but well you did well wouldn't they fall under the

[1:14:55] city already has the that tax only

[1:15:00] the city has a tax I I can't speak to that because I'm not 100 sure what that

[1:15:04] tax is it's accounting something to put it through but I would assume they fall

[1:15:07] on it I can't speak because I vote yesterday was strictly uh an advisory

[1:15:12] and it wasn't a lot of man yeah so now stood up to the accounting board to

[1:15:16] determine whether or not to approve it and so we already have that tax

[1:15:23] I can't say if that's simply on the county day but

[1:15:27] thank you all right any other questions

[1:15:36] okay if not is there anyone else to speak in favor of the

[1:15:42] proposal

[1:15:46] anyone else to speak in favor

[1:15:52] for the third time anyone else is making a favor okay

[1:15:56] and it goes to speak in objections come forward sir oh

[1:16:01] I didn't see your hand go up young lady but you're up here at Cabana

[1:16:07] state your name and your address for the record Randy Clark 1107 4th Street in

[1:16:12] Galena

[1:16:19] we can share yeah

[1:16:27] um I had come prepared to do a PowerPoint presentation so I'd ask he

[1:16:31] was told that although there's no written policy anywhere

[1:16:34] um or any indication in any materials anywhere apparently a pornos are not

[1:16:39] allowed to show PowerPoint presentation so I just want you to know that um

[1:16:43] following along on the handout is going to be important to kind of guiding in

[1:16:47] what I say most of it is information that you can see also if you happen to

[1:16:53] have the application handy um to look at that as well but I've

[1:16:57] tried to put the appropriate pieces of it on on the handout stuff that you can

[1:17:01] see and I apologize to the audience who isn't going to be able to see some of

[1:17:05] that I'm talking about um first of all it's just important for

[1:17:09] me to say that I am here in the same capacity as many others are here as a

[1:17:13] resident and a neighboring property owner uh expressing my concerns about

[1:17:17] the Parker Resort and specifically about the amended Pub plan

[1:17:23] um I wanted to give a little bit of context

[1:17:26] just um that for actually almost exactly a year ago a year and two days ago four

[1:17:33] of us that represent um then nine now there's ten adjoining

[1:17:37] households first heard about the resort proposal and then between then and

[1:17:42] January of this year I and others repeatedly asked the city for

[1:17:46] information so that we could carefully and correctly consider what was being

[1:17:50] performed oh we were told that the city had no application or other materials

[1:17:54] until January 20th when the application was submitted to the state the city is

[1:17:59] by ordinance required to review the application for adequacy prior to

[1:18:03] scheduling and hearing so by that it appears they completed their review in a

[1:18:08] day or two because the very next day or the day after that notice was sent out

[1:18:11] and was scheduled the board and the public were allowed

[1:18:15] barely two weeks to read and comprehend an enormously complex and impact of

[1:18:19] proposal and then four months later the city had

[1:18:23] approved everything that the developer had asked for virtually unchanged

[1:18:27] without addressing or considering any of the questions or concerns that the

[1:18:31] residents and neighbors had expressed along the way many many questions have

[1:18:36] been raised some of them have been answered just with information

[1:18:39] tonight and in other places but there's still an awful lot of questions that

[1:18:43] remain so here we are again I'd hope that this amendment might

[1:18:48] address some of the concerns that have been raised but unfortunately it doesn't

[1:18:51] it's simply it isn't really an improved design I wouldn't say because the entire

[1:18:57] PUD the commercial portion of it stays basically the same what it does in

[1:19:02] essence is it shifts the access road about a quarter mile at five times the

[1:19:06] doubles are Vineyard acreage and it reorganizes the phases and then there

[1:19:10] are a few other things that are mentioned in the proposal

[1:19:14] um there is some additional information that was provided in the presentation

[1:19:17] tonight that was not available to us the public in order to consider and provide

[1:19:22] our comments so I do apologize if some of what I say

[1:19:26] um doesn't directly address some of the things that you've heard tonight but

[1:19:29] that information was not available to us um nevertheless I'll continue

[1:19:35] um I want to provide a little bit of background as well

[1:19:38] um we're talking about a PUD here we're talking about an approved PUD and a

[1:19:42] mending a PUD to add some anchors to it that for anyone here who doesn't know

[1:19:48] I'm not talking about you guys it creates an entirely new Zone in this

[1:19:52] trip and it needs to lay out certain specific conditions that's referenced in

[1:19:58] 154923h but in other places as well for use in that new unique District like any

[1:20:05] other zoning District if you read the descriptions of zoning districts in the

[1:20:08] zoning ordinances they require detailed descriptions of exactly what uses

[1:20:13] activities intensity deviations and other conditions are allowed in the case

[1:20:18] of up to you do you sometimes you just say they're bringing stuff in from the

[1:20:21] underlying District but that needs to be explicitly stated and other things need

[1:20:25] to be explicitly stated as well so essentially tonight what's happening

[1:20:30] is you're determining whether this promotes proposed amendment has a

[1:20:34] sufficient detail that's needed to provide a recommendation to the city

[1:20:38] council about whether or not to approve this as all or part of our new zoning

[1:20:42] District so I'm going to go through some key

[1:20:44] parts of the application under consideration to show you that critical

[1:20:47] information is lacking and that the application like the preliminary plan

[1:20:52] that it would amend fails to demonstrate conformance with numerous ordinances and

[1:20:56] other requirements on page three of the handout that you're

[1:21:00] looking at um just note that there are a couple of

[1:21:03] different um ordinances that I reference up there 154 301 f2a and B those aren't

[1:21:09] of any huge significance they just indicate um with or without an approved

[1:21:15] um um ODP operation operational development

[1:21:20] plan I believe so flipping to the next page page four of the handout

[1:21:25] um page 23 of the application under considered filtration tonight says that

[1:21:30] um consideration of compliance with an approved ODP is not applicable

[1:21:34] presumably because there isn't one or that's not part of this process and yet

[1:21:38] as shown on the page that you have there are several references page six nine ten

[1:21:43] and other places that do reference um and outline development plan so my

[1:21:50] reason for bringing this up is to create is to show you an example of how there's

[1:21:55] confusion about this process about what actually are women ending and if you

[1:21:59] haven't already here and you don't again I'm nitpicking a small part of the

[1:22:03] ordinance but what it illustrates is that you either go this direction and

[1:22:07] you need these approvals and you do these parts of the process or there are

[1:22:10] different things you do if you're going the other way and if this isn't really

[1:22:14] clear about something like that um it begs the question of what else is

[1:22:19] not clear in here um if we're unclear about what courses

[1:22:24] apply and what ordinances actually apply to this how can we demonstrate

[1:22:28] conformance and how can we therefore recommend this for approval by the

[1:22:33] council page five of the handout I showed the

[1:22:36] first page of the application that was provided

[1:22:41] um neither this document meaning the

[1:22:44] application nor the original plan that was approved fulfill the requirements of

[1:22:49] 154 301 f2b9 sorry to Rattle that off but there it is neither document

[1:22:56] actually addresses the relationship of the project to the adjacent land uses

[1:23:00] nor did either one adequately address the relationship to the comprehensive

[1:23:04] plan or to other plans for the community criteria all of which I will discuss

[1:23:12] um on page six um I referenced um the first few pages

[1:23:16] of the application they're very unclear as to their purpose and they add

[1:23:21] confusion to the application um I have some sample questions on what

[1:23:26] would have been the slide if you've been able to see it

[1:23:29] um that show just examples of how this part of the application provides

[1:23:33] incomplete information it spins information essentially and I get that

[1:23:38] the job of the applicant is to try to convince you that the project they want

[1:23:42] to do needs requirements and does lots of good things there's nothing wrong

[1:23:47] with that but in an application that you're using to develop a zoning

[1:23:50] District it needs to be more clean of that kind of thing and just sort of

[1:23:54] answer the questions um and the first few pages are I find

[1:23:58] them fairly misleading in terms of providing useful information

[1:24:02] um with which to decide if um there's enough here to create a new zoning

[1:24:08] District or to amend the zombie District that was created

[1:24:12] um I wish that I had time to go through each page to point out all that

[1:24:16] information I guess maybe I could have done that but we'd be here all night and

[1:24:19] I don't think anybody wants that so what I have is more of a sampling

[1:24:25] um page seven of the handout references page five of the application

[1:24:30] um whether or not something conforms or how you bring things from underlying

[1:24:35] zoning districts has to be based on the actual verbiage of the ordinance

[1:24:40] professor of verbiage is the real word but anyway

[1:24:43] um not on a paraphrase version you have to look at the actual language of the

[1:24:47] ordinance and see what you are or aren't going to bring in or deviate from so

[1:24:52] just to be clear as I've shown in the side of the image on the page limited

[1:24:56] agriculture which would be the underlying zoning of the part that's

[1:25:00] being brought in and amended is its purpose per 154 201

[1:25:07] A1 is to permit development of a highly rural community character

[1:25:14] um just to be clear about that then in other portions of the zoning Code table

[1:25:19] 154

[1:25:22] 4031-154-406 B6 and other places um the allow uses in limited agriculture

[1:25:28] are described yet the proposal lacks information about which of those would

[1:25:33] be or would not be adopted into the Pud District we've been told it will remain

[1:25:37] limited AG but we've also told been told it's going to be part of this new

[1:25:42] creative PUD District which is its own zoning District so it's it's it needs to

[1:25:48] be pretty clear what of the limited AG stop is being brought in and what isn't

[1:25:53] and what uses will actually conform as part of this newly created District

[1:25:58] so for example um on the new 18.24 Acres there will be

[1:26:03] a major access road to a planned commercial zoning District

[1:26:08] um the county has said that they want to consider in in looking at how that

[1:26:12] affects Blackjack to consider it not as a driveway but as actually a local road

[1:26:17] because of the amount of traffic that it will have so is that a permitted use of

[1:26:21] limited AG or does that require some sort of exception or deviation or

[1:26:25] something to be incorporated into the zoning code to account for it or into

[1:26:29] the Pud ordinance when that gets created um also questions about cutting there

[1:26:35] was more information tonight that was presented than is available in the

[1:26:39] document about the amount of acreage to the amount of Woodland to be cut but

[1:26:45] again in limited agriculture there are some restrictions on that and permits

[1:26:49] required so we've seen in other parts of the Pud certain things are said um that

[1:26:54] would need to be a permit that would be required by right Etc but again it needs

[1:26:59] to specify we need to sort of know so that down the road somebody has in hand

[1:27:03] exactly what is and isn't allowed in this whole big Community District

[1:27:09] um Vineyards there's been a lack of information about Vineyards I'm happy to

[1:27:14] hear that erosion doesn't seem to have been a problem so far that's good news

[1:27:17] but there's also things like pesticide use that hasn't really been addressed if

[1:27:23] they do or don't plan to use it this is within the city limits pesticide they're

[1:27:27] actually not the same as some of the other agricultural chemicals some of

[1:27:33] them are controlled and require permits to apply it's not like going out and

[1:27:36] throwing in hydrogenly on the field or me out there spraying Weeds on in the

[1:27:40] yard so that is some information is that's needed because this is the idea

[1:27:47] here is that this is going to be within the city limits so right now it's out

[1:27:51] there on a farm and different rules apply but once it's part of the city

[1:27:54] limit we have our own rules within the city

[1:27:57] limit and so um those things need to be specified Vineyards also require

[1:28:02] disposal of large quantities of chemically treated pruned plant material

[1:28:06] Rooney is a major major part of Vineyard management

[1:28:11] per table 154-3011 composting operations within

[1:28:16] the city limit require permit okay fine we also know that within the city we get

[1:28:21] open bearing has been banned so it would be helpful to know what method is going

[1:28:26] to be used this is something that is generated by um

[1:28:33] also the AG operation The Vineyard growing of vines will be on City Water

[1:28:38] and Sewer there's been absolutely zero discussion about wine production I don't

[1:28:44] know I mean there are growing grapes and there's a winery so it kind of seems

[1:28:49] like they're going to make the wine from the grapes and have it at the winery but

[1:28:53] it's not clear whether that production is going to happen on site or not if so

[1:28:58] that's a serious um that's an agricultural operation or service

[1:29:02] modeling of an Agricultural Product is something that needs to be identified as

[1:29:07] to whether or not that is occurring and is allowed in this District those are

[1:29:11] all things that need to be addressed and answered if they're not planning on

[1:29:15] doing that what does that mean in terms of transporting the stuff off site and

[1:29:19] so on that's another issue but also if wine production is occurring on the site

[1:29:26] um wine production there's Publications that talk about the challenges for

[1:29:30] wastewater treatment because of the chemicals that are used in wine

[1:29:33] production itself and then the nature of the splint waste that's produced so we

[1:29:38] have plenty of capacity apparently in the sewer system in the water system but

[1:29:42] do we have the capacity and the ability to handle that kind of specialized

[1:29:46] essentially industrial AG production waste that question needs to be answered

[1:29:53] moving on to page 8 of the handout which references page six of the plan or of

[1:29:59] the application um throughout the zoning review criteria

[1:30:05] there are various references to the fact that an application shall demonstrate

[1:30:09] conformance with the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans now we've heard

[1:30:14] discussion about oh we heard a presentation that says the comprehensive

[1:30:18] plan is just a guide and it's just a recommendation but this our zoning

[1:30:22] ordinances say that we shall demonstrate performance

[1:30:28] with the plan that's a requirement and demonstrate means show how it conforms

[1:30:33] um so the application needs to do a more thorough job of that now um it doesn't

[1:30:38] mean show how things are supported by and so on it means they have to show how

[1:30:42] it conforms or doesn't there's information that was presented tonight

[1:30:46] that in addition to that which has been made available previously about the

[1:30:52] applicants of you I guess I'll say in terms of how things conform to the

[1:30:56] comprehensive plan things in the comprehensive plan some of them are

[1:30:59] definitely things that require discussion and interpretation not

[1:31:03] everything is clear-cut oh yep the supplies are oh yeah that doesn't yeah

[1:31:06] this works and it doesn't but all of that needs to be documented it needs to

[1:31:12] be shown shall be demonstrated in order to be able to move forward with this and

[1:31:17] again add on to the existing filming district and that was something that

[1:31:21] wasn't um done previously either um conformance to the plan does not mean

[1:31:26] cherry picking goals or objectives that fit as the application seems to do

[1:31:30] although again tonight there was a slightly more thorough going through of

[1:31:34] things the underlying text on the handout that

[1:31:39] you have refers to comprehensive plan goal 10.6.1 But it includes several

[1:31:46] objectives and actions that are not mentioned at least in the application

[1:31:51] um so what got um at least not discussed in the printout application is the

[1:31:58] objectives goal one product protect and preserve the natural beauty in and

[1:32:02] around the city of Galena and part of that is identifying areas that should

[1:32:06] remain undeveloped and then directing growth to targeted areas

[1:32:12] um moving on to page 10 of the handout um you've seen this image before

[1:32:18] um I I would have loved it to be on the screen as well so you can see it a

[1:32:22] little better but here we are um section 10.8 of the comprehensive

[1:32:27] plan has the goal of protecting and maintaining the girl character and the

[1:32:31] objectives and actions include um working to direct growth into the

[1:32:37] contiguous growth areas and also um agreeing on

[1:32:42] use a land use map that will be used during to make land use decisions and as

[1:32:47] you heard earlier those things have been done again some of the ordinances are a

[1:32:53] fire shall demonstrate conformance where um

[1:32:57] this comprehensive plan tells us to direct growth into the contiguous growth

[1:33:02] areas I understand that over time those could be changed but they need to be

[1:33:07] changed through an appropriate process the ones that were identified in the

[1:33:12] plan as it is now were identified through a pretty thorough process that

[1:33:15] involved the county and I believe the townships as well public review and so

[1:33:19] on so it's not something we can just sort of throw out and say well you know

[1:33:22] that was a nice idea but we want to put one here we have to conform we have to

[1:33:26] comply to it that's the requirement right now and if there's a need to

[1:33:30] change that then um then that's okay but the process is

[1:33:34] the standard um

[1:33:37] you can infer that areas that are not identified as contiguous growth areas or

[1:33:42] identified for annexation are there for areas that should remain undeveloped for

[1:33:47] comprehensive plan goal 10.6.1 um if that's been characterized as oh

[1:33:53] well no decision was made about that I'm I don't believe in reading the

[1:33:57] comprehensive plan that areas were just sort of forgotten about or left out they

[1:34:02] identified areas that growth should occur in areas where it shouldn't it's

[1:34:07] not included as a broker um also an important point is that the

[1:34:12] city officially adopted that proposed land use map per

[1:34:17] 156.01 app in the city code so we are required to adhere to the city's

[1:34:24] proposed land use map um if you go to the next page

[1:34:29] um page 11 of the handout again the area is not identified as a contiguous growth

[1:34:35] area the nearest ones there was mentioning of those the nearest ones are

[1:34:40] residential and green States they are not identified as commercial development

[1:34:45] the nearest commercial development is a small area up right along Highway 20

[1:34:49] that encompasses those businesses that already existed up on Highway 20 when

[1:34:54] the map was developed um this application some more

[1:34:59] information was given in the presentation tonight I wasn't able to

[1:35:02] capture all of it scribbling um in my notes but I counted 74 total goals in

[1:35:08] the comprehensive plan each one of which has Associated objectives now not all of

[1:35:13] those are going to apply to every project clearly but

[1:35:17] the requirement to demonstrate performance with the plan means

[1:35:21] documenting which ones to apply how they apply and how they are or aren't met or

[1:35:27] at least the discussion and interpretation that goes on about that

[1:35:30] and that has not happened that's not provided in the information here that

[1:35:35] you guys have to work with um also some of the things about

[1:35:39] comprehensive plan goals that I was trying to just sort of capture from the

[1:35:43] other presentation um just to kind of be complete here

[1:35:46] um there was a reference and several references about because we're talking

[1:35:50] about this amendment tonight about reducing paved area and reducing things

[1:35:54] and lessening impacts but remember we're still talking about an entire eud that

[1:36:00] hasn't yet been completely established or hasn't been developed yet and we're

[1:36:06] putting something in a place where there isn't really all that stuff now so um I

[1:36:12] think that we need to be very careful in what we hear as reducing impact to

[1:36:17] something that is actually adding to an area that doesn't have stuff already I

[1:36:22] get the comparison with what um what's in the commercial part of it versus

[1:36:26] what's in the AG part but overall again when we're talking about performance

[1:36:32] with the comprehensive plan overall we're not reducing unpaved area we're

[1:36:37] not reducing you know density and intensity and so on so that's just

[1:36:42] something to keep in mind again part of this is trying to be clear about

[1:36:47] what exactly what specific things should we be considering tonight as just part

[1:36:51] of the amendment because the amendment isn't just the 18.24 Acres it includes

[1:36:56] the phasing and some things in the rest of it so it's a little unclear but

[1:37:00] anyway I won't I won't um beat that point I'm not making it very well but

[1:37:04] again that's just something to be concerned about there was reference to I

[1:37:08] think it was goal 10.3 in the comprehensive plan I'm not sure I

[1:37:11] captured the number right about additional parking and I just really

[1:37:15] need to say that um that isn't correct um that's talking about Downtown parking

[1:37:21] parking for people who just show up Angelina what the partner will be

[1:37:24] providing is Park is Hotel parking it's going to be around the Ramada parking

[1:37:28] lot or the Irish strategy and parking it's parking for their guests which is

[1:37:33] good it's a good thing right um and maybe some of those guests will

[1:37:38] walk across the 97 Acres all the way to downtown and not and I'm not trying to

[1:37:44] be sarcastic here I mean I'm being realistic that some people may do make

[1:37:49] that law but if this brings additional people to Galena and it's not at all

[1:37:54] clear that it will actually but if it does then great maybe we won't need

[1:37:58] quite as much parking for those additional people that we might

[1:38:01] otherwise use but the fact is this does not use the comprehensive title of

[1:38:06] dealing with parking issues that would be one of those things I would say that

[1:38:10] it just it's not relevant to this proposal or it doesn't apply or it

[1:38:14] certainly doesn't perform um and again the conformance with all of

[1:38:18] these things really needs to be laid out in the application so that you guys have

[1:38:22] all that information to work with in your deliberations

[1:38:25] moving on to page 12. whether or not there's been a change of

[1:38:30] character in the area this reference is page 10 of the actual application this

[1:38:35] is addressed incorrectly Community character is defined in a

[1:38:40] zoning ordinance definitions 154.015 and it is the impression which

[1:38:45] an area makes in regard to the type intensity density quality appearance and

[1:38:51] age of development in an area so the area in which the whole Parker or

[1:38:57] the amendment part whichever you want or the added part whichever you want to

[1:39:00] talk about what is the character of that area and has there been a significant

[1:39:04] change that that sort of warrants putting this big thing there and

[1:39:08] rezoning it to this new District in this case the character is and always

[1:39:14] has bang the type is rural residential agricultural the density is and has

[1:39:21] always been low density undeveloped farmland and low density while it's

[1:39:26] medium density residential Zone but the actual character was on the ground is

[1:39:30] actually more like low density or semi-rural because there's just you

[1:39:34] can't put enough houses in there with the floodplain issues

[1:39:38] um the quality is quiet a desirable semi-rural neighborhood you have parents

[1:39:43] semi-rural setting quiet dark the age of development historic with some of the

[1:39:50] oldest houses in town my house was built in 1838 Joy Wallace's house was built

[1:39:55] before that and was one of the first news in Molina

[1:39:58] none of those characteristics the character of the area none of that has

[1:40:03] changed like since Galena began and there's a few more houses there

[1:40:07] blackjacks busier so those are some some changes but the overall feel and

[1:40:12] function of the area is the same now as it always has been so that does not

[1:40:18] support actually bringing in this community

[1:40:21] the sewage treatment plant across the river keeps getting mentioned but it

[1:40:24] doesn't actually change the character of the area it doesn't change these things

[1:40:28] that I just mentioned particularly when several properties in the area don't

[1:40:34] have access to it now so their character is the same as they've done forever

[1:40:38] they're dealing with subjects um and this proposal would not add

[1:40:43] access for them either the historic district is not even

[1:40:47] mentioned but it is a key defining characteristic of the area

[1:40:52] um item four in the rezoning review criteria whether the proposed rezoning

[1:40:56] is compatible with the surrounding area I'm essentially just answered that um

[1:41:01] it's answered incorrectly in the application for what I just described

[1:41:05] also traffic problems not being addressed traffic problems created by

[1:41:11] the development are completely incompatible with the capacity and the

[1:41:15] safety of the surrounding Street Network that's a huge issue that's like the

