ARE WE DOING THE FIRST ITEM? FIRST ITEM. FIRST ITEM? YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A SPECIAL USE REQUEST TO ALLOW COMMUNITY SOLAR INSTALLATION AT THE AIRPORT, 275 LLOYD STERMAN DRIVE. ON FEBRUARY 26, 2018, THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE A LETTER OF INTENT WITH COMMUNITY POWER GROUP TO DEVELOP A SOLAR FACILITY AT THE CITY AIRPORT. SINCE THAT TIME, COMMUNITY POWER GROUP HAS BEEN WORKING TOWARDS THE GOAL OF GETTING THAT DONE. They've obtained an interconnection agreement with Ameren back in December of 23. They had an 18-month review process through the FAA, and also reviews through the Illinois SHINES program. The overall site is home to Galesburg Regional Airport. A specific area is to the south and east of the runway intersection. That's the portion being leased to Galesburg Air Solar 1 LLC for this project. THIS IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT BECAUSE ALL COMMUNITY AND COMMERCIAL SOLAR SYSTEMS REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, WHICH MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, PROVIDES DEVELOPMENT FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES. IF APPROVED, THIS SPECIAL USE CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY OTHER LOCATION, NOR SHALL A SPECIAL USE BE CONVEYED TO ANOTHER USE AT THE SAME LOCATION WITHOUT APPROVALS. THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THIS AT THEIR DECEMBER 3rd MEETING AND DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THERE WAS PORTIONS OF IT THAT WERE USED FOR AGRICULTURE THAT ARE NOW GOING TO BE SOLAR FARM. SO, AND LIKE I MENTIONED, I MEAN, COUNCIL APPROVED THIS LIKE EIGHT, SEVEN, EIGHT YEARS AGO. with the new ordinance we adopted last year. It just, this now requires your approval as well. Yes. WE HAVE A MINOR PLAT OF THE DAVIS AND SON STORAGE SUBDIVISION. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED AT 688 U.S. HIGHWAY 150 EAST AND 671 KNOX ROAD 1400 NORTH AND IS CURRENTLY A STORAGE UNIT COMPLEX. OWNERS ARE PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS WITH THE INTENT OF SELLING ONE OF THOSE LOTS. PROPOSED LOT NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS ON KIND OF THE NORTHEAST SIDE, WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 4.12 ACRES. Proposed lot two on the southwest corner would be about 0.95 acres. Properties currently zoned B2 out in Knox County. This is actually in the county. The only reason it's before you is because we have legal right to review subdivisions within a mile and a half of the city's boundaries. There is a request to waive the sidewalks on this subdivision. There are no public sidewalks in a very long distance to this property. Hit the button. There you go. State your name, please. I live next door to it there on Knox Road, 1400 and 683. I'm just curious what they're going to rezone that to to split that up. Is it still going to be a highway business? Correct. I mean, this is out in the county, as I mentioned, so there's no request through us that would change zoning. It's my understanding that the only thing that's happening here is if you look at the aerial up on the screen, the first lot is going to contain all of these mini storage units that you see here. The current owner, I believe, is going to retain ownership of that. The second lot will grab this building down here in the corner and also access off of Knox Road 1400 North. That would be the smaller lot. That's going to be created. That'll be sold off. Whoever's buying that, from what I understand, is going to use that for their business storage or whatever. So I have no knowledge of any zoning changes. Nothing's been brought to us regarding the zoning change, just the division of the parcel. Pardon? Nothing's been brought to us about the zoning change at all. Just the parcel being divided is all they're discussing. Okay. Thank you very much. I've got a question. Steve, did you mention lot number two? How many acres that was going to be? About .95, less than an acre. Okay, this is in Knox County. Is there a minimum size of a lot in Knox County? That would be for them to decide when they review the subdivision as well. All right. Yeah, we don't review Knox County requirements. Okay. THANK YOU. SCROLL DOWN TO THE AREAL HERE. THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED AT 123-129 KNOX HIGHWAY 31, CURRENTLY TWO RESIDENCES WITH MULTIPLE ACRES OF VACANT PROPERTY, INCLUDING A POND. CURRENT OWNERS PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY IN TWO LOTS, CONSOLIDATE CONTROL OF THE POND INTO ONE PARCEL, PROPOSED LOT ONE IS ON THE NORTH SIDE, WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 49.2 ACRES. PROPOSED LOT TWO, SOUTH SIDE, WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 1.63 ACRES. THE PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY ZONED, AGRICULTURE OUT IN KNOX COUNTY AND ALSO OUR RURAL RESIDENTIAL. AGAIN, THESE PROPERTIES ARE ALSO OUT IN THE COUNTY. WE'RE REVIEWING THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF OF OUR CITY BOUNDARY. SO KNOX COUNTY WILL ALSO BE GOING THROUGH AN APPROVAL PROCESS JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS ONE. THERE IS A LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ALL OF YOU FROM THE APPLICANT REQUESTING A WAIVER OF THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AT THEIR DECEMBER 31, 2025 MEETING AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT IS IN THE AUDIENCE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS AS WELL. name is Matthew Anderson idea I am the property southern lights subdivision to the east and my question is back more than 20 years ago This board caused the halt of a sale of my property because I was unaware of home rule. And I'd previously checked with the engineer of the county about my subdivision. And everything looked like everything