All right, it's after 5:30.

We'll go ahead and get started with tonight's planning commission meeting and have roll call.

Mindy Payne.

Here.

Jonathan Townsend.

Here.

Jaley Klempa.

Here.

Jason Cohen.

Robert Gorenson.

Here.

Uh item number three old business.

We have none.

So item number four and uh consent agenda.

Do we have the items that need to be pulled or wish to be pulled from the consent agenda?

No, not.

I don't seeing none.

We'll have a roll call vote.

Um I make a motion.

I mean, sorry.

Yep.

I make a motion that we approve all items on the consent agenda per staff recommendation.

I'll second the motion.

Now we'll have a roll call vote.

Maybe come on.

There we go.

Mindy Payne, yes.

Jonathan Townsend.

Yes.

Jaley Klempa.

Yes.

Robert Gordon.

Yes.

And now items uh on the consent agenda items uh four C D E and F will go before the city council right here at 6 30 on April 7th.

There you go.

Next item on the agenda is item number five items removed.

We have none.

Item number six, public hearings six A26-400.

Staff want to cover that.

Yes, BAZ-002651-2026 is a request to change the zoning designation on uh 119.05 acres from agricultural to single family residential preservation.

This unplatted property is located one quarter mile south of Omaha Street, west of 37th Street.

The applicant is proposing to develop single family detached residential dwelling units on the property, which would be the fourth phase of the Pines of the Preserve development to the north.

According to FEMA maps, some 100-year flood plan is present in the central part of the property.

Access to this development would be available directly from 37th Street and indirectly from Omaha Street via the existing development to the north.

And based on the comprehensive plan, the location of the property and the surrounding land uses, staff recommends that BAZ dash zero zero two six five one dash two zero two six be approved.

All right, thanks, McKenzie.

Any discussion with staff.

Oh, he missed us.

Well we expected to.

But we still need your name for the record now.

Uh Alan Vachon with AAB Engineering, uh, 200 North McKinley and Sand Springs.

This is really the final phase.

So Pines is a project that goes all the way up to Omaha.

There's been three phases of the Pines.

This is exactly in keeping with that project.

This is the extension that was proposed and and really even planned by the detention facility.

So the area that you see in the green that's in the floodplain area in the middle was uh built as constructed as a detention facility as part of the 37th Street widening.

We're going down to the edges of that and then picking up the property that was around that and zoning it in conformance with what is already there to the north, and that's the proposal that we're coming back with.

I'm happy to answer any questions about it.

So you bring up the detention side because you're talking about the city park and the city where the city park is adjacent to that.

So what you're saying, Alan is you don't make are you're not probably gonna have any on-site storage.

I know the straight zone you're gonna have to be able to handle it through that parking side.

So that that park, there's a large pond built in that park.

That park and and the box.

If you want to show the area, we could do that.

The box culverts for 37th Street were actually sized, and that whole area is designed as a detention facility.

We we designed it and it was donated to the city as part by the developers of this project.

Um that has already accounted for all of the detention requirements for this project as well as the projects that are happening to the east of this, but that quarry pond that you see existing has also is still functioning as an additional detention facility on top of that that all of the upstream waters are already being detained for in.

But that quarry pond that you see existing has also is still functioning as an additional detention facility on top of that that all of the upstream waters are already being detained for in.

So there's ample.

And that's the one up by 51st or Omaha Street.

Yeah, it's actually Omaha is on up to the other side of that development.

So that quarry pond that's on the south of it that this wraps around that you see.

Okay.

Is also a detention facility.

So absolutely taken care of.

Okay, good.

This is one that I can say we already took care of it.

So let me ask you this.

I know this is zoning issue, but this is gonna this was keeping me up last night.

I'm just kidding.

So on the south part of the pond, the park area, there's a it's uh it's up on the hill right there.

I was looking at what you were talking about.

Uh, your answers it's all gonna be off 37th Street, correct?

So are they all gonna be on the north side of the pond, or will anything and to the development itself?

There is existing development.

All that's planned right now, to be to be very honest is basically you can see the oxbow of the creek kind of west of the bulk of this track that's being zoned.

That floodplains gonna remain, and there's no intention to cross Adams Creek again right now.

Um really that area that was reclaimed, so there was some area that was reclaimed from the floodplain on the west side of Adams Creek, right there.

We're not even proposing a project there right now or on Lone Star.