[1:41:20] elephant in the room um whether adequate public facilities

[1:41:24] and services are available or will be made available first of all adequate

[1:41:28] means we know that based on the need we have the capacity and that hasn't been

[1:41:34] demonstrated the need is not showing and that needs to be more than a

[1:41:37] conversation between one city council member and the EMS Services that's stuff

[1:41:42] that needs to be documented that yep you know this is how much they need and yet

[1:41:47] we have this amount of capacity and that is not available in any of these

[1:41:51] materials um

[1:41:54] also there's a good question about how much capacity should we allocate to one

[1:42:00] large business because what we allocate to that business is then unavailable to

[1:42:05] Future development if we take a certain amount out and I understand the students

[1:42:09] treatment plan apparently is not a lot capacity which is great but we need to

[1:42:13] talk about that that's an issue the community needs to decide do we want to

[1:42:17] allocate that much to one business and that question has not been answered

[1:42:23] also streets and roads are public facilities and those are clearly

[1:42:29] inadequate to serve this moving on to page 13

[1:42:35] um whether there's a need in the community for the proposal and whether

[1:42:38] there will be benefits derived by the community or area

[1:42:42] again this is addressed incorrectly I underline some statements in that it's

[1:42:48] number seven on page 11 of the application

[1:42:51] um I I'm not going to go into detail about them maybe I should but um there

[1:42:57] are some underlying statements for example increasing the tax base

[1:43:00] that actually is not supported by information or evidence

[1:43:05] um it's simply speculation there will be some property tax

[1:43:09] um change I guess because of it um but in terms of increasing the tax base

[1:43:14] brought by tourism it actually might turn out to be a trade-off for placing

[1:43:18] tourists that aren't going to go to other places and there's some very good

[1:43:21] information that's been compiled about that now but regardless some of those

[1:43:25] statements are made just um As Nice ideas that one would hope happens but

[1:43:31] they're not supported by information and we need information we need to be pretty

[1:43:35] sure that this is going to work out the way they think before moving forward

[1:43:38] with it um also one thing I want to note about

[1:43:42] the tax base that was not um considered in some of the statements

[1:43:49] that were made before I came up here by Ms Lawrence that um

[1:43:53] you know we didn't have we don't have the information I guess to say you know

[1:43:57] how what the impact is going to be to be able to increase EMS services but

[1:44:02] our EMS services are volunteer host of them right a significant portion of them

[1:44:08] so we could have as big a tax base as we want

[1:44:11] but unless we start hiring those positions it's not necessarily going to

[1:44:16] matter we have a shrinking population there were 3 500 for a long time it's

[1:44:21] been slowly going down the 2020 census was messed up but we're at like 3 300

[1:44:25] 3200 we have a decreasing pool of available volunteers to serve in those

[1:44:31] positions and it doesn't right now matter how much money we've provided if

[1:44:35] we don't have enough people to fill those positions that again is a really

[1:44:39] key issue it may not be a primary driving issue of this but it's something

[1:44:43] that needs to be considered on page 14

[1:44:48] um which is page 12 of the application um this seems to be it's it's a you know

[1:44:54] trying to lay out support for long-term Community benefits and essentially what

[1:44:59] this is getting at is that a PUD is to be used only when long-term Community

[1:45:04] benefits will be derived as a result of the development

[1:45:07] and the simplest way to do that is to walk through the seven criteria listed

[1:45:13] on the right hand side more efficient infrastructure reduced traffic demands

[1:45:17] greater quality and quantity of public and or private open space other

[1:45:21] recreational amenities needed housing types and or mixed Innovative designs

[1:45:27] and or protection and or preservation of Natural Resources I'm reading those

[1:45:31] because the folks who are listening don't have the opportunity don't want to

[1:45:34] invest those criteria need to be addressed now my apologies to the

[1:45:39] audience I wanted to show something that I'm unable to show but on page 15 I have

[1:45:44] an example of a community from a planning website and this shows how how

[1:45:49] to interpret those criteria a pewd is used to allow changes from the

[1:45:55] underlying zoning so in the example here it's a low density or semi-rural

[1:45:59] residential in some sort to provide Community benefits so the

[1:46:04] idea is it's a comparison with what the underlying Zone normally would allow and

[1:46:10] the example given here the Pud allows them to Cluster the Lots at a higher

[1:46:16] density than otherwise loud allowed which provides certain benefits so you

[1:46:21] can design something that doesn't have to conform to the existing underlines on

[1:46:25] a designation in order to achieve certain very specific Community benefits

[1:46:32] so in the example the access road is shortened and it requires fewer

[1:46:37] easements and less utility services or consolidates from so that responds to

[1:46:41] the question about more efficient infrastructure the example of cluster

[1:46:45] development also shows room for common state open space so it increases open

[1:46:50] space not based on some comparison with a previously approved part of a plan but

[1:46:56] over what would be available in the underlying default districts it adds

[1:47:01] upon the trail providing a recreational amenity available to everyone and it

[1:47:07] moves development away from steep smokes and a wetland to protect natural

[1:47:10] resources so again that's just going to be an example to help give the context

[1:47:15] for the next part of what I'm going to show you so on page 16 of the handout

[1:47:20] I'm just going to go through these more efficient in this infrastructure

[1:47:24] The Proposal um it goes the opposite direction so again

[1:47:30] it isn't taking the underlying District of commercial or the underlying District

[1:47:34] of Ag and finding a better way to provide infrastructure to that or to the

[1:47:40] community at large is not efficient to add a lot of complex hard to access

[1:47:44] infrastructure that the city has to maintain specific to the newly added 18

[1:47:50] makers adding infrastructure to limited app is not efficient it's just not

[1:47:55] reduce traffic demands The Proposal fails to address this at all traffic

[1:48:01] demands will increase this has been recognized there's never been any

[1:48:04] question both Illinois Dot and the county requested that the city

[1:48:11] recommend or required require excuse me they requested that the city require

[1:48:15] traffic studies to better understand the level of congestion and crash risk that

[1:48:20] will be increased but the city did not ask for those and when asked why they

[1:48:25] said well it's not required this is not only not a community benefit

[1:48:29] this is enormous and what I would consider to be irresponsible Community

[1:48:33] risk and it's been ignored which really frustrates me because I go through that

[1:48:38] intersection almost every day um regarding just the amendment lease

[1:48:42] just to keep on track with that if you take underlying limited agriculture that

[1:48:48] has a gravel driveway and you turn it into a two-lane major local road that

[1:48:53] serves a commercial District that is not reducing traffic demand

[1:48:58] page 17. um a greater quality and quantity of

[1:49:03] public and or private Opening space so again relative to the example taking an

[1:49:08] underlying district and doing something different with the Pud to allow you to

[1:49:12] have more quality of either public or private open space this continues to be

[1:49:18] addressed incorrectly and misleading the definition giving and given in the

[1:49:22] application refers to undeveloped or underdeveloped space per what's in I

[1:49:27] think it's in the zoning code but that doesn't mean you include every square

[1:49:31] inch of land without a building on it which is how I was told when asked that

[1:49:35] they were calculating open space by that calculation the strip of land between

[1:49:39] Park Avenue and the sidewalk along Park Avenue is open space by that definition

[1:49:44] the Garden in front of the yard in front of Patron Smith's house is open space so

[1:49:50] this application needs and actually correct calculation of open space for

[1:49:55] both parts of it and the fact is it's going to reduce what would be there if

[1:50:01] you apply it to the underlying zoning distance again just a small part

[1:50:05] probably on The Limited AG if you take a small one lane Gravel Road driveway and

[1:50:10] you turn it into a two-lane thoroughfare that meets whatever requirements it has

[1:50:15] to be that's going to reduce the open space on that parcel also adding open

[1:50:20] space by purchasing additional land is not what the criteria is asking about

[1:50:26] page 18 and I apologize that this is taking time that I I just had this shift

[1:50:31] gears from kind of the way I was originally um through this

[1:50:35] um criteria four other recreational amenities

[1:50:38] again this is not going to be met the recreational amenities will only be

[1:50:42] available to paying desks we heard verbally tonight that the trails will be

[1:50:47] open to the public but if that isn't somehow codified or written down or

[1:50:52] committed to then what that means is at the whim of the owner those things could

[1:50:58] be closed off to people which is fine that's their that's their option it's

[1:51:02] private land they can do that but the point is there is not demonstrated

[1:51:07] addition of recreational amenities as a community benefit and saying that the

[1:51:11] trails contribute to community benefit when any day they might decide to shut

[1:51:15] it down um which before as as Ms Lawrence

[1:51:19] pointed out the annexation agreement says they're not going to be available

[1:51:22] to the public that's not clearly providing an upcoming benefit number

[1:51:28] five needed housing types and or units The Proposal fails to address this maybe

[1:51:33] it's not applicable I don't know but um actually the whole we can use we could

[1:51:38] potentially exact the need for affordable housing that Galena currently

[1:51:42] experiences that you hear about all the time if in fact it requires hiring more

[1:51:48] people it doesn't just sort of suck from the labor pool downtown then those

[1:51:52] people need to live somewhere I was talking to who went out to eat at

[1:51:56] campechai I'm not sure if that's how you say it not that long ago and our server

[1:52:01] lives in Stockton and commutes from Stockton that means she is driving on

[1:52:07] that road adding to traffic and her rent and her grocery money and her taxes and

[1:52:12] everything else are going to Stockton which is good perspective and it's part

[1:52:16] of the area but she can't live in Galena because there's not affordable housing

[1:52:21] here that she can get into if you are going to hire more people in those kind

[1:52:25] of service level jobs that's going to exacerbate

[1:52:29] page 19. um Innovative design number six um this is one that has been

[1:52:35] misinterpreted very consistently this is not about pretty cabins or faithful

[1:52:40] Rehabilitation of the Marine hospital as have been discussed by certain other

[1:52:43] folks at different meetings this is asking just like the example that I gave

[1:52:47] you is there some new or creative way of meeting the needs and I've got this

[1:52:53] backward on the on the text here meeting the needs of the development of the the

[1:52:57] things they're trying to provide that will do so in a more efficient way and

[1:53:03] do good things provide benefits to the community and the answer here is clearly

[1:53:08] now I don't mean any insult to the people

[1:53:11] developing this to say that there is nothing Innovative about a resort that

[1:53:15] is scattered around Hotel an event venue that's a really common thing that's just

[1:53:20] um it's it's nicely laid out I'm sure that everything will be done very well

[1:53:25] but it doesn't provide an Innovative Solution that's different from the

[1:53:30] underlying district and allows for Community benefits that's what this is

[1:53:35] asking for and this PUD and the amendment don't don't meet those

[1:53:38] criteria also specific to the amended part the added eight to neighbors there

[1:53:43] isn't anything Innovative about planning Vineyards and upgrading a road on what

[1:53:47] is currently pasture and driveway um number seven Perfection and or

[1:53:52] preservation of Natural Resources again another one that continues to be

[1:53:56] addressed incorrectly on this bleedingly um it's asking whether the protection

[1:54:02] and preservation of resources is incorporated as a design feature we

[1:54:06] heard firmly tonight that maybe there are a few things that will be but um in

[1:54:11] terms of the added parcel upgrading a road from driveway to Major local access

[1:54:15] road is not protect natural resources as a whole it doesn't appear to have

[1:54:20] features or at least they're not included in the application material

[1:54:23] that we have available to work with that are designed to protect the known and

[1:54:27] valued natural resources of concern in the property it would likely in fact

[1:54:31] damage habitat of several species listed under The Endangered Species Act which

[1:54:36] could result in illegal tape if consultation is not done and a habitat

[1:54:40] conservation planes on page 20 I included something that we can probably

[1:54:46] go past fairly quickly but um just to note that I I do consultations about

[1:54:50] endangered species routinely as part of my job and so I queried the fish and

[1:54:55] wildlife service database to come up with a list of probable species

[1:54:58] occurring on the property and then I validated that against consultations

[1:55:02] that have occurred in the immediate area to show that there's a high likelihood

[1:55:05] of these things are hurting on the property I also asked a colleague of

[1:55:09] mine with the fish and wildlife service which has jurisdiction over federally

[1:55:14] listed certain and endangered species and and

[1:55:18] she replied that there could be incidentality and that that needs to be

[1:55:22] addressed so part of why I'm bringing this up is not to sort of beat anybody

[1:55:25] over the hat or say ooh about you know this might happen it's just something

[1:55:30] that needs to be addressed procedurally is something that needs to happen so

[1:55:33] that's why in the zoning ordinance 154919 which is the non-administrative

[1:55:39] development review common elements of procedures Part B States and number one

[1:55:45] that the purpose of a pre-application conference is among other things to

[1:55:50] identify all the approvals necessary to construct their proposed development

[1:55:53] identify the most significant issues that the development will need to

[1:55:57] address and provide the applicant with Direction on how to meet the

[1:56:01] requirements of that code and other applicable codes regulations of policies

[1:56:05] and I don't find anything to demonstrate that that's been done it was good to

[1:56:10] hear from I'm sorry I've forgotten his name the engineer I'm talking about and

[1:56:15] laying out the permits and things that we'll be gone through but those things

[1:56:19] are supposed to be part of the pre-application review and documented in

[1:56:23] the materials that you guys all have available to me

[1:56:26] um also the the potential Endangered Species Act example that I gave I mean

[1:56:31] that's really not to do this as an example is why

[1:56:36] 154-919e2 recommends reviewed by other agencies it recommends it because it's

[1:56:41] not going to require it all I need I want to move my fence you know and

[1:56:45] encroach upon the right of way or you don't need to consult with other

[1:56:48] agencies about that but presumably a large complex proposal such as this

[1:56:53] which clearly involves permits from various agencies and has numerous

[1:56:57] concerns and issues should have warned that kind of review

[1:57:01] what that does when you do that is it it allows you to find out what the bumps

[1:57:06] and obstacles are going to be and design accordingly anticipate that not

[1:57:11] necessarily in great detail but you know oh gosh we're going to have to put you

[1:57:14] know do this we might need to avoid that rather than finding out some of those

[1:57:18] obstacles by surprise further on download

[1:57:22] page 21 um

[1:57:26] 154.301 B5 this is referencing page 13 of the application again it's talking

[1:57:34] about if you're going to uh deviate from default standards in limited AG you need

[1:57:40] to show that um there are Premier Community benefits

[1:57:44] I mean it kind of ties to the whole use of a ped thing so I've already discussed

[1:57:48] that Community benefits are not clearly demonstrated but I will point out that

[1:57:53] on page 13 of the application the first third and sixth bullets there

[1:57:58] incorrectly describe private amenities that are available only to paying Resort

[1:58:04] guests as Community benefits or public facilities and that is incorrect

[1:58:09] the second bullet continues to discuss open space incorrectly as I've already

[1:58:13] mentioned the fourth fifth and sixth bullets are

[1:58:17] promises that are unsupported by information that is needed to

[1:58:21] demonstrate Community benefits and therefore conformance with the

[1:58:24] ordinances and regulations um page 22 of the handout references

[1:58:32] page I think it's 17 of the application and this is The Phase One Visa name and

[1:58:38] I'm not going to go into this very much I have some sample questions

[1:58:43] is that it shows that there's a lot of things that really aren't there's a lot

[1:58:48] of information that isn't in here um this is all of this whether it's the

[1:58:53] original PUD or adding on and changing phasing and adding and mentioning a few

[1:58:58] things is really needs to be gone through with the fine-tooth comb and we

[1:59:02] really need to understand what's being asked for and what's going to be

[1:59:05] implemented because again as I said at the beginning this is creating an

[1:59:08] ordinance that that tells the developer and whoever buys it from here from him

[1:59:12] 20 years down the road and whoever's going to be sitting in this building 20

[1:59:16] years down the road it tells them it's the guide for what is and isn't allowed

[1:59:21] so it needs to have all this detail the phasing is part of the implementation

[1:59:26] and similarly needs to show what is and isn't allowed but there's information

[1:59:30] that's not in here about um various things that are listed in

[1:59:34] your handout Winery pesticides I've already mentioned those but in phase

[1:59:38] three there's the spa there's nothing that's included about that there's

[1:59:42] mention of a wedding Disney but I didn't find anything about size uses lighting

[1:59:47] sound Etc there was mentioned of expanding a maintenance building which

[1:59:51] appears to be referring to Jimmy Sharon Reagan's Farm but I'm not sure that's

[1:59:55] new um so expanding to what size what uses

[1:59:58] will be allowed there how will it be accessed what about lighting Etc and

[2:00:03] then also mention of the existing residents at least on a map there's

[2:00:06] nothing that indicates what will or won't happen there and whether that's

[2:00:09] even allowed to continue to be a residence you know playing commercial

[2:00:12] District um so there are some other things there

[2:00:16] page 23 um the stormwater runoff information

[2:00:21] um again I appreciate the presentation done by the gentleman for third gram but

[2:00:27] um what this application needs to do is demonstrate conformance with the

[2:00:32] requirements and it doesn't it just says we'll give this particular attention I

[2:00:36] understand that hopefully that will come but there isn't information in here to

[2:00:41] know for sure that that's going to happen

[2:00:43] um and I and that's a problem um

[2:00:48] I'm just looking oh also like there was discussion tonight about the runoff

[2:00:52] control structures or how they're going to do it on the hill where the new

[2:00:56] access road is going to be um and that's useful information that's

[2:01:00] good to know but that's not in the application and it should be to point

[2:01:04] out most of the application says such as or opportunities for rather than saying

[2:01:09] this is how we're going to meet this requirement this is how we're going to

[2:01:12] do this thing I understand you can't put in detailed engineering drawings at this

[2:01:16] phase but you do need to find a way to at least give some pretty concrete

[2:01:20] information um Pages 24 and 25 I'm just going to

[2:01:25] kind of skim through because again they sort of lack

[2:01:29] um what would be helpful if I could show them on screen but it's an example of

[2:01:34] why we really have to be super careful about excess storm water runoff in the

[2:01:40] Davis Creek bottom my home is downhill and downstream from the majority of the

[2:01:46] proposed development and there's no capacity for existing excess run-on

[2:01:51] the photos in here from this past July it was it was a pretty good downpour but

[2:01:55] it wasn't as much rain as we actually had the year before in one of the rain

[2:02:00] events I think it was a couple inches it just came down fast but the left photo

[2:02:05] um shows water coming down from the storm drains on Third and Rise so

[2:02:08] there's excess runoff that's already occurring coming through my neighbor's

[2:02:11] yard they had to install some drainage structures to try some retention

[2:02:15] structures to try to address that and then the previous owner of my house also

[2:02:20] at her own expense in skeleton structures that aren't really working

[2:02:23] there's a huge amount of runoff coming down off third and drives directly into

[2:02:27] our yards the right hand photo shows my property filling in to within a few

[2:02:32] yards of the house and that's not flooding from being in the floodlight

[2:02:34] that's runoff that came down from third and Broad Street from paved impervious

[2:02:39] surfaces and then the photo on page 25 it's a little hard to see in the handout

[2:02:43] but it shows that fortunately that drains off into the creek but it also

[2:02:47] illustrates that the problem is not from the creek flooding it's from runoff and

[2:02:52] then on page 26 there are a couple of photos one shows the runoff from the

[2:02:55] highway 20 Development Area and I presume that one of the Best Western and

[2:02:59] the gas station at Happy Joe's in the Irish Cottage and so on were developed

[2:03:02] they submit storm water management plans but that photo shows you that they're

[2:03:06] not working adequately the county continually keeps having to add rip wrap

[2:03:10] to that place to account for the runoff there and that eventually runs into

[2:03:14] Davis Creek which in the right hand photo shows the 4th Street Bridge which

[2:03:18] is new at full capacity from just a couple inch downpour so basically these

[2:03:24] illustrate the critical need to make absolutely sure that we don't add to the

[2:03:30] runoff in the Davis Creek bottom because honestly a couple more inches of runoff

[2:03:33] and I'm underwater not from the creek but from run on and that's not

[2:03:38] acceptable that's not something that the city should be approving

[2:03:42] um the the best way to deal with that is is to not approve the development but

[2:03:45] anyway um on page 27 and and I guess I

[2:03:49] shouldn't make light of that because it that's an illustration of the

[2:03:53] unsuitability of the site if you're going to add to a problem that you know

[2:03:57] exists if you're going to add the storm water runoff if you're you know you're

[2:04:00] going to add to traffic issues with no resolution you shouldn't be approving

[2:04:04] something it's just not it doesn't make sense

[2:04:08] um page 27 references 154.503 natural resource protection

[2:04:13] standards um the requirement is to

[2:04:18] show with um let's see it's in part d11 down at the bottom of the page the

[2:04:25] method of natural resource protection preservation it says graphic

[2:04:29] illustrations I'm not relating to how the natural features will actually be

[2:04:33] preserved we did see an out tonight at the sweet slugs that was nice to see

[2:04:37] that would be great if that was available to everyone so that we all

[2:04:40] knew exactly what was going to be happening maybe that was just recently

[2:04:43] generated that's one part of what would be required in a natural resource

[2:04:47] protection plan but there is no natural resource protection plan nor was there

[2:04:52] one with the original Community there was a table with some information filled

[2:04:55] in that doesn't show rapidly how these things are going to be protected

[2:05:01] um finally the last couple of pages while it's on the last couple the 28 29

[2:05:06] um address certain factors that cities in Galena are required to consider when

[2:05:11] they're considering rezoning and these have been brought up at other meetings

[2:05:14] considering the first PUD and annexation and so on

[2:05:18] um and I'm not going to walk through them because I should so one is the

[2:05:23] existing uses and Zoning of the nearby property I've already talked about that

[2:05:27] um the extent to which a zoning restriction diminishes property values

[2:05:30] I've been in contact with the local area realtor who's been a realtor here for I

[2:05:35] don't know 50 years or something um he told me that quote during the

[2:05:39] construction phase could be years values will be severely depressed for

[2:05:43] surrounding property that takes money out of my and my

[2:05:48] neighbor's pockets literally takes money out of our pockets if I want to sell my

[2:05:53] house in the next 10 years while this is under construction it will be devalued

[2:05:57] possibly severely and I cannot tell you how much that scares me

[2:06:01] there's no Community benefit from this thing it may not even increase tax

[2:06:06] around the news it may not actually bring more visitors it might just

[2:06:09] replace some but it's going to take money away from me and my neighbors

[2:06:12] wants being built number three the extent to which the

[2:06:16] proposed amendment promotes the public health safety and Welfare again traffic

[2:06:20] storm water runoff and other things clearly detract from that the relative

[2:06:25] gains the public as compared to the hardship imposed on the individual

[2:06:28] property owner there's been speculation about games there's been talk about tax