was green lighted and I had a purchaser. And then a giant wrench was thrown into everything. by the predecessor of this gentleman here, Mr. Roy Parkins. He told me that I could not subdivide this for various reasons. And at the time, I believe he is deceased now. My surveyor, his name is not coming to my memory right now, he assured me that he would take over and get this approved. Which the greatest hang up was, and the thing that caused me to become rather animated at my last dime at this at Electron, was the board's insistency of me putting sidewalks in. And if you drive on Highway 31 after you get done passing the road that goes by the, I guess, what is it? West Lake Story Road, Dam Road, whatever you call it, you'll notice that you drive by my subdivision and now there's sidewalks, okay? And at the time I said, why? And the city engineer or the county engineer came in and testified upon my behalf and said, why are you making him put in sidewalks? What's the reason? Who's going to maintain them? They're on the county property. Well, I left the meeting and Ken Schrader, was my surveyor at the time. And he assured me, he goes, Matt, you're getting, you know, just I'll take care of this. And he did. And I did put in sidewalks, which during the time I said, this is ludicrous. This is like building a bridge over a river and not having approach ramps. But now I notice that there are no requirements for sidewalks. And I just, I wonder why. If I had to do it, And it was so important. And my sale didn't go through. I had the property for probably another seven to eight years after this. And it's just perplexing. I'm just curious. And that's all I have to say. I appreciate it. I do. Paul Ladner. Yeah, I think I would second his concern because he's got that section. Then there's going to be a blank. And if I was to do it, there'd be a section, then a blank, and then a section like it is a weird dashed line. It seems like a... You know a frivolous waste of concrete resources, etc. I totally agree with Mattis said yes The goal of the subdivision isn't to make more Lots actually It's the same number of Lots there and it's not and I am building a house, but I had Demolished the house in order to build it and the real premise of the whole operation is I want to cut off that one house to be able to sell it to my son and And it's not to develop anything there. I mean, I'm not planning anything else building. There's not gonna be more traffic, be it pedestrian or vehicular, like I said in that note that I sent out to you guys. So it does seem crazy. And it probably would throw a big wrench into what I'm doing. I might not end up pursuing the subdivision and trying to figure something else out. I don't know what, but yeah, it's a big deal. I get Matt's concern. I don't know, but I would plead that you give me a waiver on that myself so yeah and then then I'm building it so that the pond is on one parcel which I think makes sense for for me I own it all right now and it's me my son or whatever so but in you know the generation to come that's going to be very frustrating for somebody and so Yeah, I'm doing it to neaten it all up and facilitate the sale. Yeah, so. I've got a question. Look, Steve, could you bring the Bruno Cooper's plaid up? Yeah, that's a better view. It's a little hard to see, but... Along Lake Story Road there, there's a house and some outbuildings just to the west. That is not part of your property, correct? I believe what you're referring to is the property I'm planning to sell to my son. Well, I mean, I can go up there and point to it. I'll show it to you. Okay. I'll show you the one I'm referring to. It's that wall bench, that house, isn't it? Yeah. Is that the one? Correct. So everything else is going to be yours. One lot, yeah. So it's taking what is currently two lots and making it two lots. It's just a different two lots, sort of. That makes a lot more sense. I don't have any other questions. So I've got a question for Steve, just to clarify for all of us. This letter that came in later about the waiver for the sidewalk, we as a committee can consider that along with the other request or separately, is that correct? Yeah, typically how we've handled these is it's not technically a separate variance of the requirement. It's just a waiver of one of the requirements through the subdivision process. So you can, if you agree with it, someone can make a motion to recommend approval of the subdivision with the waiver. Okay. All right. Yeah, DRC has already met. This your recommendation goes to City Council City Council can approve it the county has their own separate approval process, correct? Yes, Matthew Anderson again. I don't want to appear as though I'm demanding. As a matter of fact, I would be the first person to stand up for them in asking that there not be a requirement for sidewalks. It's just that it was kind of a conundrum to me at the time. And it was very contentious. But I would be the first person to ask. that y'all give them a waiver or whatever the technical, that they not be required to put in a sidewalk because it's nonsensical. I mean, I just wanted that on the record. I'm not here to say that I want them to put, I don't want them to have to have to put it in sidewalks. I'm just bringing it up to have it in the record. To the predecessor of Mr. Steve, I'm sorry, I can't recall your last name, Roy Parkins. I don't know if it was like a vendetta he had against me, but it was a pretty bad situation. And that's the reason why I'm here. Yeah. Well, I wish him the best. I did. That's all. I'm not here to... to ask for y'all to make them put sidewalk. I would be the first person to say, do not. It doesn't make any sense. Thank you. I would like to make a motion to approve the lot subdivision as presented along with the amendment of waving the sidewalk. I second. We have a motion.