[2:06:33] increases no numbers no clear statement that we know this is going to bring more

[2:06:37] people and more tax revenue um Property Owners May will experience

[2:06:42] the hardships that I've already discussed

[2:06:44] the suitability of the subject property for the Zone purpose significant access

[2:06:49] and traffic issues can't be mitigated significant stormwater runoff issues

[2:06:54] will be difficult to control

[2:06:57] I appreciate the idea that we can engineer our way out of those but that

[2:07:01] doesn't mean we should and the existing city and county maps

[2:07:05] and the comprehensive plan clearly identify that property as unsuitable for

[2:07:09] the proposed purpose I'll skip number six number seven the

[2:07:15] communities need for the proposed use step are we've gone through that there's

[2:07:17] not a demonstrated need and then the care with which the community is

[2:07:21] undertaken its land use planning through the comprehensive plan and as I said

[2:07:25] it's inconsistent with at least significant portions of the

[2:07:28] comprehensive plan and particularly the proposed land use map which is

[2:07:32] officially adopted in the city for the sewing ordinance

[2:07:36] um since other folks can't see it I won't go through the last few pages but

[2:07:40] um they show some views um we've seen

[2:07:44] renderings before and I hope to show some actual views so that so that you

[2:07:48] know we could talk about those a little bit I know I've been up here a while and

[2:07:50] sorry on page 30 I just want to point out that you can actually see the Marine

[2:07:55] hospital pupila and the silos from the Vincent farm and that's just an example

[2:07:59] of how visible this thing is going to be from significant chunks of talent it

[2:08:04] will change the look and character of the Luna and you guys can read the text

[2:08:09] of the other ones but basically it shows some examples of existing lit up places

[2:08:14] and then where more or less the Parker will be and how and ask you to sort of

[2:08:19] see that it's for example the LeFevre in is visible not only from downtown from

[2:08:25] the Green Street staffs from the McDonald's intersection

[2:08:29] down the Parker with all the lights and and literally 100 and some odd more

[2:08:35] buildings is going to be highly visible I appreciate that there were renderings

[2:08:39] that they hope to um downplay the lighting and so on but

[2:08:42] you just can't have that much light if you guys have been out to look who

[2:08:45] you're in that's already got like downward directed Amber lighting it's

[2:08:49] not a real intrusive place but you can see it forever so the Parker's going to

[2:08:53] be no different it's going to have hundreds more likes that are out there

[2:08:56] at the theater um page 32 just throw shows a couple of

[2:09:00] our comparison with a rendering shown from our property versus reality of Jim

[2:09:04] and Sharon's house I do want to make a disclaimer I understand that the light

[2:09:09] layer on the photograph from our house is misleading I'm not trying to say oh

[2:09:14] my gosh there's going to be you know as much light as is shown on there I I just

[2:09:18] don't know how to do like how to erase that or make my camera not do that but

[2:09:22] um what it shows again is the actuality of what is really there the reality and

[2:09:28] if you multiply that by 100 or more or whatever it's going to be a lot

[2:09:33] um and then page 33 is just sort of the the shine on the glass fronted building

[2:09:38] and again if you multiply that by dozens or hundreds it's pretty significant

[2:09:42] I've thrown a lot at you um in kind of a difficult format I

[2:09:46] apologize for it being a little bit awkward for the time I've taken that I

[2:09:50] want to express my sincere gratitude I really appreciate um seeing y'all out

[2:09:55] there going through this and considering what I'm saying

[2:09:58] there's a lot of detail that needs to be in there and you know before the city

[2:10:02] can be assured that it knows with certainty and in detail what will be

[2:10:06] allowed in this zoning district and what will not and unfortunately this proposed

[2:10:10] amendment like the plan that it amends we use far too many questions unanswered

[2:10:14] and with all those unanswered questions the right thing to do this evening is to

[2:10:18] vote to not recommend this amendment to the city council and then in your

[2:10:22] finding a fact to explain clearly why the right thing to do is to help the

[2:10:27] city council and everyone else just stop take a breath reassess answer questions

[2:10:34] and think about this whole thing much more thoroughly to make sure that if it

[2:10:40] happens it happens with all the information that's needed to make sure

[2:10:44] that the city stays in the driver's seat thank you very much

[2:10:55] Joe

[2:10:58] sure um

[2:11:03] you know we talked about uh Chris Wendy spoke about that this was not in the uh

[2:11:09] plan area proposed land use you know for the expansion and that was a portion

[2:11:15] the original in there

[2:11:22] yeah there's that small part but that part so part of it was okay thank you

[2:11:28] okay anything else anyone else speak against

[2:11:35] Volvo 1477 South Rocky Hill Road rice Township here in rice Township

[2:11:42] since the comprehensive plan was brought up tonight I would like to touch base

[2:11:48] on the comprehensive plan and Fourth Street and Highway 20. Fourth Street

[2:11:53] Highway 20 is a class A critical intersection and that intersection

[2:11:58] played an extensive part of the comprehensive plan and that building out

[2:12:03] in that area and the council seems to think that that

[2:12:08] plan is old and it could be old however if a new comprehensive plan were to be

[2:12:15] written that intersection that's flagged by the

[2:12:19] state of Illinois would still remain in the comprehensive plan

[2:12:23] so there's no getting it out of the Fourth Street and Highway 20 is a class

[2:12:30] A certified critical intersection and it's going to remain in every

[2:12:35] consequencing plan that's going to be brought forward

[2:12:40] uh again I'm just going to go over before I get into my stuff but we talked

[2:12:45] about runoff there and everything and I would like to say that the 2018

[2:12:49] Watershed program that was brought up and approved all

[2:12:54] over the entire County every Township every city every everything including

[2:13:00] here was right at this desk that they did it that property was already spoken

[2:13:05] for out there and now that is being dropped and changed

[2:13:10] in that 2018 Watershed program went to Iowa

[2:13:16] Minnesota or Wisconsin and to the state of Illinois and it has hundreds of

[2:13:23] conservation programs in it and the Joe Davis conservation Society is the

[2:13:29] steward of it along with the winnership so I just want to say there's a big

[2:13:34] difference of opinion that plan had came before this Council it's came through

[2:13:39] the entire County and nobody is looking at that that has already been spoken for

[2:13:46] and there are four other Watershed uh plans out there that are farmers our

[2:13:53] people those residents are working towards and involved in protecting those

[2:13:58] lands doing it and this one here is just dropped

[2:14:02] as a matter of fact it's going to uh Elizabeth and it's going to have some

[2:14:08] new writing in it and it's going to be ran by somebody else

[2:14:12] so I just wanted to make sure that I talked about those two issues

[2:14:17] be before I get going um

[2:14:20] so uh one other thing again the police the fire the EMS an accounting engineer

[2:14:28] have all been stated that they have been contacted

[2:14:32] and that they don't have any problem with this

[2:14:37] well the police the fire to EMS they're they are our heroes and they respond to

[2:14:43] all of our problems and they would never ever recommend

[2:14:48] adding traffic to a class A critical intersection

[2:14:53] and the council keeps on using it and people keep on using it and

[2:15:00] it's just bringing distribute to those to those departments you can't do that

[2:15:06] you cannot say that those departments are going to recommend the use of that

[2:15:12] intersection to this project in that intersection to this project is a

[2:15:17] gateway it's the gateway to this project and we're saying our professionals are

[2:15:23] going to turn their back on a state of Illinois and they're going to say

[2:15:27] everything's okay let's rock and roll that's not that is not fair and I think

[2:15:34] we hold them an apology for completely doing that to them

[2:15:37] so I wanted to make that also um

[2:15:49] Fourth Street Highway 20 is rated by the state of Illinois as a Class A

[2:15:54] interception and that takes in a whole lot of things

[2:15:59] if everybody went ahead and read Illinois uh intersection chapter 34

[2:16:04] everybody would understand what's going on there

[2:16:07] for instance the speed reduction coming down and at the same time they're spree

[2:16:13] their speed advancement going up no shoulders no sidewalks

[2:16:18] handicapped that a hit on on the northwest corner of the handicap

[2:16:24] had to be approved and designed go take a look at it and tell me where you find

[2:16:29] another one it's happened in the street because there is no room unfortunate

[2:16:33] those cars park on their lawn they park on the sidewalk over there to make room

[2:16:38] and this is the gateway to where you're going

[2:16:43] um the side streets are not the highway code and they have to be if you're using

[2:16:48] that as the Gateway those side streets if section 34 Illinois chapter will say

[2:16:55] those side streets have to be to go and they're not

[2:17:00] there's not even the one side is just gravel so I'm I'm asking that uh you pay

[2:17:08] attention to that class a rating uh in case you don't know what the class

[2:17:14] a rating covers all that stuff but in just a Class A rating the loan that's

[2:17:19] accidents with walking wounded the state of Illinois has added the word critical

[2:17:24] to this meaning that there are accidents with injuries that involve

[2:17:30] transportation to medical facilities this is what we're being passed up by

[2:17:35] and this is is like you have to look at it we're under oath run or an umbrella

[2:17:42] this this is something the state is out there nobody now I know I call idot I

[2:17:48] know other people that Paul died but nobody's bringing this class A

[2:17:52] intersection up I heard all these things tonight from the applicant and and the

[2:17:58] last time from the applicant where is the class A rated intersection

[2:18:03] that they want to use they cannot use it

[2:18:18] this project is not new this project has come up before the city

[2:18:24] council and I believe it was May uh 87

[2:18:30] and July of 93 and July of 93 Mr baransky

[2:18:38] and Feud put a map together designed together very similar to this

[2:18:43] and the city council turned it down Bang

[2:18:47] and it was turned down because of the word congestion they didn't want the

[2:18:53] same congestion out there as we have in town

[2:18:57] and that's one of the things and um

[2:19:01] you can look at the record and read it the the paper clip and says it says it

[2:19:06] pretty well and uh and then the last time that that

[2:19:10] intersection came up was in 2013. in 2013 we had a venue come to town that

[2:19:19] wanted to put a venue at the old poor farm

[2:19:22] and um a thousand

[2:19:27] thousand residents got together

[2:19:32] there's over 550 homes that that Corridor brings into town

[2:19:39] and there's a thousand residents okay and the reasons that we came to the

[2:19:47] county and asked to stop that and the applicant withdrew to read the main

[2:19:52] reasons that we came up came came to for and I'm talking

[2:19:59] East Elena Township oh rice Township

[2:20:05] Elizabeth Township Hanover Township and all the other traffic that comes through

[2:20:11] there and the traffic count up there is quite

[2:20:16] a bit and we are the ones that use that intersection and we know that

[2:20:22] intersection and you have to judge from coming down

[2:20:26] slowing and going up up when you get behind a truck right right

[2:20:30] here in town you you just look at the Smoke Stacks

[2:20:34] pouring out he's got a pedal to the metal because he's got to go up that

[2:20:38] hill and you got to try to negotiate out in between down and up for wheelers and

[2:20:44] Illinois state of Illinois says no that is at full capacity right this

[2:20:52] moment right this moment and adding any more is

[2:20:57] going to put it in a dangerous area

[2:21:01] um I I want to then uh touch base on on this issue because again it was said

[2:21:08] that the County engineer um

[2:21:12] have given okay to this okay to this project

[2:21:16] in a manner of family Steve Kiefer stated that and this is in

[2:21:21] quotes Steve keeper stated Blackjack Road is

[2:21:26] the only means to get into the city from this side of town

[2:21:31] traffic will be an issue on that road and it will be compromised

[2:21:38] you may be able to get Emergency Services there but getting them back is

[2:21:43] going to be an issue the intersection of blackjack and

[2:21:48] Highway 20 can be dicey on any given day so that's his words now we have words

[2:21:57] saying that he isn't he's in favor of it he has

[2:22:02] words a recorded statement of in in uh

[2:22:10] in 1913. in 2013 excuse me when that comes out I

[2:22:16] didn't think Steve was settled okay all right in 2013. as a matter of fact that

[2:22:21] plan from the county came to you and three of you signed it

[2:22:27] and the City of Galena zoning board recommended that a city council to

[2:22:33] oppose because this request and that the city

[2:22:37] council approved a file resolution to it to object the request three people are

[2:22:43] here tonight that voted on there and uh so I don't see

[2:22:49] what's changed that somebody's going to vote for it now we already spoke for it

[2:22:55] once we already says that it wasn't we already know about the class A

[2:23:00] intersection [Music]

[2:23:09] so I I could just go on and go on but um I want to bring together what hasn't

[2:23:16] been brought up before and this is the city of Galena Highway 20 Corridor

[2:23:21] design and uh this is this is on

[2:23:26] and with the city of Galena annexing this new property

[2:23:33] they are actually making a new corridor they're adding a new Corridor into the

[2:23:40] city because now they didn't own that property now they're going to own their

[2:23:45] property and then the Blackjack rode the forestry to the dangerous intersection

[2:23:50] is the new Corridor that's being created by this project

[2:23:55] and I don't see how you can come out at 4th Street and Highway 20 but I say

[2:24:03] rated and people say uh Mr westermeyer asked me well why don't they fix it well

[2:24:09] there are plenty of reasons if you if anybody would happen to block the

[2:24:14] highway 20 they'd be happy to send a representative here and I've talked to

[2:24:18] them but that representative has not been asked I've asked the city council

[2:24:23] to have both representative come here I've asked the city the city council had

[2:24:28] the police Fire EMS and County engineer come and give their statements and that

[2:24:34] has been not taken care of before I forget I also asked to use the audio

[2:24:40] visual system when I as I was going to go that way too and I was told that the

[2:24:45] objectors are not allowed to use them but presenters are

[2:24:50] uh and so speaking

[2:24:55] uh that should change how do we stay in Pace with somebody if

[2:25:01] we can't even use the same systems um

[2:25:06] so um I'm just going to have to page

[2:25:09] through this because I had it so on page five of this but by the way this is this

[2:25:14] is adapted into the city code so this is part of the city code this

[2:25:19] this program and actually this is 48 pages of everything that they want to do

[2:25:25] that they can't do it it's literally if if you read through

[2:25:30] a page per page you can find something so I didn't I just played a couple

[2:25:36] instances page let me started here

[2:25:40] a promise I'll I'll I'm gonna just move right through it's just getting too late

[2:25:45] but anyway page five

[2:25:48] previous contained in this manual shall prevail

[2:25:54] what's in this shall prevail

[2:26:00] and as part of the code

[2:26:06] okay page eight design standard contained here within

[2:26:12] are either mandatory or discretionary the term required and prohibited are

[2:26:18] mandatory again I'm telling you what's in this is

[2:26:24] mandatory no legal room mandatory

[2:26:30] uh on page 10. we're talking about the view shed

[2:26:36] discourage development in areas of steep topography and drainage ways that afford

[2:26:43] valuable views right in here page 12.

[2:26:51] throughout the entire quarter it is important that their application on the

[2:26:56] particular site respect the unique qualities of the

[2:27:01] particular settings and neighborhoods can't get around there

[2:27:07] says it right here and and this is really interesting on

[2:27:14] page 13 if you would down here here's the hilltop District right there where

[2:27:19] my finger is that's that's the hilltop District in this manual

[2:27:24] what they're asking for is right there the annexed area that

[2:27:30] they're asking for is in the Southeast Hilltop District

[2:27:36] exactly and and it's outlined right outline

[2:27:41] right there and around it is there so they're asking to go into that

[2:27:47] District and follow these rules

[2:27:51] agent page 11 you'll be happy to know I don't have anything on

[2:27:59] age 15. Visual and Visually uh so they're

[2:28:06] talking about the designs I'm going to mess this up but it says

[2:28:09] throughout brick brick and design in low color bricks in low color

[2:28:16] there's a place in here where I get to it says you have to have small windows

[2:28:20] and have big windows in here and I didn't make it up as a later fan

[2:28:25] um the people here who put this together

[2:28:28] are in this room tonight okay

[2:28:33] um and I I'd say it by name but I'm just

[2:28:36] not going this was this was written by people in this room

[2:28:41] I don't know page 16. higher density development has to have

[2:28:48] controlled access points you did not hear nobody's talking about

[2:28:54] it nobody's talking about that

[2:29:01] 17 this is not now this is interesting

[2:29:07] this requires a traffic analyst it's not

[2:29:12] we're going to do one and we're not going to do one this worry requires that

[2:29:18] you do a traffic analyst uh age 17. in 17 you require

[2:29:30] I'm getting there very fast well I'm just going to say page 20

[2:29:35] everything on page twenty one two three four five six seven different topics on

[2:29:41] page 20. all all of them comply to this program every single one of those

[2:29:49] and if you go to page 22 oh wait a minute skip the page page 21

[2:29:55] and 22 again so page 20 21 and 22

[2:30:02] all of that information on those three pages pertain to this development and

[2:30:08] I'm not going to bore you with it because we ought to be reading it before

[2:30:11] we do anything

[2:30:15] um this goes along from 48 pages

[2:30:19] so I'm just going to stop here and say that

[2:30:23] this is available for you to look at I highly recommend that you look at it

[2:30:28] the area that we are talking about developing lands right in this area

[2:30:35] and I can't say enough the state of Illinois every five years

[2:30:42] evaluates that interception now if you remember a year and a half and two years

[2:30:47] ago they put in some new sidewalks and some new handicaps in there so that

[2:30:52] intersection was just done just evaluated it's sticking around for

[2:30:58] three more years then they'll evaluate it again but it's never came out because

[2:31:04] of the way that intersection is you just cannot add traffic that bad

[2:31:10] intersection if you do you're ignoring your doings

[2:31:15] in in when we speak the duty I mean we speak the suspience and non-fiance

[2:31:23] and Mel Fiats meaning of neglect of doing

[2:31:29] we have to look at this the law says that you have to look at these articles

[2:31:36] and these papers and what uh what was said before that's the law

[2:31:42] and there's three words on that law and if you look it up it particularly like

[2:31:47] zoning boards so um I'm Jim boho

[2:31:52] I think we all an apology to the police fire and EMS

[2:31:57] and uh I'm a marine so tomorrow's my birthday

[2:32:03] thank you any questions

[2:32:11] yes sir I brought up a lot of good points one was the class a uh reading

[2:32:18] over Highway 20 and 4th Street um and you said it's at full capacity

[2:32:23] yes and is that well I've never seen a study that says it's all you have to do

[2:32:30] is call like like other people have this but when you Collide that they take

[2:32:34] your name your number and your business so they can get it to the right place so

[2:32:38] they know who's called and who hasn't called down there all right you asked

[2:32:42] him Jim ball and they said what 10 20 30 40 59. but

[2:32:47] I stood on all those boards with the high

[2:32:52] doc I was the chair of the board that went around Galena so you know when I'm

[2:32:58] talking I doubt when I talk to idot I I you know I'm a little loose up here and

[2:33:03] but I mean now Darren when I talked to I doubt I talk fast they don't want to

[2:33:08] hear non-fats that is their it it is current it is up to date and

[2:33:15] you can't get by it it's going to if you Annex that intersection you are creating

[2:33:22] a new city Corridor to your downtown area

[2:33:26] period and that intersection is full

[2:33:32] and you can ask a thousand residents who come and as a matter of fact they're

[2:33:38] talking about property value what's going to happen to our property values

[2:33:42] our our 560 Plus Homes out there what's going to happen to them and there are

[2:33:49] still over 200 what they call buildable apps out there that are paying taxes

[2:33:55] right now today and have them paying taxes per year and are planning on using

[2:34:00] that corridor and we're going to jam it up and they've

[2:34:04] been paying taxes on buildable that's the county plan and they've been paying

[2:34:09] taxable taxes on taxable Lots out there for years I happen to own one of them

[2:34:14] also so I pay taxes as it is a buildable lot

[2:34:19] and that billable life is going to lose its value because it can't get to town

[2:34:27] any other questions thank you Jim

[2:34:39] emotions for a 15-minute break restroom 15 minutes

[2:35:06] [Music]

[2:35:16] um

[2:35:45] [Music]

[2:36:23] [Laughter]

[2:36:42] thank you

[2:37:09] [Music] um

[2:37:29] [Music]

[2:37:41] um

[2:37:53] [Music]

[2:38:07] [Music]

[2:38:16] foreign

[2:38:27] [Music]

[2:38:43] foreign

[2:39:36] totally

[2:40:02] foreign

[2:40:45] [Music]

[2:41:31] um

[2:41:43] foreign

[2:42:55] I apologize

[2:43:08] Friday

[2:43:41] [Music]

[2:43:50] I like everybody um

[2:44:37] foreign

[2:45:06] entertain them mostly reconvene

[2:45:26] good night when this program came out we we uh got

[2:45:32] together in rice Township again and we sent a letter to the mayor in the

[2:45:36] council we didn't send it to you because we were all done with you but this is

[2:45:41] the letter uh by our Township supervisor uh stating the entire rice Township I'm

[2:45:48] writing you on behalf of rice Township in regards to the Marine Hospital Parker

[2:45:52] project this project will add substantial

[2:45:55] activity both vehicle and pedestrian to the intersection of 4th Street and

[2:46:00] Highway 20. this intersection idot has a critical rating our community uses

[2:46:07] Blackjack quarter for the vast majority of its essential travels we as a

[2:46:12] community are disappointed that there was no interest in contacting rice

[2:46:17] Township prior to the approval of this project

[2:46:21] as we are greatly affected by your decision in assign Andrew burlap thank

[2:46:27] you thank you young lady yeah I'm going to say is on this card

[2:46:34] the state's your name and address and I live at 2170 North Blackjack Road

[2:46:41] also known as 311 live Street we've lived there for more than half a

[2:46:46] century okay even though I wasn't born here

[2:46:50] coincidentally I picked up one of the debut papers today and I don't know if

[2:46:54] it was yesterday's paper or today's paper there was a story in there about a

[2:46:59] development out on the Northwest Arterial which is what we call the way

[2:47:04] to California um the guy is building 105 homes on 80

[2:47:10] acres and two apartment buildings comes remarkably similar to what we're dealing

[2:47:16] with here the developer was required to complete

[2:47:20] and pay for a traffic study and the traffic study showed

[2:47:26] [Music] an increase from 21 vehicles to 80

[2:47:31] vehicles per hour between the hours of 7 A.M and 7 PM every day

[2:47:39] remarkably similar for that amount as far as I'm concerned this project is

[2:47:45] going to lower our property value and we'll be lucky when we sell it if we'll

[2:47:49] be able to pay off the mortgage we don't have water and sewer we would

[2:47:54] love it but it was going to be pretty expensive when they finally offered it

[2:47:58] to us this is going to destroy our quality of

[2:48:02] life our peace and quiet our Serene local country spot

[2:48:08] and it ignores our welfare and our quality of life

[2:48:14] is another question I have too all these Cottages like the first time we were

[2:48:19] shown the Cottages at a neighbor's meeting

[2:48:25] by Mr granski it showed three Styles one was a nice

[2:48:30] inoffensive white brain Cottage another one was concrete and it looked

[2:48:36] like a bunker and the third one looked like a miniature McDonald's with arches

[2:48:41] over the top of it I don't know if that's still going to be what there are

[2:48:45] or I don't see what that adds to things around here it's going to destroy our

[2:48:51] whole corner now thanks any questions thank you

[2:48:59] what else my name is Robert Mahan of 903rd street

[2:49:03] here in Gilead Illinois and I think you had asked a question regarding the uh

[2:49:07] advisory referendum and that was for the county tax

[2:49:12] hotels and motels in the city of Galena in their otemoto text to the city of

[2:49:16] Galena it's also set by the city so um it wouldn't apply that additional

[2:49:22] potential Hotel X to the the Parker uh it was an EMS tax and that's why I saw

[2:49:28] it as a different tax correct it's an EMS text that'd be added on top of uh

[2:49:33] the hotel Motif X collected through through there I'm sorry oh sorry yes

[2:49:37] sorry about that

[2:49:40] hello everyone uh it's time to talk about the Parker again the good thing is

[2:49:45] that it's uh this time there's some new information namely occupancy rates these

[2:49:49] had been compiled for three years starting in 2019 so until the end of

[2:49:53] October neither the developer or nor any kind of City Hall we went occupancy

[2:49:58] rates were in order to determine if there was any evidence of a community

[2:50:01] need for more rooms bottom line the Parker's bed for business and I'll

[2:50:06] explain why I'm the owner and Innkeeper Aldrich

[2:50:09] guest house and I'm proud to be here to share with you tonight

[2:50:12] I've been in the hospitality and service industry for nearly 30 years and with my

[2:50:16] husband Douglas have been able to elevate Aldridge guest house to the

[2:50:19] number one rank bed and breakfast in Illinois on TripAdvisor and never night

[2:50:23] in the entire United States I State this not to brag although we are proud but to

[2:50:27] highlight the qualification of my testimony both as a professional and

[2:50:31] expert in the field of hospitality and tourism as well as a business it stands

[2:50:34] to be affected by your decisions tonight for the next few minutes I'll present

[2:50:38] some facts specifically relating to the community we need requirement for zoning

[2:50:42] changes as well as the city's demonstrated prerogative to protect

[2:50:46] existing businesses that I hope you'll discuss during tonight's meeting

[2:50:49] these facts will all indicate that not only is there not a community need for

[2:50:53] this proposal but that there is an abundance of facts that show approval of

[2:50:57] this proposal is likely to result in negative business consequences for

[2:51:01] existing businesses a comprehensive plan which has been discussed quite

[2:51:05] thoroughly is quoted in that application before you States in part under the

[2:51:09] local economy section quote the city of Galena will strive to diversify its

[2:51:14] local economy and improve the business environment for tourism by retaining

[2:51:18] existing businesses end quote and the zoning ordinances Community needs not

[2:51:23] specifically identified as a factor to determine whether or not a zoning

[2:51:26] request should be approved I'm sorry is specifically identified you won't do

[2:51:30] that specifically 154.920c4 says whether the proposal is

[2:51:35] in conformance with and in furtherance of the implementation of the goals and

[2:51:38] policies of the comprehensive plan and other adopted plans

[2:51:44] and the policies intents and requirements of this code and other city

[2:51:48] regulations and guidelines and number seven whether there is a need in the

[2:51:52] community for the proposal and whether there will be benefits derived by the

[2:51:56] community or area by the proposed rezoning So based on the comprehensive

[2:52:00] plan and the zoning ordinance it is the expressed objective and obligation of

[2:52:03] the city to protect existing businesses when determining a need in the business

[2:52:07] community so let's take a look to see if there's a

[2:52:10] fact-based community need based on this definition

[2:52:14] in regards to the zoning ordinance criteria

[2:52:19] 154.920c7 regarding Community needs a developer states in the submitted

[2:52:23] application quote there is a need in the community for the proposal the approved

[2:52:27] preliminary PUD and the proposed amendment will increase the tax base and

[2:52:31] will build upon the growing market for upscale visitor lodging and the outdoor

[2:52:35] recreational amenities such as the governor River Trail promoted by the

[2:52:39] community end quote this is an unsubstantiated statement as

[2:52:44] there's no information in the application that supports the claim of

[2:52:46] increasing the tax base has been previously discussed and as you'll see

[2:52:50] there is no growing market for lodging in Galena rather quite the opposite the

[2:52:55] applicant did not have the occupancy data in this or previous applications

[2:52:59] were submitted since it hadn't been compiled until the end of October so

[2:53:03] there's also no supporting information in the application regarding a need for

[2:53:06] more lodging that's partly because that info didn't exist at the time of the

[2:53:10] applications and partly because it simply does not comport with the facts

[2:53:14] let's look at how the comprehensive plan and existing ordinances fit with the

[2:53:18] current situation in Galena please keep in mind that all the following numbers

[2:53:22] are based on data provided by the city of Galena that was compiled last month

[2:53:25] and this is not intended to say anything poorly that the city hadn't compiled the

[2:53:30] data for three years and it's not to diminish the work that visit Galena does

[2:53:35] occupancy data is an indicator of the success of a destination not the only

[2:53:40] debt definition of success however for the lodging industry it's a significant

[2:53:46] indicator of what need and success looks like

[2:53:50] lodging occupancy has been falling at least since 2017 with the exception of

[2:53:54] 2021 when Galena experienced a Cove income the occupancy for 2022 is on

[2:54:00] track to end lower than 2021 resuming the downward Trend occupancy for the

[2:54:05] city is now at 2017 levels additionally in at least the last five years possibly

[2:54:10] longer Galena has not had a year above 50 percent occupancy her perspective

[2:54:15] good occupancy rates for the industry are agreed to be 65 and above

[2:54:22] this shows that not only is there a lot of unfilled rooms but occupancy in

[2:54:26] Galena is not healthy and it's headed in the wrong direction the Parker is set to

[2:54:30] add an additional 145 rooms which may not seem like a lot but when you

[2:54:35] consider that Galena currently has just over 600 rooms that's an additional 25

[2:54:39] more inventory at a time when we're not even filling our currently available

[2:54:44] rooms at acceptable occupancy rates it's been said if you build that they will

[2:54:49] come or that we're losing rooms to Dubuque unfortunately no one has any

[2:54:53] information on if or how many are staying in Dubuque when glean is full on

[2:54:57] those several busy weekends each year like country fair and Fourth of July

[2:55:00] although there are certainly some however we do have a recent example of

[2:55:04] if you build it they will come with the approval of airbnbs in 2017 with airbnbs

[2:55:10] we're just starting to be regulated in Galena they accounted for two percent of

[2:55:14] the occupancy tax revenue with large lodging contributing 79 by 2020 airbnbs

[2:55:20] accounted for 15 of the occupancy tax revenues with large lodging share

[2:55:25] dropping to 65 percent during this period not only did

[2:55:28] occupancy rates not increase they continued decreasing the only thing that

[2:55:34] adding airbnbs did was change the places that visitors were staying Galena built

[2:55:39] it but they did not come using numbers from the city of Galena

[2:55:44] today in order to keep the occupancy rate where it is right now with the

[2:55:47] additional 145 rooms at the Parker never mind stopping the consistent downgrade

[2:55:52] trade in occupancy rates the Parker would have to find a way to draw an

[2:55:56] additional 26 500 room nights every year just to

[2:56:01] maintain current occupancy rates that's what a High room bed and breakfast could

[2:56:05] accommodate if they're in full every single night of the year for 14 and a

[2:56:10] half years straight if they don't replace those room Nights

[2:56:13] by somehow attracting 26 500 more room nights tickling up every year that means

[2:56:19] a 20 reduction occupancy rates for existing properties that also means a 20

[2:56:24] reduction in room revenues at a time when margins are already thin and travel

[2:56:29] the resistance to higher rates is increasing this equates to 3.9 million

[2:56:34] dollars in reduced revenues for existing lodging this averages out to 6 325

[2:56:40] dollars in reduction for every room in Galena every year for perspective that

[2:56:46] works out to at least three hundred and fifty thousand dollars in Lost room

[2:56:49] Revenue every year for a 55 room property similar in size to the DeSoto

[2:56:53] House Hotel in August the city council did not allow

[2:56:57] a proposed food truck to be on Main Street for two and a half hours per week

[2:57:01] on a day when sixty percent of restaurants were closed and when

[2:57:04] visitors and locals alike reported that they had to wait for up to two hours for

[2:57:07] a table the food truck was endorsed by visit

[2:57:10] Galena the Chamber of Commerce and the downtown Business Association there were

[2:57:15] three food establishment owners who felt a food truck wasn't fair for the nine

[2:57:18] restaurants that were open and the council agreed that it was unfair and

[2:57:22] that the city had a mandate and obligation in the form of a

[2:57:24] comprehensive plan and other ordinances to protect existing businesses

[2:57:29] other person westermeyer stated in part quote I agree with the businesses that

[2:57:33] are open and it could affect them end quote other person Bernstein stated

[2:57:37] quote I think in terms of fairness this is not a good idea end quote the food

[2:57:42] truck was a temporary tailored and widely endorsed solution to a problem

[2:57:46] that was well documented one that was for two and a half hours a week that

[2:57:49] would no longer needed wouldn't be here anymore it was tonight on the basis that

[2:57:53] it wasn't fair for existing businesses today the zoning board and the city

[2:57:57] council will once again be asked to approve the Parker adding 25 more room

[2:58:01] inventory to a destination that not only has never been the industry where I

[2:58:05] agreed upon healthy 65 occupancy but has never been higher than 50 and is

[2:58:10] declining year over year but no longer needed a food truck rolls away but a 145

[2:58:15] room Resort that is not needed continues to be detrimental to existing businesses

[2:58:20] the comprehensive plan and ordinances indicate Community need would

[2:58:23] specifically include diversifying the economy adding more lodging is not

[2:58:28] diversification and as discussed facts do not indicate a need for more lodging

[2:58:32] either it also mentions retaining existing

[2:58:34] businesses adding 25 more lodging units when there has been no indicated meeting

[2:58:39] but in fact the opposite has been shown does not help retain existing businesses

[2:58:43] rather it imposes extensive extreme and undue economic hardships on them

[2:58:49] all this to emphasize two things number one

[2:58:52] the city's expressed obligation to protect existing businesses it is

[2:58:56] indicated by both word and action and documents such as a comprehensive plan

[2:59:00] and zoning ordinances as well as a recent denial of a food truck on the

[2:59:04] sole basis that the council believes that it would negatively impact existing

[2:59:07] businesses and number two that when considering facts not only is there not

[2:59:12] a business Community need for this to be approved but current businesses are

[2:59:15] likely to suffer significant negative impacts should the proposal continue to

[2:59:19] be approved this project has a distinct possibility of reducing current lodging

[2:59:24] properties occupancy by 20 resulting in a 20 loss of room Revenue plus any other

[2:59:29] ancillary Revenue that would have come from those overnight guests I do hope to

[2:59:33] hear robust conversation on the facts that have been presented tonight when

[2:59:36] considering 154.920 C four and seven during a discussion portion of the

[2:59:41] meeting tonight which unfortunately I will have to watch from Zoom as I'm on

[2:59:45] the time crunch we do not ask for fairness or equality we simply ask for

[2:59:50] consistency in the in light of this new information that you did not have before

[2:59:53] that the zoning uh before the end of October that the zoning board

[2:59:57] reconsidered their support for the Department proposals as not only is

[3:00:01] there no Community need it is demonstrably bad for business

[3:00:05] are there any questions yeah you're 15 I see Rainbow that's

[3:00:10] based on 365 days correct yeah for the entire year so my question would be

[3:00:14] what's the occupancy rate on Fridays and Saturdays uh that's not broken down but

[3:00:19] uh if you do take a look at the occupancy rates that the city compiles

[3:00:23] monthly in 2021 there were six nights or six months uh where the occupancy was

[3:00:30] above 60 for the month uh in 2022 there's two uh so that occupancy does

[3:00:36] continue to go down until October is On Any Given prior Saturday night

[3:00:42] from probably April through November December most most

[3:00:49] establishments are ever very high actually rates on price it's really

[3:00:53] article yes uh however if you do factor in uh even if they were only taking

[3:00:58] rooms on Friday and Saturday it still creates about a 10 reduction

[3:01:03] uh and is there a chance though that some of you you mentioned that the

[3:01:08] airbnb's just moved people from hotels perhaps to airbnbs is there a chance

[3:01:13] that this establishment would move people from guest homes in the territory

[3:01:17] to Galena residents who are going to the city of Maine where Randy within cap

[3:01:22] some of the rewards rather than that being dispersed out of the detergent it

[3:01:26] doesn't seem like it would go the other way as airbnbs were the ones that took

[3:01:29] away from large lodging it would be unlikely that large lodging would then

[3:01:32] take back away from airbnbs oftentimes the visitors that are looking for

[3:01:37] something like an Airbnb are looking for that specifically because they have more

[3:01:41] room they have kitchens they're not bothered with other people being around

[3:01:44] them so no I don't foresee the Parker pulling people from rental homes out in

[3:01:51] the building the territory to then stay at a large lodging facility

[3:01:57] any other questions

[3:02:02] thank you for your time thank you sir thank you

[3:02:10] darling period uh 1974 North Milwaukee Road right in the middle of all this

[3:02:17] we've got any well science and behind me I object to the request to the next the

[3:02:24] 18.24 acres to joining my property into a corporate boundaries of the city of

[3:02:29] Helena for the following reasons it's a perfect example of urban sprawl the city

[3:02:35] according to the present comprehensive plan should go to the west and not to

[3:02:39] the east yes and I understand the comprehensive

[3:02:42] plan is being revised the access road off Blackjack Road and the developer

[3:02:48] wants to use is a very steep narrow railroad with a cattle guard under it at

[3:02:52] the bottom okay so they're going to you know just

[3:02:55] heard tonight they're going to widen it and pave it

[3:02:59] but anyway there's still a cattle guard and it's still going to be zoned egg

[3:03:04] camel wander up and down the road big farm equipment including semis full of

[3:03:09] grain and truck selling 2 000 pound hay bales travel both on the driveway and on

[3:03:15] the main road all the time not to mention lots of motorcycles and regular

[3:03:21] traffic ill enough Bubble gum traffic in the fall a semi blocks

[3:03:26] the road while wagon loads of corn come down the driveway and roll the corn into

[3:03:31] a semi usually at night and I've seen the solid and it's right beside me

[3:03:37] Davis Creek runs under a cement Bridge through Culvert and as the because the

[3:03:42] Creeks on both sides of the road so there's no room for a turning lane

[3:03:46] and during a hard rain both Blackjack Road and the bottom of the access road

[3:03:51] flood and this didn't happen in July about 15 years ago and I don't know the

[3:03:55] name of Hank Gordon who managed the farm at the top of the hill was killed in a

[3:04:00] tractor accident on this road and I was home at the time

[3:04:06] uh he um drove up and down this road several

[3:04:10] times a day so he was familiar with the scroll

[3:04:14] now the developer wants a 600 person Convention Center for restaurants cabins

[3:04:20] a winery and several other things for the potential of 600 bus cars coming up

[3:04:26] and down the people potentially drinking and I'm familiar with the pro

[3:04:32] you kind of think about that and the train I don't care about you submit it

[3:04:37] or not there's going to be traffic going up and down both and yes I know a

[3:04:42] shuttle was imagined but they are going to use

[3:04:46] what benefit is this to the city except possibly more tax money

[3:04:52] or occupancy for lodging is less than 50 this man over here just mentioned the

[3:04:58] past five years and what about the additional traffic at

[3:05:01] the intersection of 3rd and 4th Street and Highway

[3:05:04] sometimes now traffic is backed up past Happy Joe's

[3:05:09] the recent comprehensive plan the president comprehensive plan states

[3:05:14] that we value the land of our strong agricultural heritage

[3:05:20] and to preserve the natural resources for future generations and preserve the

[3:05:26] County's rural character and scenic areas

[3:05:29] so how does building a mini busy Disney World

[3:05:33] and a cornfield on top of a steep hill that floods at the bottom in this

[3:05:37] concept [Applause]

[3:05:45] all right thank you ma'am

[3:05:49] [Music] my name is Edward shine

[3:05:53] I'm at 1952 North Blackjack Road immediately adjacent to the proposed

[3:05:58] development Ed property

[3:06:05] first of all I appreciate your time I'll keep this as quick as possible

[3:06:09] uh Mr Baranski mentioned uh the Davis Bridge I don't know how many times

[3:06:15] you've gone up and down Blackjack Road and gone over that bridge but if you're

[3:06:19] going at speed listed speed and someone's coming at you it's a white

[3:06:24] knuckler because it's extremely narrow the other thing is I remember when the

[3:06:28] bensons were milking out there and they'd have the trucks come up in the

[3:06:32] climate weather the milk trucks couldn't make it up that hill the picture looked

[3:06:36] like it wasn't that steep but if you walk out there and walk up that hill

[3:06:39] it's actually quite steep I'm not too worried about trucks getting up the hill

[3:06:43] I'm more worried about cars coming down now and Mr bransky mentioned that

[3:06:47] they're going to make improvements to the road which would make sense

[3:06:50] but if they do make improvements for road is that going to be asphalt and if

[3:06:54] they are if it is going to be asphalt and they are coming down that Hill I'm

[3:06:57] worried about cars coming into that intersection not only for me and my

[3:07:01] family and the other residents that live in a neighborhood provides communities

[3:07:03] coming through there but also that there's a huge ditch on the other side

[3:07:06] of that Creek and it's not a little one it's huge so here you have you're up at

[3:07:11] the top of the hill it's icy it's snowing and you're coming down the hill

[3:07:14] it's very dangerous is is Miss Perry is Mrs Perry just mentioned

[3:07:19] so these are things now we erosion is also mentioned uh erosion control is a

[3:07:26] constant effort in this area and over the last two years we've

[3:07:31] improved we've spent over twelve thousand dollars on our farm trying to

[3:07:34] prevent erosion which directly event affects the Vincent property

[3:07:39] we've we've been combating it uh there's not much we can do other than build dry

[3:07:44] dams bulldoze it's a constant effort whenever we cut down more trees which we

[3:07:49] try not to we have more erosion so what we do is we

[3:07:53] try to plant trees so I'm worried that if there is any more development up on

[3:07:56] that Hill if any trees are cut there will be more erosion and more water

[3:08:00] coming down that Hill and

[3:08:03] so I oppose the development by True North Quality Homes LLC development

[3:08:09] contains no Quality Homes as the company's name suggests right the planes

[3:08:13] itemize 145 guess accounting accommodations squeeze side by side into

[3:08:19] 85 Acres 96 minus the 11th of the great clients the proposed development is

[3:08:25] nothing more than a tourist trailer camp on stilts even a curse cursory glance at

[3:08:31] the many exhibits reflect tightly spaced boxes where the best views are not the

[3:08:36] Rolling Hills of Joe Davis County but rather the windows on neighboring guest

[3:08:41] Cottages can any reasonable person believe their wealthier upscale Urban

[3:08:45] dwellers will travel to the Parker for a weekend stay to be surrounded by row

[3:08:50] upon row of tourist cottages well they're

[3:08:55] well there's PR well there is precious little information presented

[3:09:00] to predict the profile of the tourist visitors one can gain some insights into

[3:09:05] what can be expected by referring to page seven exhibit G of the Developers

[3:09:10] exhibit appendix I directed the attention to what appears

[3:09:15] to be several parking lots adjacency identify on a dynamic buildings it takes

[3:09:20] Superior eyesight to count the many parking spaces that I can't estimate but

[3:09:25] I might say around 200 these concentrated parking spaces

[3:09:29] suggests to me that overnight guests might be encouraged to bring cargo

[3:09:33] trailers which could contain adult toys such as wad Runners ATVs side by sides

[3:09:38] dirt bikes and rolling Vehicles if I'm not correct the developer has not made

[3:09:42] any provisions for containing or otherwise limiting the use of these

[3:09:46] vehicles it is my opinion that the proposed development does dramatically

[3:09:51] and emphatically violate any and all comprehensive plans which have long been

[3:09:55] referenced and respect and respected throughout the county in hearings and

[3:10:00] hearings such as this further the proposed development

[3:10:04] corrupts infringes and creates a nuisance to the

[3:10:10] immediate and surrounding neighborhoods along the Blackjack Road believe me if

[3:10:14] this proposed development was just about walking trails and Vineyards most of us

[3:10:19] would not be losing sleep or caring the loss of the numeral cherished values

[3:10:24] another separate and distinct reason for denying the application is the develop

[3:10:28] the developer itself when was it known as about the developer I don't even

[3:10:31] think he's here today but the circumstances surrounding the

[3:10:36] application demand careful examination of the developer largely because it

[3:10:39] encompasses several phases covered in unspecified period over several years as

[3:10:46] it goes to say the devil's in the details it is largely left to the

[3:10:50] developer to find prioritize create and supervise the implementation of these

[3:10:54] details what we do know about the developer is that he will serve to

[3:10:58] predict whether the changes it causes will improve or at a minimum be

[3:11:03] compatible within and around the community it is selected for its

[3:11:07] development we know the true north Quality Homes is

[3:11:10] Rich providing ample evidence of it when it paid enrigating errors approximately

[3:11:15] 55 000 per acre for the 78.79 Acres it emphasized its Financial Powers when

[3:11:26] when cracks appeared relating to public access to the proposed development and

[3:11:31] pay the Vincent errors the same amount of 55 000 per acre fruit of

[3:11:35] approximately 18 Acres further east along Blackjack Road these purchase

[3:11:39] prices are in just about everyone's opinion

[3:11:43] dramatically above market value for unimproved Farmland papers in Jordans

[3:11:47] County meanwhile and importantly these purchase purchases produce the effect of

[3:11:53] isolating at least a half dozen personal residents by encompassing them within

[3:11:57] the proposed development to my knowledge not any of these homeowners could

[3:12:02] received or been offered any money for their property by the developer

[3:12:06] this dramatic and fundamentally unfair treatment of one's neighbors bodes ill

[3:12:11] for the future it is my opinion that the proposed

[3:12:15] development will constantly clash with the entire Blackjack corridor

[3:12:20] at minimum neighbors should always be considerate their neighbors developer

[3:12:25] appears not to agree with the standard and its application should be denied

[3:12:30] lastly I would like to point what I consider to be a little known but

[3:12:35] tremendously pertinent fact that there are approximately 140 pending

[3:12:40] applications for Airbnb licenses in in the Galena area

[3:12:44] moreover minor understanding that these applications are on hold

[3:12:49] if my understanding is correct it would appear that a hole in the nature of a de

[3:12:55] facto or not or formal moratorium is in effect

[3:13:00] and it seems to me that because questions concerning low income or

[3:13:04] affordable housing or Workforce housing or tourist accommodations

[3:13:09] and complex would require planning and legislative actions in a moratorium is

[3:13:15] unwarranted and if I am correct the moratorium is in effect

[3:13:20] or call why wouldn't True North Quality Homes LLC application be covered by it

[3:13:26] certainly on its face it appears admirable and worthwhile plus it is my

[3:13:32] suggestion that in the event the board or Council refuses to reject

[3:13:38] the application that a moratorium be placed on it until

[3:13:43] such time as the Airbnb licenses are taken off hold and resolved at the

[3:13:48] Galena and Joe Davis County level respectfully in China

[3:13:58] speak against

[3:14:04] Alan Johnson 211 Forestry um I just have uh a couple of things to

[3:14:12] point out uh we got the the staff memorandum here

[3:14:18] and again um

[3:14:21] now I've got a lot a lot of history with the sewing board uh I brought along uh

[3:14:28] there we go the uh map Amendment from uh IPC uh PowerPoint

[3:14:35] after Orlando Valenti

[3:14:39] um and when you're determined not to uh change the uh

[3:14:47] the land use there uh he was turned on there and the

[3:14:53] determination number one number one reason the proposal does not comply with

[3:14:57] the objectives of the comprehensive plan the land use plan contained in the

[3:15:02] comprehensive plan designates the use of the property as Parts Rex and green

[3:15:07] space rezoning the property to Orient Auto oriented business will be contrary

[3:15:13] to the city's efforts to implement comprehensive plan number one reason

[3:15:18] that we're checking that so comprehensive plan does have a

[3:15:24] place in the determination of whether you should be uh

[3:15:31] approving this consideration well when I did a PUD for a Grace Church

[3:15:40] the the administrative uh

[3:15:45] staff summary States explicitly site plan review

[3:15:50] indicates compliance with the adopted plans policies such as the comprehensive

[3:15:55] plan does not conflict with the official map trail of Park plans the city

[3:16:00] you know what we got what we got on this memorandum

[3:16:04] we got a paragraph it kind of refers to the conference plan

[3:16:09] for both site and newly acquired acreage are directly chasing

[3:16:14] to one of the city of glands contiguous growth areas it's not in the contiguous

[3:16:19] growth area the proposed anger States uh the project is next to and will access a

[3:16:27] major Collective collector's degree and sense of creation of the comprehensive

[3:16:33] plan new public facilities Humanities have been constructed in New York

[3:16:39] all right so so he's on the administrator saying that

[3:16:45] there are that we're not following the comprehensive plan he's going around the

[3:16:49] bush here he's not going to State it though he

[3:16:53] needs to stay the tear you got to be an honest Zone administrator and say it

[3:16:58] does not comply with Comprehensive plans straight out don't be calling the

[3:17:03] administrator dishonest okay all right if you want to piss me off

[3:17:10] this comes to the point of

[3:17:15] are there adequate public facilities and services

[3:17:21] all right city services include building department zoning department historic

[3:17:28] preservation Commission we've got one man here

[3:17:34] one man here doing four jobs at the city we've got

[3:17:41] the museum the new Historical Museum coming

[3:17:47] up on both Hilliard Street we've got an addition on to the hospital

[3:17:53] coming we've got

[3:17:57] uh city engineer and a building inspector zoning

[3:18:03] administrator got to cover all of this all right

[3:18:08] so I I'm not saying anything against Jonathan

[3:18:13] I know he's a hard worker I know he's an honest man but he's got four jobs

[3:18:17] and this is an extremely ex extremely complicated and very dangerous proposal

[3:18:27] to to redevelop this part of town and like a number of people have said you

[3:18:33] don't have the information you cannot determine if it's a public

[3:18:37] benefit because you don't have that information you cannot determine if it's

[3:18:43] if it's going to create runoff we don't have that we didn't have a traffic study

[3:18:49] these are things that something like this you have to get the developer up

[3:18:53] front we got a guy here spending millions millions of dollars to develop

[3:18:59] a site over here that you can't get to

[3:19:03] you know you should have at least as a city we need to explain to these people

[3:19:08] you know money can't solve location location

[3:19:13] anybody knows development three things location location

[3:19:19] change the zoning at Park Avenue and the highway for a new business there how's

[3:19:24] that doing I don't see it with private can anybody make the greenhouse work

[3:19:32] no you can't get there from here so when the

[3:19:38] applicant comes before you and says that he can't even make a

[3:19:43] left-hand turn onto the highway with his with his uh

[3:19:50] shuttle bus he's gonna have to make a right turn

[3:19:54] this is what they said he's gonna have to make a right turn go up to both

[3:19:59] Hilliard where the left turn lane is three cars

[3:20:03] it's gonna have to go down both earlier and that's going to have to take a left

[3:20:08] onto Park Avenue and get my way now

[3:20:14] how is he going to work that on on a big weekend how's he going to work that on

[3:20:19] Country prayer weekend he's going to take the right turn it's going to go up

[3:20:23] to go failure it's going to take a left on the thing it's going to get on Park

[3:20:27] Avenue it's going to go Park Avenue up to Jackson he's going to Jackson the

[3:20:31] bogus he's going to end up by Louise and then he's going to come downtown

[3:20:39] now we got 100 no 400 some odd parking spaces

[3:20:45] which is 50 cars a quarter mile

[3:20:50] right that's two miles cars coming up

[3:20:56] coming on to what we know is a very dangerous

[3:21:01] intersection and I'll just say I want to hear a

[3:21:07] little bit better discussion then

[3:21:18] then people saying [Music]

[3:21:22] I won't get into it you know last time last time I was here

[3:21:30] and we went through this

[3:21:34] everybody came up here and gave their evidence

[3:21:39] you made a motion it was no discussion there was no discussion on any item uh

[3:21:46] City attorney directed you to go directly to the uh Florence and

[3:21:50] compliance goals and pretty much the chairman answered

[3:21:57] every one of those the one that somebody else answered the

[3:22:01] chairman uh disagreed with them

[3:22:05] but we didn't go through and answer all these

[3:22:09] questions looking at the facts

[3:22:15] you know uh

[3:22:21] but you know he says I've been here for 61

[3:22:27] years and the chairman says

[3:22:31] tourism is the biggest industry we've ever had

[3:22:35] somebody mentioned Franklin's biggest goal was to bring

[3:22:40] tours into Galena and that's what built this town because

[3:22:44] it wasn't built on anything else and it's important that we continue to do

[3:22:49] that because that's the industry we chose we didn't choose tourism

[3:22:54] as they are only interest rate that's why we have a comprehensive plan because

[3:23:00] we're trying to diversify our infrastructure diversify our economy to

[3:23:05] work Supply the jobs we can't have we've already got

[3:23:09] wedding chapel we are got Turner Hall I got one on on the west side up or on the

[3:23:16] east side over here now how's that doing I don't see a need for

[3:23:25] destroying this property over here you want to build a hotel with 140 rooms

[3:23:32] we've got it set up go buy the Bartell Farm go buy something

[3:23:37] where you can already connect to the in the water you can already connect to the

[3:23:42] Sewer why do we have a developer who's coming to town Pam way more for property

[3:23:49] than he should be develop a property that's going to be almost impossible I

[3:23:55] mean you're talking about a sewer system 130

[3:24:00] sewer connections 150 sewer connection it's got spider web down that Hill

[3:24:05] through Limestone trenches under the river

[3:24:11] and you're going to say none of that's going to break We're Not Gonna endanger

[3:24:15] our water by by opening up sewer lines in the cars

[3:24:21] on the Limestone Hill

[3:24:24] they just closed on Main Street yesterday for water main break

[3:24:30] I've Been Working On Main Street the city couldn't keep track of where the

[3:24:36] sewer spring or where the sprinkler connections were

[3:24:40] you know we can't keep track of what we got here

[3:24:44] we got somebody building something even more competent over there on a site but

[3:24:49] it's going to be nearly impossible to build in why is he over there we want

[3:24:54] somebody to come to Galena and be successful

[3:24:57] we wanted to tell we want them to tell tell them where to go and build where

[3:25:02] you can be successful there's a reason we told people not to

[3:25:07] build over there and it's it's the highway

[3:25:10] you can't improve that intersection we know that you can't improve that piece

[3:25:17] of property and develop on it properly he's got 140 cabins on stilts

[3:25:24] that's not an innovative that's because they're cheap and they

[3:25:30] know that if God put that concrete got put in foundations you're going to just

[3:25:35] do it way more property and you're really going to cause problems but I

[3:25:39] want you to think about that sewer house on stills that's not an Innovative

[3:25:44] I don't have anybody come to me asking me about the house and stills why is

[3:25:48] that what do you do with your water

[3:25:51] what do you do with your water we're not we got all your plumbing underneath that

[3:25:56] towels and then going to a unprotected sewer connection

[3:26:02] that has to pass through a zone of free stuff

[3:26:07] so we got 130 possible sewer connections that are

[3:26:13] going to break in this development already

[3:26:17] send and where you should be building make this guy successful what we're

[3:26:22] sending him over here we need the rooms you want the rooms

[3:26:25] send to us where you're supposed to go because according to our comprehensive

[3:26:32] plan

[3:26:38] amendments may be appropriate years following adoption of the client

[3:26:42] particularly when the plan becomes concentrated the merchant issues

[3:26:46] policies and trends amendments are typically minor changes

[3:26:51] plans fiber text large-scale changes or

[3:26:56] frequent amendments make the plan lose Integrity to follow

[3:27:02] the state comprehensive planning loan the city cities should use the same

[3:27:07] process to amend the plan that is used when it was initially

[3:27:12] adopted regardless of how minor the change or

[3:27:17] Amendment

[3:27:20] you don't have the rights nobody has the right to just sit up here and say

[3:27:27] you get to you get to change the comprehensive plan without going through

[3:27:33] the process yeah Jonathan

[3:27:39] tells you that you can change the zoning and

[3:27:43] change the parts of the period the related to

[3:27:48] zoning but he doesn't tell you here again that

[3:27:53] you can't change the comprehensive plan you have to go through the process you

[3:27:58] want to change you want this to happen you got to go through the comprehensive

[3:28:02] Zone in plaque comprehensive plans process

[3:28:07] you can't just sit up here and say it's 20 years old it doesn't apply because

[3:28:12] I'd like to know when that stopped because I've been bringing people before

[3:28:16] this zoning board for 20 years and it's always applied to me

[3:28:22] thank you very much

[3:28:37] so David Hanna 1107 core Street um got some handouts there I also had to

[3:28:43] coding some stuff on the screen so hopefully you can follow along so

[3:28:49] what you've got there on that handout is just a list thank you

[3:28:53] what you've got there on the handout is just a list of some of the ordinances

[3:28:57] I'll refer to um a number of parts of that application

[3:29:03] itself so we're pretty even follow along with what's there

[3:29:07] um maybe to start maybe um you can just clarify a couple of

[3:29:11] things that I'm possibly confused about um you know the public notice for the

[3:29:16] meeting indicates this is for a request for an amendment to a planned you the

[3:29:20] development plan to add new team anchors um but the zoning administrator's demo

[3:29:25] says that the 18 th would remain zoned as default limited

[3:29:30] agriculture the notice regarding the annexation

[3:29:33] agreement says the 18 Acres will be zoned and unit development an underlying

[3:29:38] districts so the 18 Acres remain as limited

[3:29:43] agriculture or we rezone will be part of the Pud that particular

[3:29:49] person will be limited underlying District of limited but it would be

[3:29:53] rezoned to planned unit development that okay so are the existing Beauty Parcels

[3:30:00] will they be rezoned as part of this process no

[3:30:03] okay so so it's just the 18 Acres

[3:30:09] so uh 154 301 B1 and 2 outlines the different types of planned unit

[3:30:15] development so there's either a district or a site

[3:30:18] and the existing rezoning ordinance doesn't specify whether the site was

[3:30:22] resilient to the district or site you know which one

[3:30:26] that was it's not a discussion you can State your peace if they have questions

[3:30:31] and I'll ask Okay so under planned unit development District

[3:30:36] a comprehensive set of development standards are approved that apply to a

[3:30:40] lot or subdivision as opposed to a specific site plan the Pud District also

[3:30:45] includes standards for perimeter landscaping and buffering vehicular and

[3:30:49] pedestrian circulation and other standards as necessary so that's 154 301

[3:30:54] E1 for a planned unit development site

[3:30:57] under 154 301 E2 a detailed site plan showing building

[3:31:02] Footprints parking areas and other details is approved with which all

[3:31:05] future development must comply generally the approved site plan controls all

[3:31:09] development on the lot definitely so the resigning ordinance didn't

[3:31:14] specify which of these things that it was

[3:31:17] but if it's a district there has to be a comprehensive set of development

[3:31:21] standards it's a site there has to be a detailed site

[3:31:25] for 154 301b indicates that deviations from any of the default standards shall

[3:31:32] be explicitly stated in the zoning and zoning ordinance

[3:31:36] 154 301c says at the time of zoning a parcel to PUD the city the students will

[3:31:42] check I'll show many about which must be consistent with

[3:31:46] Comprehensive plan so I can find No statement of Standards

[3:31:49] or deviations or uses or site plan and rezoning ordinance

[3:31:55] so like one question I have then is what standards does the amendment seek to

[3:31:59] amend the fruit preliminary plan and a proposed amendment of a lot of overlap

[3:32:04] but also conflicting information pitches one to two of the amendment

[3:32:10] request that's eight changes but it also appears there are additional changes in

[3:32:14] the rest of the document zoning administrators member doesn't clearly

[3:32:18] list all the changes or how the city will incorporate them into an ordinance

[3:32:22] to ensure that they're clearly understood in the future

[3:32:26] so for instance the amendment mentions the change in for area ratio for the

[3:32:30] project in several places and characterizes this as a community

[3:32:34] benefit for the long term according to the amendment request the

[3:32:38] same number of buildings and the same amount of building area will be

[3:32:42] developed on the same Parcels of land there's more than 120 buildings greater

[3:32:46] than what currently exists on the site the amount of the proposed Building

[3:32:50] Development isn't changing how has it changed in the four area ratio on paper

[3:32:55] an actual Community benefit let's look at the polar area ratio

[3:33:00] anyway that's the 154 301d indicates non-residential land unit development

[3:33:06] intensity shall be established as a maximum floor area ratio and maximum

[3:33:11] building size at the time of main unit development would be selling approval

[3:33:15] and determining the maximum bar in MBS the zoning board of appeals and the city

[3:33:21] council shall consider then there's a list of criteria includes the intensity

[3:33:26] of adjacent development the demand for development in the vicinity of the

[3:33:30] proposed Beauty the availability of Transportation facilities including

[3:33:34] streets the adequacy of utilities and public services

[3:33:38] so what are UVS standards were established in the original reasonable

[3:33:42] approval and how were those stated in the resulting ordinance but far in MBS

[3:33:47] as the zoning board considering and determining tonight

[3:33:50] is the new bar being established the 3.6 we heard earlier tonight what about the

[3:33:56] MBS how are all the relevant factors identified in 154 301 considered making

[3:34:02] this determination the city's not Quantified or presented

[3:34:06] information regarding the intensity of adjacent development and has not

[3:34:09] presented information about the demand for development in the vicinity

[3:34:14] as far as I know there's no current demand

[3:34:19] or about trapping the street issues there's been a lot of Citizen testimony

[3:34:23] and agreement by City officials that the development will worsen traffic in the

[3:34:27] street issues but the cities provided no rationale for health routine issues were

[3:34:32] considered in its determination before in India's

[3:34:36] how about the process for amending the preliminary community plan zoning

[3:34:40] administrators memo States employmentary PUD may be amended through the rezoning

[3:34:45] process I'm sure that's entirely correct 154 923 F1 outlines three situations

[3:34:53] where usable standards may be amended by going through the

[3:34:59] rezoning process to amend the result in addition 154 of 923 F3 outlines how

[3:35:07] luminary book development plan is amended this must also be followed

[3:35:11] the amendment in front of you doesn't fit the definitions of a minor or major

[3:35:15] Amendment Given In subsections A and B so subsection C applies for States all

[3:35:21] other amount of supplementary development plans shall be reviewed by

[3:35:24] the zoning board of appeals and decided by the city council using the same

[3:35:28] process and criteria used for preliminary Financial approval review

[3:35:32] and approval the previous testimony has shown that

[3:35:36] the criteria required by 154 923 for approval of the preliminary PUD plan

[3:35:42] we're not considered by The Zone board or the city council and their

[3:35:46] deliberations and these criteria and the overall process are also not mentioned

[3:35:50] in the zoning administrative memo of course member

[3:35:54] the amendment talks about having a default zoning of the added 18 Acres as

[3:35:58] limited agriculture but also shows that one of the purposes of the 18 acres is

[3:36:02] to develop a road system to serve as a commercial Resort is it that a

[3:36:07] commercial reuse not an agricultural use on the 18 Acres

[3:36:11] nowhere in the limited addict description and zoning ordinance does it

[3:36:15] say that the AG district is intended for the development of road infrastructure

[3:36:19] or a new commercial development this kind of commercial development is not

[3:36:23] consistent with the highly rural community character of The Limited

[3:36:27] agricultural zoning District if the 18 Acres of the underlying

[3:36:32] the 18 acres has an underlying zoning District of agricultural but it's being

[3:36:37] rezoned to plan unit development what are the changes in the default

[3:36:41] agricultural standards that are being created in the rezoning ordinance that

[3:36:46] make it happen to be a human being don't see mention of any new standards for the

[3:36:51] 18 Acres only a desire to have signage by right rather than by special use on

[3:36:57] that what's the rationale for why puv is necessary if it was parcel when there

[3:37:03] are no use standards for Community benefits established for the parcel just

[3:37:07] more rights another thing that's unclear in the

[3:37:11] original plan and the amendment are the buildings near Davis Creek and the

[3:37:15] original preliminary plan these are described as existing structures with no

[3:37:20] mention of residential use which is not permitted in a planned at Marshall

[3:37:23] District now in the maps in the amendment one of

[3:37:27] the buildings is described as an existing residence

[3:37:30] original PUD approval never mentioned in residential use

[3:37:34] is this a non-conforming use what about the existing Maintenance

[3:37:39] building that's shown in Phase 1B that turns into an expanded Maintenance

[3:37:43] building in phase three of the community other than the word maintenance there's

[3:37:48] no explanation of the use of this building

[3:37:51] that's the expansion is shown as part of the phase three plan is clearly a part

[3:37:56] of a commercial PUD project and not an unchanged but existing use so is this

[3:38:01] the only Maintenance building to service the resort grounds care equipment and

[3:38:05] pesticide storage for The Vineyards service of cabins and restaurants and

[3:38:09] other facets of the resort making for very busy Hub of activity immediately

[3:38:14] adjacent to a residential area improve PD Maps also show the

[3:38:18] maintenance a protopedia maps to show Maintenance building near the winery but

[3:38:23] the only Maintenance building shown in Amendment Maps is this expanded

[3:38:27] Maintenance building near Davis Creek utility map does not show any sewer

[3:38:33] infrastructure to this building even though the amendment claim for the

[3:38:36] project will be served by City Water and Sewer I was the zoning board considered

[3:38:41] the impact of these structures and pieces within the context of the entire

[3:38:44] community these structures and uses are more

[3:38:47] impacts to joining landowners that have not been considered or addressed no

[3:38:51] information has been provided about how they fit into the project

[3:38:55] why was the original PUD approved without addressing knowledgeable uses

[3:39:00] but then we need are there other non-conforming uses that are not

[3:39:04] addressed how are we to know so you've heard many

[3:39:09] times that the proposal is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan

[3:39:13] we have a lot of talk about that one of the key parts of the comprehensive land

[3:39:18] use map which clearly shows where different types of uses are meant to be

[3:39:22] located not just any use is appropriate in any place

[3:39:27] land use map is a product of much deliberation by the Planning Commission

[3:39:30] in the community and does not identify the series of development landowners

[3:39:35] rely on the comprehensive plan and the landing staff to know the future of

[3:39:39] their properties fire the proposed Resort properties

[3:39:43] should also been able to look at the map and know that a large commercial Resort

[3:39:47] development is not appropriate for this area and the city could have done the

[3:39:51] same if you compare the land use map uh in

[3:39:55] the comprehensive plan to the map on page eight of the amendment you'll see

[3:39:59] that the amendment map is clearly not consistent

[3:40:04] completely Alters the character of this area of the city

[3:40:11] 154 406 B7 states that all intensive agricultural land uses are prohibited

[3:40:18] this issue is not addressed by the city in the previous approval the venue

[3:40:22] requires ongoing frequent pesticide use which raises ground and surface water

[3:40:26] concerns especially given now they clean a watershed plant speaks to the

[3:40:30] vulnerability of law for further contamination

[3:40:33] allowing this intensive agricultural use within the city will subject neighbors

[3:40:37] and other state residents to these impacts the amendment would expand The

[3:40:41] Vineyards and increase these impacts how is the city Justified of allowing this

[3:40:46] intensive agricultural elements the winery is not clearly described in

[3:40:50] this women are normally Amendment although in previous testimony the

[3:40:54] applicant did mention that the winery structure was used for processing or

[3:40:58] grapes in July 164 406 G this alcoholic beverage

[3:41:03] producers are very heavy industrial Landings

[3:41:07] was this heavy industrial lands

[3:41:11] as the city assessed whether the city wastewater treatment plant is suitable

[3:41:15] for this kind of industrial mischoice item number two on page nine of the

[3:41:21] amendment talks about whether the existing tax support zoning where this

[3:41:24] nation was an error at the time of adoption

[3:41:27] I believe the UV zoning designation was created in errors including that the

[3:41:32] resulting ordinance does not contain the elements required levels in the coast

[3:41:35] and the approval criteria are required by

[3:41:38] 154-923 are considered by The Zone board or the state Council

[3:41:43] item number three on page ten whether there has been a change in a character

[3:41:48] of the area the amendment mentions that Gateway Park and of course you know have

[3:41:52] been developed in the area and claims the project is consistent with the

[3:41:55] character of the area I hope that Gateway Park and horse men

[3:41:58] are protected from commercial development which is the opposite of

[3:42:03] what is proposed bull Harper which is to turn open land into commercial

[3:42:06] development Parker is not in character with those books and in terms of our

[3:42:11] residential neighborhood its character has been seen for decades and again a

[3:42:15] large commercial development is not in character with the area

[3:42:19] Community character is defined in the zoning ordinance as the impression in

[3:42:22] which an area makes in regard to the type intensity density quality

[3:42:26] appearance and age of development the application asserts that the sewage

[3:42:30] treatment plant has changed the character of the area the sewage plan is

[3:42:34] investing to change the impression our neighborhood makes in regard to tight

[3:42:38] intensity intensity quality appearance and age and development

[3:42:43] item number four on page 10 many of us have provided testimony that the

[3:42:48] proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding area commitment

[3:42:52] seems to agree with this saying that quote Avid acreage was consistent with

[3:42:55] the role in agricultural nature of the area and quote based on the limited

[3:43:00] agricultural designation this means that the rest of the project which contains

[3:43:05] extensive commercial building roadway and other development is then not

[3:43:09] consistent with the role of agricultural movement experience

[3:43:13] item number four also says the proposed amendment is compatible with the

[3:43:17] surrounding area because the changes increasing space reduce total paved area

[3:43:21] and reduce the project for our area ratio

[3:43:24] but it's a little disingenuous to say that in the real world we're going to

[3:43:28] develop the same amount of stuff on the same Parcels we have a different car

[3:43:32] number on paper so therefore it's compatible with the surrounding area but

[3:43:37] has the city identified by the open space paved area and far is from the SAT

[3:43:42] surrounding area in order to actually make that form comparison adding some

[3:43:46] land to the far end to the Pud doesn't affect how the developed area impacts

[3:43:51] immediately item number four on page 10 reflects to

[3:43:56] mention the remainder of the criteria from The Zone voice which I won't read

[3:44:03] but the development would contribute to dangerous traffic patterns and

[3:44:07] congestion significant impacts the streets and public health safety and

[3:44:11] Welfare the amendment shows an increase in the number of parking spaces for the

[3:44:15] Pud so even more traffic on streets would be expected

[3:44:19] the development would generate numerous environmental impacts to teach folks

[3:44:22] Woodlands Wildlife poison light pollution warm water runoff and so on

[3:44:27] you've heard about this in other testimonies these impacts

[3:44:32] utility map on page 11 clearly indicates that a project won't make the

[3:44:37] infrastructure better in this area of town the only service the commuting

[3:44:42] property now water or sewer will be made available to any other part of the

[3:44:46] community that clearly shows that the city sewer

[3:44:49] service will also not be available to the existing residents for the expanded

[3:44:53] Maintenance building the state Services won't even be available for all the

[3:44:57] buildings

[3:45:00] also the depths and utility is very neat in some areas sewer lines of over 30 BP

[3:45:06] this will make it very expensive for the city to address future problems and

[3:45:09] maintenance as the city analyze these issues to understand these potential

[3:45:14] costs it's about your average infrastructure

[3:45:17] and even if the developer pays for the initial installation that doesn't mean

[3:45:21] there isn't a significant financial liability

[3:45:25] that he hasn't presented any cost benefit analysis for this this is just

[3:45:29] one issue related to the city's future infrastructure elevations and there's

[3:45:33] been no analysis presented of other long-term City costs related Emergency

[3:45:37] Services

[3:45:40] item number seven on page 11 says there's a need in the community for the

[3:45:44] proposal provides no rationales for this others have talked about this relative

[3:45:50] tax base those information around how that will

[3:45:54] actually work for the increased tax base versus the

[3:45:58] loss in tax revenues from existing businesses that will be impacted for the

[3:46:02] cost of infrastructure item number seven on page 11 also says

[3:46:07] there will be a reduction in retained areas by 28 000 square feet

[3:46:11] on page six item 1C says the paid roadway and parking surface area

[3:46:16] decreases by 32 000 square feet are these different things which is the

[3:46:22] right number how do we know if the rest of the

[3:46:24] information in the application is accurate has the city done an

[3:46:28] independent review to ensure the submitted information is accurate

[3:46:32] should you be recommending something that contains its consistency

[3:46:38] I'm ready on page 12 was reported Community benefits many of these seem to

[3:46:44] be saying that the amendment is not as bad as the original PD so therefore

[3:46:48] that's a community benefit but if you've approved PUD did not

[3:46:51] demonstrate Community benefit and Amendment still doesn't

[3:46:55] so the information shows that more than 12 acres of women will be cleared for

[3:46:58] the project how was that protection and preservation of Natural Resources how

[3:47:03] was that a community benefit adding a mild Trails for a resort yes

[3:47:10] the application repeatedly talks about an increase in open space it takes a

[3:47:15] property that currently has a handful of buildings it has more than a hundred

[3:47:18] buildings plus Rose parking for over 400 vehicles and other development

[3:47:23] the real world that's a decrease in open space not an increase even if you

[3:47:29] believe some of these things are benefits how are they insured or

[3:47:32] required by The Zone Awards this does not mention any of them at all

[3:47:37] number nine on page 13 less purported amends however it's not a community

[3:47:43] benefit to create a resort that increases traffic in part time

[3:47:48] the reality is that the shadow will not address those traveling problems

[3:47:54] I don't see how any more restaurants can be considered a community mannered based

[3:47:58] on the criteria and again even if you pretended that

[3:48:03] these things were amenities how are they insured or required of the reasonable

[3:48:07] ordinance

[3:48:10] number 10 on page 14 says that circulation and access will be adequate

[3:48:14] on the private resort property but ignores all the traffic impacts to the

[3:48:18] surrounding streets Neighbors even the city council has agreed that

[3:48:22] the traffic will be a significant problem as far as I know nothing has

[3:48:26] been done to address or even further understand the issue

[3:48:30] number 11 on page 15 says the amendment will meet the buffer yard requirements

[3:48:34] for the type 3 buffer yard for moving investment residential homework her

[3:48:39] tonight that's not required in some places because of that interviewing city

[3:48:43] right away however the project includes outdoor commercial entertainment and in

[3:48:48] 154 405 D outdoor commercial entertainment requires a Type 4 book

[3:48:53] reorder with residential and selling profit the section further requires that

[3:48:57] activity areas shall not be visible with any residentialism problem

[3:49:02] you don't see any determination in the PE plans or the city's review as to

[3:49:07] whether the commercial outdoor entertainment activity areas are visible

[3:49:10] from residential and zone property the plans do so the buildings with outdoor

[3:49:14] entertainment near the Upper Ridge lineup property which is visible for me

[3:49:20] in addition if the winery is a heavy industrial use for production of

[3:49:24] alcoholic beverages 154 406g requires a Type 4 buffer yard

[3:49:29] along all borders of the property abiding properties that are not Zone

[3:49:34] heavy Industrial so what are the actual puffer yard

[3:49:37] requirements and how does the amendment demonstrate performance

[3:49:43] item number 13 on page 16 that has well-anticipated phasing for the project

[3:49:48] is described here her phase components and timing of phases

[3:49:53] this of course raises the question of whether the anticipated phasing actually

[3:49:57] means anything at all but where the amendment cease to justify any phasing

[3:50:02] that the developers uses regardless of what's

[3:50:06] item number 13 goes on to staying furthermore that Galena zoning ordinance

[3:50:10] 154 923 f3a states of the zoning administrator to come for the minor

[3:50:16] amendments however this is not what 154-923 f3a

[3:50:21] states what it actually says is the zoning administrator May approve the

[3:50:25] volume amendments for individual Lots within the area covered by Marathon

[3:50:31] a lot is defined by the zoning ordinance as a partial gland that meets the

[3:50:36] follow-up one it's undivided by a street or a private road two is occupied by or

[3:50:42] designated to be developed for one billion for principle years

[3:50:47] clearly what the amendment described as Parcels that may be combined in the

[3:50:51] future does not need this definition is the area of the combined Parcels is

[3:50:56] divided by private roads and is designated to be developed for more than

[3:50:59] one building the portion of the zoning ordinance that

[3:51:03] provides for minor amendments in a preliminary PUD by the zoning

[3:51:06] administrator was meant for small individual laws in a large development

[3:51:10] not for the entire development because the beauty Parcels do not meet

[3:51:14] the standards and the ordinance that provide for the resulting administrator

[3:51:17] approved minor amendments amendments to preliminary PUD fall under 154 or 923

[3:51:23] f3c which states all other amendments of libertarian development plan use the

[3:51:29] same process and criteria used for preliminary plan

[3:51:33] therefore the statements that item number 13 of the Amendments should not

[3:51:38] conform

[3:51:41] number 17 on page 21 says the amendment will comply with the purposes and

[3:51:46] intensive awareness a lot of ways this doesn't apply but if you just look at

[3:51:50] the overall purpose of the zoning code in

[3:51:53] 154005 it mentions things like detecting and preserving the character value and

[3:51:59] stability of the city and adjacent areas prohibiting uses and buildings and

[3:52:03] compatible with zoning districts you have any congestion of public streets

[3:52:07] and protecting public health safety and Welfare

[3:52:10] eliminating non-conforming uses ensuring the continuation of the city's

[3:52:15] historical character identity diversity of authenticity attaining the objectives

[3:52:20] of the company this development and Amendment does not

[3:52:23] serve those premises there's no natural resource protection

[3:52:27] plan required by 154 503 maps in the preliminary plan and the

[3:52:32] amendment don't delineate all the required features we claim that natural

[3:52:36] resources will be understood potential Labs of development features disturbing

[3:52:40] natural resources for instance the amendment indicates that 100 percent of

[3:52:45] shore property will be protected their support buffers are not shown on any of

[3:52:49] the project maps and project Maps do show development features in areas

[3:52:57] the city's website has a standard form request for zoning map amendments

[3:53:03] the form includes a section notice to applicants or States

[3:53:06] an amendment to the zoning map may be granted only when the public interest

[3:53:10] will be served by the teams the enactment of an amendment cannot be

[3:53:14] based simply on the benefit which would accrue to an individual or group of

[3:53:18] individuals as a result of the change rather an amendment must be in harmony

[3:53:22] with the goals and objectives of comprehensive planning for the good

[3:53:27] make impartial and consistent decisions and mathematic cases the zoning board

[3:53:32] considers the following checklist of specific factors related to the request

[3:53:37] there's then a list of 17 questions these questions been considered by those

[3:53:42] on the board were they considered

[3:53:46] I'll just answer a few of them for zoning change to play a media

[3:53:50] development is contrary to the general welfare of the community is contrary to

[3:53:54] the established land use pattern and creates an isolated unrelated district

[3:53:58] has been consistent with the existing uses contributes to dangerous traffic

[3:54:03] patterns and congestion and adversely enhances living conditions in the

[3:54:07] vicinity adversely affects property values and Insanity does not combat

[3:54:13] economic segregation in the business names now

[3:54:18] I've heard a lot tonight we couldn't go through everything I hope this is enough

[3:54:23] to be clear that the amendment doesn't demonstrate

[3:54:26] it should not be recommended for approval realize you have a lot to

[3:54:31] consider tonight it's been a long night it's a complex Proposal with a lot of

[3:54:34] these development understand

[3:54:38] thank you any questions yeah I do have a question you're going to be the last one

[3:54:45] you're going to get hit with it so apologies up front so I've heard all my

[3:54:49] folks say this is going to adversely impact our values other than someone

[3:54:54] talking to a real or terrible okay any business I've ever been involved in if

[3:55:00] I'm spending 40 million dollars 80 million dollars 100 million dollars to

[3:55:04] build something generally the property values go up around

[3:55:08] what say you about that well the only thing to say about that is

[3:55:13] the information

[3:55:16] that Wendy mentioned about you know the clients and values during the period of

[3:55:20] construction During the period of Construction

[3:55:23] Construction different story once it's complete a whole other story correct

[3:55:28] maybe I don't think that we know whether that is what we need well it's been

[3:55:34] stated that the developers by several people that they paid a very inflated

[3:55:39] price per acre for the land so is that that causing the value of the land out

[3:55:46] there to increase

[3:55:56] so I can't say for sure but you know what the developer is doing and what

[3:56:02] he's paying for land is different than what residents

[3:56:08] we treat our properties I'm not sure that that's a fair

[3:56:12] comparison to talk about allowing martial development by someone without

[3:56:17] making limits to what they can paid compared to

[3:56:20] regular people

[3:56:25] it was fair to say that well we can actually say what the values of homes

[3:56:30] are going to be when this is completed whether they're

[3:56:33] going to be higher than what they are now or they're going to be less nobody

[3:56:38] can actually say that right I don't know I don't know I mean because

[3:56:43] I can't I don't know what the values of properties are going to do so to put

[3:56:47] that out there isn't an actual next to the resort well it wouldn't buy well

[3:56:51] I'll answer them I'll see it every morning when I walk

[3:56:55] out in front of my house on South Street

[3:57:00] I will see it because I was the one that communicated with the realtor would that

[3:57:05] be all right with you I just I'm just looking for a fact that's all I'm

[3:57:08] looking for Wendy that's my answer

[3:57:13] I think you stated during that fact it was during construction correct which is

[3:57:18] let's not forget that construction and phasing is intended to last possibly as

[3:57:24] someone who has already been living was the construction next to me for three

[3:57:27] years and I've got another three years I understand your pain but it's not

[3:57:31] decreasing my property value right but yeah that's a fact it is you know the

[3:57:36] zoning mortgage doesn't pass and it asks about or the cell factors actually in

[3:57:41] the assets he's not talking about 10 years down the

[3:57:46] road or another it's asking if it has an impact and the

[3:57:51] answer is it does so if I need to sell my property that's five reasons okay I

[3:57:56] lose so that's really if there's not a time frame thank you okay I mean it

[3:58:00] could there could be a fact Wendy but nobody can say for sure that's all I was

[3:58:04] asking this gentleman here okay

[3:58:08] thank you all right any other questions

[3:58:15] thank you sir thank you

[3:58:18] anyone else to speak that's it uh the African is ready to

[3:58:24] rebut all right so if you want to come forward you have

[3:58:28] the right to test questions after that I've heard

[3:58:31] however the applicant after the remote yeah okay because

[3:58:36] they'll get the chance to rebuttals thank you

[3:58:41] so there were a lot of yeah sorry name again Sandra Lawrence

[3:58:50] about it um

[3:58:54] so there's been a lot of concerns and we're not going to go Point by point

[3:58:59] because there's not time but we do want to speak

[3:59:04] to some of the themes so that's what we're going to try to do and the first

[3:59:07] the first thing I would say is that although we appreciate concerns

[3:59:11] surrounding all the issues mentioned since there is no change from the

[3:59:16] approved preliminary PUD what was approved we're going to focus on we're

[3:59:22] going to focus our responses on issues that pertain to the amendment that's

[3:59:26] what we're going to focus on um

[3:59:30] and we've already shown how the amendment meets the seven approval

[3:59:34] criteria and if the amendment is not approved the already approved

[3:59:38] preliminary Beauty plans remains enforce so I will touch on a couple things and

[3:59:46] then um on topics that are specific to

[3:59:48] different team members they'll respond to those topics and you can ask us

[3:59:53] questions as you wish in those topic areas will try to Cluster them

[3:59:58] organized living so the first thing I will just mention

[4:00:02] on occupancy in general there has been no change in the number of units so the

[4:00:06] question isn't germane to the amendment in terms of occupancy levels

[4:00:12] that was mainly approved community

[4:00:18] um later labor shortage I can speak to directly we have other properties and if

[4:00:23] it's a nationwide issue and we've found success by working with International

[4:00:27] students J-1 students they are and we use them at other properties and we

[4:00:32] provide housing for them ourselves and so we take care of the housing and the

[4:00:36] students and we found that to be a successful labor supplemental strategy

[4:00:40] as needed yeah

[4:00:44] as far as Vineyard uses of the property planning Vineyards is an approved use

[4:00:49] for limited agricultural zoning in fact as cultivation is permitted use in all

[4:00:54] of the industrial zoning districts and there are already existing successful

[4:00:58] wineries located in the Galena area we're in a Cellars Rocky Waters

[4:01:03] massback Ridge

[4:01:07] I'm gonna turn it over to Andy to talk about issues that he has the knowledge

[4:01:13] base for but before I do that I guess I would ask to you I'll have any questions

[4:01:16] with me directly I do I've got a few questions for you and thank you for

[4:01:20] coming back up the first question I've got we've heard

[4:01:24] a lot of conversation this evening uh from many individuals with respect to

[4:01:30] the existing residents and with respect to the expanded Maintenance building

[4:01:36] obviously these aren't detailed plans because this is preliminary but just to

[4:01:41] put uh answer the questions can you explain those two items please do us

[4:01:46] just a little bit more so I'm going to have Jim explain it Jim can do that

[4:01:50] architect and he is more familiar with the details that's fine thank you

[4:01:58] all right you want to explain it now Jim and you can stay there too in case

[4:02:03] there's another question just to answer the question okay so with

[4:02:07] respect to the the residents um that was meant to just be um like a

[4:02:13] caretaker's residence for somebody who probably was working on the site there's

[4:02:16] no other use for that um the we we originally had a

[4:02:22] maintenance building on the east side of the property when the entrance was off

[4:02:29] of blackjack and that route that went up through the woods

[4:02:33] um but now that the entrance is coming in from the West I'm sorry from the East

[4:02:40] um that Maintenance building was misplaced uh it was not in the right

[4:02:44] spot um so we already had a small Maintenance

[4:02:47] building down um and on the rented benches we call it

[4:02:50] and so we would just probably be using it for storage of um you know

[4:02:55] maintenance equipment lawn mowers and things like that

[4:02:59] the next question is for Sandy again you say you gotta you gotta you're gonna get

[4:03:05] your exercise here foreign

[4:03:11] yes so with respect to the 18.24 Acres um I know you are asking to bring that

[4:03:18] into the Pud but leave it limited Agriculture and that was a question

[4:03:23] asked by a couple of individuals and I think we would like to understand their

[4:03:27] reasoning for bringing it in can you explain that please

[4:03:31] so um the reasoning for bringing it in was

[4:03:34] the change in the entryway because it's an improved entryway for the development

[4:03:40] so that's why we chose to bring it in um as we were working with the city in

[4:03:45] terms of understanding what does this mean via ordinance right how do we bring

[4:03:49] this in um as mentioned it doesn't perfectly

[4:03:53] apply anywhere so we went with the default of assuming it's an amendment

[4:03:57] and Amendment to the existence so that was

[4:04:01] because it didn't fit perfectly in terms of a major or minor we said let's just

[4:04:06] be safe and let's do an amendment and go through this process with the public

[4:04:10] hearing so that's what we did thank you any other questions

[4:04:17] Andy was going to come up and speak to some of the things specific to the

[4:04:21] engineering side thank you

[4:04:25] in your reader um

[4:04:31] I'm just going to touch on a few a few things

[4:04:35] regarding the questions related to the final design details that you mentioned

[4:04:40] these will be provided in the final design phase we're not requiring

[4:04:45] preliminary PUD Amendment phase we've provided the required materials

[4:04:52] for the preliminary Community submittal and we're not required to provide the

[4:04:57] final design phase information at this stage but we will provide additional

[4:05:01] detail as required during that final design that includes the analysis

[4:05:05] required by all the Regulatory Agencies as we go through final PUD approval

[4:05:12] approval of all the local and state agencies those

[4:05:18] specific details get designed and hashed out and

[4:05:23] um presented

[4:05:27] um regarding the

[4:05:30] runoff questions that were asked earlier um I'll go back and and kind of

[4:05:37] re-emphasize what we talked about previously the proposed project is going

[4:05:43] to incorporate small local bmps at the at the upper

[4:05:49] portions of the project and that's the intent of that is to

[4:05:54] reduce that runoff going down the hill rain Gardens biosoils

[4:06:01] infiltration measures anything that is not accommodated by

[4:06:06] those small bnps will will be collected treated and detained in larger

[4:06:14] bmps that were originally planned but um

[4:06:18] again just to reiterate the uh the final stormwater design will not increase the

[4:06:25] discharge to adjacent properties it'll meet all local and Regional design

[4:06:31] requirements and um and the last

[4:06:37] portion that I was going to talk about there was many comments brought up about

[4:06:42] [Music] um

[4:06:44] different permitting requirements and not having those permits and you

[4:06:48] wouldn't have those permits at this stage in the preliminary state that's

[4:06:51] part of the next stage of going through um

[4:06:55] [Music] original

[4:06:59] application reviewed the permitting process including endangered species

[4:07:05] idnr all of those applications will be submitted

[4:07:11] for review and approval as the final design plans are developed

[4:07:15] we wouldn't submit for approval until we had those design

[4:07:21] details as part of that process

[4:07:25] there's a lot of a lot of stuff out there but those are the three um for

[4:07:31] this time if there's questions

[4:07:34] any questions Andrew I've got one question for you I

[4:07:39] figured you were the red guy here so I'm going to ask you of this one you know a

[4:07:44] lot of discussions come up specifically now that uh this 18 Acres we're looking

[4:07:49] at changing the uh entrance and exit to the the area have has the owner

[4:07:56] developer thought about doing a traffic analysis

[4:08:01] oh Jim is going to comment on that okay thank you

[4:08:06] uh one real quick question maybe you're not going to answer because I know you

[4:08:10] don't work for the city but currently there was some people concerned about

[4:08:13] the sewer going across the river I assume that would be an under under the

[4:08:18] riverboar and would that be very similar to probably what East Side sewage now is

[4:08:23] currently going under the river

[4:08:29] thank you

[4:08:33] foreign

[4:08:39] with respect to traffic so um

[4:08:43] there has there is no formal um requirement before

[4:08:48] The Practice coming now at the county and or the city requested one that

[4:08:53] obviously we're looking to do it um and as we move into the next phase

[4:08:59] that would be a logical place that's something like that might be best but I

[4:09:03] will say you know the council did talk about

[4:09:07] travel um and so did the board here and uh

[4:09:14] it was on the February 9th meeting that uh

[4:09:19] your person Wilson called discussed the seasonality of the traffic on blackjack

[4:09:24] with respect to Chestnut um Chestnut has its heaviest uh traffic

[4:09:29] in the wintertime um and this is daily traffic and when

[4:09:33] people are in that out um whereas our heavier traffic would be

[4:09:39] our seasonally so it would be mostly been made in the summer time

[4:09:44] [Music] um

[4:09:45] also on February 28th all the person Khan agreed that traffic

[4:09:49] would be increased but increased demands would not be any worse than a busy

[4:09:53] weekend our chest went um and the traffic would not be constant

[4:09:58] all day long but I think at that point all the persons that keep her in need

[4:10:02] and agree with that statement um

[4:10:05] the uh during the the approval process for the

[4:10:10] council they also considered um the existing parking issues uh in

[4:10:16] downtown Galena this included consideration of our plan mitigation

[4:10:20] strategy which is to keep our visitor cars out of the property by providing a

[4:10:24] regular shuttle bus and allowing people to walk the course

[4:10:29] um the reason we're running our shuttle bus up we make a right-hand term on

[4:10:34] Route 20 so that when it makes the left-hand turn down the failure it can

[4:10:40] drop people off easily at the new History Museum and also at the granite

[4:10:45] Hall um one last point about traffic

[4:10:49] um the I think it's important to note that

[4:10:54] Fried Green Tomatoes is no longer um out in the country where it once was

[4:11:00] and you talked to Fred Bonnett about that

[4:11:03] um and Fred said that on a typical busy Saturday he would serve approximately

[4:11:07] 400 people um and he assumed between two and three

[4:11:11] people per vehicle that was about 160 vehicles or about 320 trips on a

[4:11:18] Saturday night between 4 and 10. um this is about an average of 53

[4:11:23] vehicles per hour um and those trips no longer exist

[4:11:37] any other questions no you answered it thanks

[4:11:41] foreign Street

[4:11:49] um I wanted to touch on a couple trains um

[4:11:51] comprehensive plan has come up a lot um in the comments that were made and I

[4:11:57] just it needs to be really understood that

[4:12:00] the proposed Management's plan for the area where this project is going to be

[4:12:06] located um was not designated as a green area it

[4:12:11] was not shown um

[4:12:15] in the proposed land use map every Square bit of the mile and a half around

[4:12:19] the city has been not has not been designated for use not because no use is

[4:12:24] ever envisioned in these areas but certainly that

[4:12:29] where they in the plan narrated that there would be green space areas they

[4:12:34] designated those green space areas on the plan

[4:12:38] when they said that there should be the city should consider annexing the areas

[4:12:42] bounded on three sides by the city they meant look at the map look at the

[4:12:48] areas where they're expanded on three sides because you've been Force

[4:12:50] annexation there you should consider bringing those in those are areas that

[4:12:54] are benefiting from the city but not paying taxes in the city and you should

[4:12:58] consider bringing them in those were the discussions that took

[4:13:01] place when that was being formed um

[4:13:06] I only believe in the comprehensive plan I was the development director when the

[4:13:11] first plan was adopted I had a Community Development consulting firm we developed

[4:13:17] the County's comprehensive plan in 1999 I worked with the city and the other

[4:13:21] municipalities on the continuous home areas I know what they were meant to be

[4:13:26] it was so that the county if they were going to approve something in those

[4:13:30] areas they would require that it be put on City Water and Sewer it was a very

[4:13:34] specific thing and none of these things are locked in place I I say that I I

[4:13:40] mean I usually been planning a lot and even in the comprehensive plan I just

[4:13:46] just to reiterate kind of what I said but from the plan it says

[4:13:51] I'm talking about the holes and objectives and the actions it should be

[4:13:55] emphasized that these goals objectives and action statements are not cast in

[4:13:59] concrete while the city's Planning Commission has developed these goals

[4:14:03] objectives and action statements based on the best information available and

[4:14:06] the needs of the city at a point in time changing needs and desires within the

[4:14:11] city or changes in local population our economy mainly these goals objectives

[4:14:15] and action statements we need to be re-evaluated

[4:14:21] needs and conditions while still providing the strong guiding mechanisms

[4:14:25] for future development there was talk of the change of the

[4:14:30] character of the area you have a very specific criteria on which to base an

[4:14:35] approval decision and the second one says

[4:14:39] whether there has been a change of character in the area or throughout the

[4:14:42] city and that it's specified what it's talking about due to installation of

[4:14:47] public facilities other zone changes New Growth Trends deterioration development

[4:14:52] transitions Etc citing your changes in the public

[4:14:56] facilities development and what that means to areas that can be developed

[4:14:59] easily is directly pertinent to this property

[4:15:04] other zone changes preliminary pme plan is a significant

[4:15:09] change

[4:15:15] I also want to touch on some of the water issues and going back to the

[4:15:18] planning thing I've been very involved in the County's Water Resource

[4:15:22] Management plan which I think was being decided

[4:15:26] and the polino Watershed based plan as well

[4:15:32] there's been a lot of concerns expressed in various settings about the Parker

[4:15:35] project being located on karst and about the threat of water contamination and

[4:15:39] flooding for over a decade I've been working within a process of shared

[4:15:43] learning about our local hydrogeology through rigorous Community engagement we

[4:15:47] came up with questions about our geology and our water resources and then worked

[4:15:51] with Scientists to design and conduct research projects to help us answer

[4:15:54] questions this research has been peer reviewed and published This research

[4:15:59] relates to and directly informs the Parker classic design

[4:16:04] we do live in a car stereo so it's important to be aware of the nature of

[4:16:08] our geology relative to building our carbonate Bedrock is generally a sound

[4:16:12] base for construction all of Joe Davis County was built on cars and the Parker

[4:16:16] project will be no different in that regard

[4:16:19] I would suggest that the greater concern with karst in our area is water quality

[4:16:23] both surface water and groundwater surface water and ground water are

[4:16:27] closely integrated in cars areas research suggests the benefit of

[4:16:31] development being on city sewer to prevent septic contamination

[4:16:36] of both groundwater and surface water resources is extremely important that

[4:16:40] the Parker will be served by city sewer storm water management is critical for

[4:16:46] Effective Water Resource Management in our area and the design of the Parker

[4:16:49] project affords many opportunities for green infrastructure amenities

[4:16:54] storm water management will continue to be an important pillar of the project as

[4:16:58] final designs are created for each amazed and is during the final design

[4:17:02] phase that will see those details when you know the career we understand but

[4:17:05] it's it's built into the preliminary plan where our intent is and it will and

[4:17:10] it's required by our ordinances but our stormwater Oregon states that no

[4:17:15] development shall cause Downstream Property Owners waterfalls channels or

[4:17:19] conduits through received stormwater going out from proposed developments and

[4:17:23] a higher PPO rate than would have resulted from the Sandstone event

[4:17:26] occurred occurring over the site of a proposed development and its natural

[4:17:31] undeveloped conditions

[4:17:37] yes I have two questions uh first one I've been trying to look at you know the

[4:17:44] original plan and the new plan is any part of the already approved portion was

[4:17:50] any part of that in the growth area

[4:17:55] but that is a continuous growth area that's shown there is but really the

[4:18:02] point of that is that it isn't about Parcels so the contiguous growth areas

[4:18:07] that were identified in 2007 are shown immediately adjacent they're not on that

[4:18:12] plan but in the comprehensive plan yeah I saw that hard to see it in here though

[4:18:17] yes um it's immediately adjacent those areas

[4:18:20] identified so it is immediate yes but the key point is that those are not

[4:18:26] prescriptive per se you know indicative I understand the next question I've got

[4:18:30] based on what you just mentioned here Beth and you know thank you Wendy for

[4:18:36] the pictures too that you showed as a runoff is it possible with with what's

[4:18:41] being done here and you know all the different things that are being done

[4:18:46] that it could actually help some of this runoff

[4:18:50] okay yeah because they're uh there cannot be right

[4:18:56] off of it and you have to meet certain standards and that area is sort of

[4:19:00] untended right now I would say you see erosion coming off the hill by the entry

[4:19:04] if you drive by and look at that you'll see these Big Lots coming down the side

[4:19:08] we're going to put in practices planting Prairie is going to take a lot of that

[4:19:12] moisture and the whole intent is to hold the Raindrop right where it falls as

[4:19:16] close to where it falls as you can Prairie is going to absorb a lot and

[4:19:19] then accepting that the route may still be

[4:19:22] there'll be some other practices that are Incorporated

[4:19:26] and that will all be part of a final design that's presented thank you

[4:19:41] any other questions

[4:19:45] I'd like my rebuttal right well hold on I think uh

[4:19:50] we're gonna let everybody rebutt or we're gonna just let one like we did

[4:19:53] last time I think Wendy didn't you speak last time

[4:19:57] on the rebuttal um yes

[4:20:04] yes okay that's fine anybody who wants to speak to robot I'd like to make a

[4:20:08] motion and we're going to let everyone speak

[4:20:11] Benito 15 minute break at some point here

[4:20:16] okay okay four hours right I just have a few

[4:20:21] people well it should just be rebuttaling what was said

[4:20:24] okay just now so

[4:20:32] so a few things to point out um yes at the tonight focuses on the amendment

[4:20:38] because the preliminary puds already approved but um remember that the

[4:20:43] application before you includes certain things that it changes that are within

[4:20:47] that approved preliminary PUD it changes the phasing it deals with the

[4:20:52] maintenance building and some other things that are identified in there so

[4:20:55] some of the discussion that you heard tonight just remember that it is

[4:20:57] relevant because it does affect that entire movie as well in many places

[4:21:04] um there were some suggestions about dealing with potential labor shortages

[4:21:07] and housing and we gave an example of what happens at one of the other Resorts

[4:21:11] but again we're talking about approving specifically what is or isn't going to

[4:21:15] happen here by creating a new development District maybe this isn't

[4:21:19] that relevant of a of an issue but suggest an example that occurs elsewhere

[4:21:23] doesn't really inform what we're deciding here tonight I mean if they do

[4:21:27] that it would be great but um there was mention of Vineyards and

[4:21:32] how they're appropriate in this area and there are a number of Vineyards that

[4:21:37] true that's true but this one would be within the city limits and that's

[4:21:42] different because within City Limits different rules apply even though it

[4:21:46] functions as agriculture out there we have ordinances and things that things

[4:21:51] have to apply in to in the city and so that that it's just that's just a

[4:21:56] requirement and that makes it different from mossback Ridge and all the other

[4:22:00] ones um there was some discussion about the

[4:22:04] maintenance building and I appreciate that Jim provided a little bit of

[4:22:06] clarification on that but again um Dave raised some questions about

[4:22:10] conformance with the ordinances because again when you develop a new zoning

[4:22:15] District you have to say exactly what's going to be in it what's the variance

[4:22:18] what's allowed what's not and the point is that none of that is in there in the

[4:22:22] application right now with which to decide whether or not this should happen

[4:22:28] and size for one thing is is a concern there so again those are things that are

[4:22:33] just requirements to be laid out per the zoning ordinances

[4:22:38] um bringing in uh limited agriculture to the Pud I get that there's sort of this

[4:22:44] kind of hybrid thing going on and uncertainty about how to deal with that

[4:22:48] but we need to remember that creating a few to be required

[4:22:52] um and unfortunately it didn't end up going to be required showing Community

[4:22:57] benefit and similarly amending of who would be or adding a new few part needs

[4:23:02] to show Community benefit as is laid out throughout the application as I noted

[4:23:07] incorrectly or misleadingly but again so it's it's fine that that's how they

[4:23:13] added it but part of that requirement is social benefit which was not

[4:23:17] demonstrated um a couple other little things I wanted

[4:23:21] to clarify I really appreciate um Mr reader's

[4:23:25] um information about the small local bmps

[4:23:29] um I um when I was mentioning about the permit requirements however I was mainly

[4:23:34] referring to a requirement in the ordinance for the pre-application

[4:23:37] conference that all the permit requirements need to be laid out for the

[4:23:42] development beforehand before things get started and the reason for that is so

[4:23:46] that you make sure that everything that needs to be permitted all the approvals

[4:23:52] that need to happen are all listed and none yet forgotten that's something that

[4:23:56] the bird should be on the city to make sure that that happens I am quite

[4:24:00] certain that my son is in the process of becoming an engineer so I understand the

[4:24:04] thoroughness of Engineers and so I have no doubt whatsoever that the list that

[4:24:07] Mr reader had is comprehensive for the parts of the proposal that he's in

[4:24:12] charge of the city needs to identify whether they're in any other additional

[4:24:16] permit requirements or things that just to make sure they don't get missed

[4:24:22] um to clarify about the Sumer issue um really I don't think most of us are

[4:24:27] that concerned about going under the river because those of us who live on

[4:24:30] the east side understand that when we flushed that's where it goes already and

[4:24:33] it works and that's really excellent but it's really more about the complex

[4:24:38] infrastructure that would be added and the inefficiency of again according to

[4:24:43] the requirements that are in the zoning ordinances for review of resulting about

[4:24:47] the complexity and inefficiency of adding all this additional

[4:24:51] infrastructure particularly if it has to be in 30-foot heat trenches because we

[4:24:56] all know Plumbing breaks right I mean it just does it's just how it works and so

[4:25:00] it's just going to be inefficient and expensive to address that's really the

[4:25:04] concern um the information about the traffic is

[4:25:09] is concerned um the statements of opinion

[4:25:14] um and even to some extent experienced by the city council members about the

[4:25:18] seasonality of traffic in comparisons to Chestnut does not substitute for an

[4:25:22] actual fact-based numbers numbers study and

[4:25:27] um anyone who has driven through there during the summer time as everybody has

[4:25:31] knows that if Parker's going to be busy in the summertime it's going to make a

[4:25:36] really bad situation worse with the Highway 28 4th Street and Third Street

[4:25:40] infrastructure I walk on Rise and Third Street and I've literally had a dive out

[4:25:44] of the way occasionally because of vehicles that shoot off a blackjack

[4:25:48] trying to get around the traffic congestion and orthodontic and they fly

[4:25:52] down a rise in third which don't have sidewalks so um increasing traffic is

[4:25:57] likely to increase the amount of that that happens and create risk so what we

[4:26:03] need is not um as much as I appreciate that some

[4:26:07] folks and I I you know go out back and forth to Chestnut too and you know I

[4:26:11] understand that traffic but it's not the same as having a numbers be study I did

[4:26:15] contact I got um last spring and they gave me some information which I don't

[4:26:20] have at hand tonight but the two intersections the um Fourth Street and

[4:26:24] the Third Street intersections are somewhere in the ballpark of like six to

[4:26:28] nine thousand Vehicles a day average traffic and and that's someone asked

[4:26:34] earlier about capacity I don't know that they've established capacity I think

[4:26:38] that would be part of the purpose of a study is to figure that out but they

[4:26:42] definitely as Mr Volvo said have identified that as a critical

[4:26:46] intersection that has virtually no options for um for fixing it or

[4:26:52] addressing it because it's bounded on four sides by historic properties and by

[4:26:56] other features so that's an issue that Still Remains unaddressed

[4:27:02] the information about Fred Bonnet about Fried Green Tomatoes that was that was a

[4:27:06] number of years ago I can't remember how long ago that business posed and came

[4:27:09] into town but since then our visitor numbers have continued to go up and

[4:27:14] again Jimbo gave some numbers about the number of residences out there in rice

[4:27:18] Township and the number of parcels that may still be developed for residents out

[4:27:22] there that are already kind of honestly to be built so um it's not clear again

[4:27:27] doing current studies with current numbers would be really helpful to

[4:27:31] understanding the scope of the problem on iTune work and planning I've worked

[4:27:36] in planning for the last 25 years I didn't work on the comprehensive plan I

[4:27:40] did recently work on that major plan for about three million acres in Central

[4:27:45] Montana which is different but what I understand is that there is intent in

[4:27:49] building a plan and then there is implementation and the comprehensive

[4:27:53] plan becomes what it is when it's implemented and again we can't get

[4:27:57] around the requirements that the order to say that any POV rezoning Etc all of

[4:28:05] this has to meet the goals of the comprehensive plan it doesn't say

[4:28:08] exactly how to meet them there's certainly flexibility in interpreting

[4:28:12] whether something actually implies or not but it all actually needs to be very

[4:28:16] specifically addressed um the change of character that was

[4:28:21] mentioned public facilities are one of the things that can change the character

[4:28:25] of an area but since those public facilities don't currently extend there

[4:28:30] and several of the houses wouldn't even have them we can't argue that the

[4:28:35] existence of the wastewater treatment plant has really done much to change the

[4:28:39] character of that area it does maybe make it possible to build a resort there

[4:28:43] it also makes it possible to provide Plumbing to the Websters but it doesn't

[4:28:46] so again that's kind of you know not necessarily the right way to look at

[4:28:51] that um

[4:28:53] I'm just looking through my quick notes here

[4:28:56] um I think that we agreed that having us work that goes out is better than a

[4:29:01] septic on the Limestone cars um there I don't remember what the place

[4:29:05] was up on beer Street where they found that waste was just disappearing into

[4:29:09] the hill which is a little scary that's what happens with septics however having

[4:29:14] neither is best when you have that kind of a vulnerable landscape

[4:29:19] um again regarding storm water management

[4:29:22] that's an area that I'm still learning to understand I do appreciate that

[4:29:27] design can't be done until the final stage however again there needs to be

[4:29:32] something the ordinances requires showing that in order to develop this

[4:29:37] District it has to demonstrate show how it conforms with the stormwater

[4:29:42] ordinances and so that might mean that this just isn't ready to be approved

[4:29:47] until a final stage which is actually in the handout that I gave you there the

[4:29:52] example where I showed um oh the approved ODP versus not lower on

[4:29:57] that page there was a clip of an ordinance that also talks about that or

[4:30:00] somewhere in those anyway it talks about how you can wait if you don't have

[4:30:04] enough detail to approve a district of ordinance until you've seen the final

[4:30:08] plan so that is one option that gets down into the weeds of things I don't

[4:30:12] know a whole lot about but I'm not sure how you demonstrate that you've

[4:30:16] conformed with the ordinance for stormwater management without having

[4:30:20] something more than what we see here um again saying that a development is

[4:30:26] immediately adjacent to a contiguous growth area it's still not in it and

[4:30:32] there's a road on one side between the development area and one of those

[4:30:37] continuous growth areas which is identified as residential not commercial

[4:30:41] and then another residential one that's across the river so they're adjacent but

[4:30:46] there are intervening crystals or pieces of land in there and again the fact that

[4:30:52] those pieces of land weren't identified as anything if they were appropriate for

[4:30:58] growth the city and the county at the time would have identified them as such

[4:31:03] yes plans can change but as we've heard they have to change through the same

[4:31:07] process by which they were created and that hasn't happened so for good bad or

[4:31:12] ugly we have to conform to the existing comprehensive plan regardless

[4:31:18] [Music] um

[4:31:19] the last thing I was going to say is that yes the

[4:31:24] the um it's good to see that some of the

[4:31:27] runoff issues coming off of the hill where the that's a driveway is would be

[4:31:30] addressed I see that as a positive I just want to depend on the positive note

[4:31:34] it would not be a negative memory about everything but my main concerns have to

[4:31:39] do obviously there's a lot of them but the things that I brought up tonight and

[4:31:43] that I tried to mention here are really pertaining to whether

[4:31:47] um what was said and what was provided provided enough information and detail

[4:31:52] to actually create this zoning District in a way that meets the real

[4:31:56] requirements of the zoning ordinances thanks thank you

[4:32:01] if

[4:32:08] I'm not trying to speed you along but Wendy's already addressed something

[4:32:13] you don't have to duplicate it thank you thank you

[4:32:17] 1477 Rocky Hill Road rice Township coming now once again

[4:32:24] we have failed to address Fourth Street and Highway 20 and the state of Illinois

[4:32:31] now investigating this the state of Illinois puts out publication everybody

[4:32:37] I'm I'm reviting their traffic they're they're that it's their consensus were

[4:32:43] trafficked they brought the traffic up again

[4:32:46] and so I'm trying to tell you that we have not been to visit Fourth Street and

[4:32:54] Highway 20 with the state of Illinois the state of Illinois has criteria out

[4:32:59] that says that that intersection in our city should be advertised

[4:33:05] advertised to the community that it's unsafe advertised to the school district

[4:33:10] and it's been unsafe I have been to the school district and asked to get them

[4:33:14] get that into their curriculum plus taken into that intersection is the age

[4:33:22] this is this is the second largest county with 65 and older citizens and

[4:33:28] that's the number two criteria in that intersection the number one criteria in

[4:33:33] that intersection is 19 and under so that's why I went to the school to have

[4:33:39] that put in their criteria so idot is asking you to advertise about the safety

[4:33:45] of that intersection and that is is in their manual I would like to point out

[4:33:50] one other thing is the safety aspect of that intersection and the oath that the

[4:33:56] board has taken in the city council and he owed that you have taken and that the

[4:34:01] city council takes has to ident address safety

[4:34:06] and the state of Illinois is telling you safety is not an intersection that it

[4:34:12] already is so under your own you have to adjust safety that's that's your hope to

[4:34:20] adjust safety and if you don't then there are laws you just can't skip it

[4:34:24] there are laws that say that you have to address it and that's what I'm asking

[4:34:28] you to address tonight the safety of that intersection

[4:34:32] it's just I I don't understand it nobody wants to talk about it but it is

[4:34:38] physically there it has a red egg hanging on it and it's safe do not do

[4:34:45] not put more traffic into it yet we're going to make it our core we're going to

[4:34:50] make it a new city of Marina Corridor you're going to put into a Class A rated

[4:34:56] interceptions that's warning you about Satan and the last thing is about the

[4:35:02] safety is people who are coming to visit the leaner are going to make left hand

[4:35:07] turns there and they don't know anything I doubt is telling you to educate your

[4:35:13] citizens about that intersection they're telling you man that's that's

[4:35:18] part of the plan that's part of the Class A rated intersection that the city

[4:35:23] get involved and educate their Community about that intersection

[4:35:28] and nobody is doing that who is going to uh who is going to tell all these

[4:35:36] visitors that are coming down that hill with Trump making a left-hand turn wait

[4:35:41] a minute you're in a class a dangerous

[4:35:45] intersection these people won't know coming in and out of there

[4:35:49] it's idat says we should discuss it in our own Community to to make it safer

[4:35:54] for us and especially at the schools and we do have school buses going through

[4:35:59] there so I don't know why we continue not to

[4:36:04] address one of the big and my important the biggest factor of this whole

[4:36:09] intersection is its Gateway Highway 20 and 4th Street

[4:36:14] you just can't go there I I don't understand it I don't understand how

[4:36:20] anybody I don't even know why I'm here I'm being perfectly serious

[4:36:27] how can a board turn their back on a state of Illinois that has federal

[4:36:33] regulations in in chapter 34 and is funded by the

[4:36:39] federal government at the state level to put that up

[4:36:43] How can I how can you pass away from your back on there it's it's it's right

[4:36:50] there it's done it's over you know we have to look into this

[4:36:56] that's it thanks for your comments okay

[4:37:00] uh with that I will entertain a motion to

[4:37:06] oh Jimmy is there anything else you want to add then Jim

[4:37:12] was there any questions for him not

[4:37:17] entertain emotionally close to public hearing

[4:37:21] the second second all in favor signify by saying aye all right

[4:37:31] um you want to keep going okay maybe five minutes we're good to go uh I want

[4:37:37] to keep going all right here okay so

[4:37:41] all right uh with that uh and this is just so everybody's clear on this

[4:37:47] emotion pertain to either approving or denying the request to amend the plan

[4:37:54] your development uh to add an additional 18.24 Acres on

[4:38:01] annexation into the corporate boundaries of the city of Atlanta

[4:38:04] so that's what we're talking about so I will entertain a motion

[4:38:10] on the request

[4:38:14] there's been a lot of discussion tonight between opposition of this project but

[4:38:18] this project's already been approved our job here tonight is like you just said

[4:38:22] we are have to determine whether or not we're going to allow the annexation of

[4:38:27] these additional 18 Acres the additional in my opinion additional

[4:38:31] 18 acres is going to enhance or improve some of the aspects of the original PUD

[4:38:38] is going to make some of the concerns maybe not

[4:38:42] perfect to what some of the objectors would like but in my opinion it'll make

[4:38:48] it better than what the original eud was so I'll link the motion that we give a

[4:38:54] favorable record or approval recommendation to the city council to

[4:38:58] Annex the 18.24 Acres it's just a point of correction we're not annexing it if

[4:39:04] your voting is to approve what you're here tonight is to approve a positive

[4:39:08] recommendation for an amendment to the Pud to add the 18 Acres thank you sorry

[4:39:14] buddy you know if I give the language right so

[4:39:17] yes that is my um I'll make the motion all right

[4:39:23] in a second now with that I'm going to have Mr Knack go through the criteria

[4:39:29] and uh so we can discuss each one of those

[4:39:33] things yeah Joe go ahead so what we're going to

[4:39:37] do is I'm going to go through the seven criteria that you're required to

[4:39:41] consider uh in order to make a decision on the amendment and the

[4:39:46] motion and I'm going to call each person out on each of the Seminary there's

[4:39:50] actually the eight issues to be considered and ask each of you to give

[4:39:54] your opinions to each of those issues and discussing this and giving your

[4:39:59] opinion you should take into consider the amendment also the effect on the

[4:40:03] entire PUD because it's part of it I mean this is affecting the entire PUD so

[4:40:07] I think would be best that when you make your comments that it's the 18 acres

[4:40:12] plus the effect on the entire project just for ease of sake so starting out

[4:40:17] the first issue or the first issue to consider is whether the existing text or

[4:40:21] zoning designation was an error at the time of adoption and I'm going to go

[4:40:25] through these a different order on each one I'll start with uh I'll call

[4:40:29] Everybody by their last name uh lady

[4:40:35] um yeah I do not believe it was a in air the time of adoption okay dates

[4:40:42] I agree I don't believe it was an error obviously as it's been said several

[4:40:48] times here tonight that these these need to be

[4:40:52] um in constant review constant change and there's no set rules Monahan

[4:40:59] I concur with my two counterparts I believe the 18.24 acres is is correct

[4:41:06] and uh belongs in with the already approved

[4:41:09] uh cancel I feel the same the uh it says the

[4:41:14] existing text or zoning designation for the narrative type of adoption I don't

[4:41:18] believe it was

[4:41:24] when they adopted the zoning ordinance second criteria whether there's been a

[4:41:30] change of character in the area or throughout

[4:41:34] the city due to installation of public facilities other zone changes New Growth

[4:41:39] Trends deterioration development transitions

[4:41:43] each um yeah I believe there has been some

[4:41:48] obviously Blackjack Road hasn't changed a lot but as it's been stated many times

[4:41:53] as we used to a treatment plant immediately to the west of the project

[4:41:56] and then you know going up Highway 20 we've got new development out there on

[4:42:01] the east side as well um you know for instance like the Irish

[4:42:06] Cottage the project is going up the hotel across the road from there so

[4:42:11] that's that area and leaning has also had some tunes

[4:42:16] my hand I concur with Gates I also believe that

[4:42:21] the character has changes I understand the wastewater treatment is that less

[4:42:26] than 50 because it's new so this will be a good positive for us as you mentioned

[4:42:32] there's been other changes since this has been done so

[4:42:37] I agree again

[4:42:41] there have been changes and I think about the

[4:42:46] uh what was it the old folks home that was torn down

[4:42:51] um [Music]

[4:42:55] uh which reduces the traffic obviously my wife and I used to go out to dinner

[4:43:00] there often and um

[4:43:05] so I I believe that this that's an example of a change

[4:43:11] thank you like a curve with the colleagues and um basically of all the

[4:43:18] same reasons uh welcome yeah I agree that there has been changes

[4:43:23] through public facilities and also that they originally approved PMD has changed

[4:43:29] you know a little bit uh so

[4:43:33] I concur the third criteria is whether the

[4:43:37] proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding area and defining

[4:43:41] characteristics of the proposed only districts

[4:43:46] or whether there may be adverse impacts on the capacity or safety of the portion

[4:43:51] of Street Network influenced by the resulting parking problems or

[4:43:55] environmental impacts that the new Zone May generate such as incessant

[4:43:58] stormwater runoff water air or noise pollution excessive nighttime lighting

[4:44:03] or other nuisances on hand

[4:44:07] so I'm going to take this one in pieces Joe I believe from a tested storm water

[4:44:12] runoff based on what Miss bransky has stated there is the potential to resolve

[4:44:17] some of that so that's a positive I also believe uh within our area we have uh

[4:44:25] dual zones such as this after speaking with some folks so I do not believe or

[4:44:31] and I have an issue here I would approve this yes and if you're the same I I I

[4:44:37] I'm certain that there are times when there are storms or something that would

[4:44:42] impact the roadway uh I think there is always going to be a

[4:44:49] problem with traffic on that road you have to I don't know how you change it

[4:44:55] but it's not possible

[4:44:59] so you accept it and try to work your way

[4:45:02] to the next level of safety is possible uh lady

[4:45:07] yeah I believe um can agree also but with the

[4:45:12] um water runoff problem being resolved

[4:45:16] that's the safety of Blackjack uh I believe they'll have to look at you know

[4:45:23] reducing speeds uh further out those things are things that the city can deal

[4:45:27] with

[4:45:37] um no I I agree as well um

[4:45:41] the water runoff area is a big improvement from the original PUD and

[4:45:45] that's why I believe it's 18 acre Edition is a big help

[4:45:50] um they've spread the Cottages out they've reduced

[4:45:55] um the amount of pavement um they've addressed a lot of concerns

[4:45:59] they've reduced the amount of trees that are going to be cut so it just

[4:46:03] um it brings in this 18 Acres that we're talking about is going to improve upon

[4:46:10] the original ped that was approved on City Coast

[4:46:14] I agree that uh the extra 18 acres does give them the

[4:46:19] ability to help with some of the current runoff that we have now

[4:46:23] that's has never been addressed for 50 years

[4:46:27] also environmental impact I think they already stated the fact that they'd be

[4:46:33] going through all of that when they get their final uh

[4:46:37] concept of a plan so I think that's taken care of

[4:46:41] the rest as far as noise pollution uh I I don't know how you say that

[4:46:48] there's going to be a problem with it you know it's it's the unknown it's like

[4:46:51] saying that your property value is going down you don't know that for sure uh

[4:46:57] and I've sat here long enough on this board and listened to issues people had

[4:47:02] in their neighborhoods and at the end of the day there was no issue

[4:47:07] and it's never come back to us that there was a problem it's kind of like

[4:47:11] the old warm Walmart days when I was on the city council

[4:47:15] and there was going to be the end of Galena when Walmart come to Galena well

[4:47:18] guess what Walmart came I thought I was crazy about it Gwen is still here and

[4:47:23] everything's still running so as far as I'm concerned it uh

[4:47:28] it all fits in there well The Source criteria whether the proposal

[4:47:34] is in conformance with and further in some of the implementation of the goals

[4:47:38] and policies of copper clamp other adopted plans and

[4:47:42] policies intents and requirements of this code and other city regulations and

[4:47:46] guidelines yes I think all of that is true

[4:47:51] uh I think that

[4:47:56] we have a statement here by the sewing administrator staff reviewed the

[4:48:03] proposed amendment and recommends approval as to compliance with the

[4:48:07] contrary criteria in section

[4:48:13] 154.920c1-7 of the city of Liana Court ordinances

[4:48:18] I rely on that and uh I probably don't know them all I've got the book

[4:48:25] but I don't read it every day he does and so I'm going to rely on him

[4:48:30] and if if there's a problem then we'll have to deal with that

[4:48:37] lady I totally agree with the host of stated

[4:48:42] um nothing else to add engaged

[4:48:46] I also agree because obviously we're going to go back through all the various

[4:48:52] phases from each each phase is going to be approved each time that's what we

[4:48:56] talked about the first time we went through this process so if there's an

[4:49:00] issue about a final plan that will be reviewed at each phase so I don't see

[4:49:08] the problem with the preliminary clinical fine I can compare with what

[4:49:13] was just stated and furthermore I'll add that at each one of those phases it will

[4:49:19] be a requirement that all permits whether it be local federal state so on

[4:49:24] and so forth they're noted but we'll be informed at that point so I

[4:49:28] agree and I believe it does follow the

[4:49:31] comprehensive plan and we all can agree that the comprehensive plan is not

[4:49:36] written in stone you know it's kind of like a guidebook

[4:49:40] to go along yes uh nothing in there stops development on the east side of

[4:49:45] Atlanta and we've talked about that when I was on the city council sure they'd

[4:49:49] like to see more to the west but nothing prohibits development in east side of

[4:49:54] glean in the comprehensive plan so I believe that the four is a

[4:50:02] that's right uh number five whether adequate public facilities and services

[4:50:06] are available or will be made available concurrent with the projected impacts of

[4:50:12] development and proposal lady

[4:50:15] yeah I believe that we have the adequate facilities

[4:50:19] um and uh will be uh will be developed

[4:50:25] in the future we have adequate now but we'll be probably uh needed to be

[4:50:31] improved a little bit with the addition our gate

[4:50:37] um yeah the obviously we've stated that the search treatment plan has excess

[4:50:41] capacity there's been some concern about the city being able to maintain the

[4:50:46] infrastructure but I think uh I was told by our city engineer that some of the

[4:50:51] infrastructure being replaced by Highway 20 was put in in the late 1800s and it's

[4:50:56] still now just being replaced so I would assume we won't have to worry about this

[4:51:01] community for quite some time run ahead and this one jelly can only

[4:51:07] partially concur I did concur with the water and sewer

[4:51:12] however I have not heard enough to convince me on the uh services for fire

[4:51:18] police and other City activities that this will not be a problem so I cannot

[4:51:23] concur on five

[4:51:26] uh chance yeah I I concur that uh was pretty much what everything was said

[4:51:35] I have confidence in our law enforcement our Emergency Services

[4:51:40] Etc Fire Department uh they will

[4:51:44] and have

[4:51:49] added what is needed over time I trust that that's going to

[4:51:55] continue

[4:51:58] yeah I believe this we do have adequate public facilities to try to let the

[4:52:05] sewing water lines in to the standard cleaner requires

[4:52:09] so that shouldn't be an issue in as far as police and fire and EMS

[4:52:15] and we've had several public hearings on this and I'm sure if there's a problem

[4:52:19] for police Chief hateful would have been up front

[4:52:22] or the fire chief or somebody from EMS to complain at the public hearing saying

[4:52:29] we do not adequately have the people or the equipment to do this I haven't heard

[4:52:33] that come out of anybody yet so to assume that it's not going to work

[4:52:38] I can't go by so I concur that it does fall under five

[4:52:42] under number six whether there is an adequate supply of land available in the

[4:52:47] subject area and the surrounding Community to accommodate the zoning and

[4:52:51] Community needs eight

[4:52:54] uh yeah I believe that that land obviously um 18 additional anchors was

[4:52:59] purchased by the developer to add to the original 78 uh to try to address some of

[4:53:04] the concerns and um there's even I'm sure more land out there available at

[4:53:10] the price that he he's cutting so uh I believe there's plenty of Atlanta

[4:53:16] uh cancel thank you uh lady I concur

[4:53:22] also talked I agree with Roger I mean I don't think there's an issue a stat that

[4:53:27] they picked up the extra 18 and a quarter Acres

[4:53:31] I mean it does address some of the issues brought up by by these folks not

[4:53:35] every issue this brought up some of their issues and I think it's a

[4:53:41] it's correct uh number seven would be whether there's a need in the community

[4:53:45] for the proposal whether there will be benefits derived by the community or

[4:53:49] area by the proposed resulting

[4:53:54] home Monahan yeah you skipped me Joe all right last

[4:53:59] one yeah oh I apologize let's go back to sex I apologize on that I actually had

[4:54:03] something to say on that go back to number six uh Mary Monahan I apologize

[4:54:07] so I I agree with this when I actually see the 18.24 Acres as being a gesture

[4:54:13] of Goodwill to try to increase the overall Green Space protect it and I

[4:54:19] believe there's also plenty of land is being paid I apologize and thank you

[4:54:25] for correcting me uh my only mistake don't worry I always will

[4:54:29] um number seven whether there is a need in the community for the proposal and

[4:54:33] whether there will be benefits derived by the community or area by the proposed

[4:54:37] rezoning money you know let me go purses

[4:54:42] so I you know I think you said it very well I I took this one to Heart I've

[4:54:47] been thinking about this one a lot when I was a kid there was a store Leo's

[4:54:53] grocery store then there was stairs then there was the dicks now the pig and it

[4:54:58] was Walmart and guess what I listened to my great-grandparents my grandparents my

[4:55:03] parents and even I complained about it but as a businessman this is called free

[4:55:08] enterprise I believe this will benefit this community I know it's hard for

[4:55:13] change I very much understand that the Goodwill I'm seeing by asking us to add

[4:55:21] in these 18.24 Acres the potential jobs it could bring it's something new

[4:55:29] it will draw you know it will draw attraction but this is going to be good

[4:55:34] for the community I've seen some of the other projects this developer has done

[4:55:38] and they are very tasteful so yeah absolutely yes I can agree with

[4:55:45] that I think there is we don't sometimes don't see a need like

[4:55:50] um I think one of the

[4:55:53] individuals said something about uh

[4:55:58] 50 capacity or something like that well that's amazing and next week it might be

[4:56:04] 60 or next year it might be 60. and then uh I think having that as a tax base

[4:56:12] is a plus I think is always going to be a need to grow and

[4:56:17] this this is an opportunity lady

[4:56:21] yeah sure I think this is going to be a um a real windfall for for Galena with

[4:56:27] not only the economic of creating jobs uh tax base increase I guess uh great

[4:56:38] uh gate um yeah I agree uh you know in regard to

[4:56:42] the uh need for uh additional occupancy the number of 50 is is you can make you

[4:56:49] can make numbers uh however you want that number is based on the number of

[4:56:53] nights over 365 days we're a tourist out we're a Thursday Friday Saturday as an

[4:56:59] owner of an Airbnb hearing doing that I can assure you by Airbnb has been rented

[4:57:05] every weekend from the first of March through the third weekend in December

[4:57:10] and so that tells me that there's a need um so am I am I worried about it as a

[4:57:17] business owner no it's I've got a different price on my properties on mean

[4:57:21] start off just off Main Street these people are coming out here to enjoy

[4:57:24] nature I think if we if we're going to take business away from somebody it's

[4:57:29] not going to be from the hotels or the airbnbs or the bed and breakfast

[4:57:33] I think we're going to maybe get some of the people that have been staying in the

[4:57:36] territory that want to be close to Galena they want to have dinner they

[4:57:40] want to have a few drinks and they don't want to have to drive six miles to get

[4:57:43] back to their house this is going to be their opportunity so I I think this is a

[4:57:48] good thing I think the proposal Amendment does

[4:57:53] benefit the neighborhood because of that in the extra 18 Acres had picked up a

[4:57:59] better drive this is away from where they originally wanted to put it in a

[4:58:03] little safer um as far as the benefits the overall

[4:58:07] project we don't know how much tax dollars it's

[4:58:10] going to bring yes uh based on the property and what the land's worth but I

[4:58:16] still I think it's like everything else everything that's happened in this town

[4:58:20] in 61 years that I can talk about has been a benefit to this time

[4:58:25] and thank God we're still going and we'll be here 61 years at Ground dead so

[4:58:30] or maybe even more but we're always worried about what's going to happen in

[4:58:35] our backyard and over 13 years

[4:58:38] nothing bad's come back in front of us that we've agreed on

[4:58:43] there's still a few people in town don't speak to me but I got all this so that's

[4:58:48] all I got okay those are the seven required criteria the last thing and

[4:58:52] I'll turn it back over to John I think then you guys will discuss it

[4:58:54] accordingly but the last thing I think everybody needs to come uh comment on is

[4:58:58] taking into consideration the proposed project as a whole hearing what you

[4:59:04] heard on both sides of the equation tonight

[4:59:06] do you feel the projects that the benefits of the project benefit your

[4:59:11] community greater than the negatives or do you feel that the negatives outweigh

[4:59:15] the positives and I'll just go right around cancel them yeah I think it's

[4:59:19] more positive than negative it just there's going to be some time but over

[4:59:25] time we'll we'll see the benefit of this

[4:59:30] uh games um I I agree I I grew up on a farm that was three miles from applicant

[4:59:35] Lake and as a small town but I remember my parents thinking that the Earth was

[4:59:40] going to come to an end because they were building applicants Lake in our

[4:59:43] backyard and uh the Earth didn't come to an end and their Farm is still there

[4:59:47] intact and it's thriving so um you know I know there's people that

[4:59:52] are upset that it's in their backyard but this happens in a lot of places I

[4:59:58] don't think people downstate Illinois they're getting wind farms built in

[5:00:02] their backyard but sometimes we have to go ahead and have a little progress to

[5:00:06] keep things viable and the tourism coming to green and they don't want the

[5:00:10] same experience year after year after year they're looking for

[5:00:13] a new restaurant a new place to go a new place to stay there's got to be

[5:00:18] something new and different or otherwise they're doing no someone else

[5:00:22] I concur I believe the positives most definitely outweigh the negatives in

[5:00:27] this case uh there's a few factors uh one I'm very much a historic-minded

[5:00:33] individual which is what brought me back home here the fact that the uh

[5:00:37] developing company is willing to restore the landmark building the you know

[5:00:44] Marine hospital I think that's phenomenal and that the public can use

[5:00:48] that the fact that they are willing to purchase extra space have more green

[5:00:52] space have Vineyards have prairies help with runoff and it will generate revenue

[5:00:59] for this city as you stayed at gates in order to continue to grow as a tourist

[5:01:04] area we have to continue to do new things the same thing and not changing

[5:01:09] will not work we need to prosper so positives outweigh the negatives thank

[5:01:14] you yeah I believe the positive it's always also

[5:01:19] um this is the place to bring it up but I do think that we do need to do with

[5:01:23] traffic count somewhere I'm sure that'll be one

[5:01:27] of the phases but I think that needs to be addressed

[5:01:31] I think the overall benefit to the community is there

[5:01:36] I get the neighbors they're concerned about a stop and that's

[5:01:40] the venue to bring it up here uh we're not always going to agree but

[5:01:45] these guys said the same thing it's don't change and you can reduce offer

[5:01:50] more things when they come here just like that new Museum they're going

[5:01:54] to build you know over and off of Bethany Street well that's going to draw

[5:01:58] more traffic that's going to draw more people but I don't hear anybody

[5:02:00] complaining about that and it's a good thing I'm glad they're

[5:02:04] going to do this Museum but those are things you have to do to bring more

[5:02:07] people to Clinic because to be honest it's the only thing we have

[5:02:10] and somebody made mention of it that I made that comment well I'd like to see

[5:02:15] some Warehouse try to build outside of town

[5:02:18] uh with 50 trucks a day coming in and out of Galena

[5:02:22] they'd be down here filling this room up shooting that down too

[5:02:25] because they wouldn't want that kind of business here tourism is what people

[5:02:30] want and when they've wanted it for 50 years so

[5:02:33] no big businesses John Deere isn't coming here and Ford Motor Company isn't

[5:02:37] going to glean it they tried years ago and couldn't get in

[5:02:41] this is the only business we're going to get as tourists

[5:02:44] and that's what brought a lot of people here that now live here who call this

[5:02:48] home so I think it's a benefit and I will vote Yes

[5:02:54] real quick it just it's like being on the on the traffic on the corner there

[5:02:58] of the fourth and 28th I think the appropriate action to take is to work

[5:03:02] with the city council the local police department and idot and to come up with

[5:03:07] some Solutions on how to either slow people down maybe make no left turn off

[5:03:13] of fourth I I don't know what they are I'm not a traffic engineer but I think

[5:03:17] working with all the parties involved there may be some solutions that that we

[5:03:22] as a zoning board have no control over that's not our job but I think there

[5:03:27] could be the public wants to try to talk to the city council the police

[5:03:31] department and idot and try to get everybody together and try to come up

[5:03:35] with some better solutions for that intersection and I think that'd be a

[5:03:37] good idea okay so we have a motion to or send a

[5:03:44] positive finding to the city council in a second

[5:03:47] so I would ask that you call the roll please

[5:03:53] yes okay and then yes ready yes yes

[5:04:03] Okay so that brings up uh public comment

[5:04:10] seeing him back does he want to come back oh yeah

[5:04:18] [Music]

[5:04:22] yeah this would be on what we've already

[5:04:26] discussed or something different well and somebody's kind of doing

[5:04:29] something different but but if he wants to speak on it yeah if I

[5:04:33] didn't know sometimes it's um

[5:04:46] and you will not comment you have refused so therefore violated

[5:04:52] your duties under safety and that's all I can say you know you

[5:04:58] you admitted no fiance that's it and I don't I not even a word on that

[5:05:08] you won't even speak about I would he he spoke about

[5:05:12] I that will tell you and they've told me and they'll and they've told us there is

[5:05:16] nothing to do when they kids wanted a reception for God's sakes it would have

[5:05:20] been done so refuse to uh abide by the state of

[5:05:27] Illinois that's your decision thank you thank you yep thank you you

[5:05:31] have a nice night okay I understand emotional Journey

[5:05:37] I'll make a motion to adjourn a second I'll second I'm tired all those papers

[5:05:42] say the Bible saying aye aye those opposed to me yeah

[5:05:47] Steve made the first and you may decide yeah

November 9, 2022 Galena, Illinois Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting

Transcript