Maybe sometime into the future, there's something that came off of 37th and wrapped around and got back there.

That's not in the current plan, but being trying to be diligent with the zoning efforts and what we're doing.

It's hey, there's this is the remainder of the parcel.

There's pieces in there that can be used for this, and so we wanted to look at trying to zone everything consistently up front.

And you mentioned Lone Star just in case uh that you're talking about Lone Star Creek.

Low creek, which is what goes southwest of the street.

Into Adams Creek, yeah.

Yeah, I just want to make sure when you said lone star, then you're sorry, Lone Star Creek.

I I have lived in this creek area for a long time, so it's very that all those little things make sense to me that maybe don't to everybody else.

But it's this is a this is the natural extension it's been prepared for, and this is what we were now.

The addition north of you has two curb uh two stub streets in it, correct?

Two that we will pick up both of them.

So you're gonna use both of them, and then there's gonna be probably one, and I know it's a zoning ordinance or zoning issue, but people are gonna ask that anyway.

So both of those will be col will be connected to um not just will they I mean I would I would say staff would require that we would and we will um our plan for that will be and there'll be at least one connection back to 37th Street, possibly two.

That's gonna deal more with utilities than anything else onto the east because what is coming back to you in the very near two planning commissions is the third phase that final plat that was already approved.

We remove the entrance onto 37th Street from that, and we're taking it down into phase two because just trying to minimize the access points onto the arterial from a traffic standpoint on to 37th Street on the 37th Street.

Okay.

Has a has a traffic impact study been done?

I don't think it's required, but I out of curiosity.

There hasn't been in in this particular instance, especially with the last phase of what we're doing.

We're not bringing on a load that would significantly change uh what is already an improved roadway to the east.

But if it's a requirement of staff, or if we as we get into the plating stage, we'll certainly do that with as it comes on with the plat.

Well, that was the second part of my question.

I think you began to allude to it.

How does this phase affect current residents or neighbors as far as traffic flow goes?

It will improve it because most of your traffic's not going to be going north from this up to Omaha, it's gonna be going to 37th Street, and it's going to be down to Walmart in the shopping that's available that, or going east to the turnpike is gonna be your primary mode.

So 37th's improved, so this is providing additional connectivity through what we're expanding for the existing neighbors to get to 37th.

I would tell you it improves it.

Improves absolutely.

I would agree with that.

The traffic a lot of that's gonna go down uh to 51st Street, you're right, or 61st Street, and it's gonna go to the turnpike, 51st Street.

It's or it's gonna go towards the high school.

It would be very or the Walmart.

Uh there may be some trips in the far western portion of it that would go back to, but it's gonna be minimal compared to what's going to come out of that going east into the future.

So I would I would tell you it's going to receive traffic more than it's going to produce traffic into the existing neighborhoods.

Right.

What what what specific uh mitigation measures are going to be taken as far as far as the the floodplain area goes, that part that was in the floodplain.

So we're staying outside of the existing floodplains that are there.

Um there is the there's actually a loamer that the city is responsible for that we filed that's um in the final reviews with FEMA that define those lines very clearly as part of the mapping that was done for the detention facility, and that's all contained on city owned property that's outside of the zoning parcel that we're showing you here.

And that's all contained on city owned property that's outside of the zoning parcel that we're showing you here.

So there's no there isn't and that design accounted for this project in its fully urbanized condition.

Okay.

So I knew that the city boundary one or the property wouldn't pass the pond, but it goes all the way, it falls all the way the dashed line to the east, literally to the west, I mean correct.

Okay.

That was all donated because that's all contained in what is effectively a floodplain detention pond.

Okay.

That so detention doesn't necessarily occur just where you see a pond whenever you're backing water up, it's all the other areas that we can store in, and that's why there's so much fill that was done around that was to contain it and create a really large area that was already a floodplain and help it mitigate flood issues that were happening downstream.

So this is a that is a massive regional facility that that the city did.

Um and it has a big benefit.

One time I can actually answer all those up front because we did it up front.

Well, I'm gonna have some.

Write it down.

That doesn't usually happen, guys.

I'll I'll have some more for you here in a little bit.

Did you have any more?

At the moment, no, those those two questions.

All right, we'll get back to that in a bit.

So yeah.

So I'll open this up for public hearing.

So we have I think four, maybe five that are signed up to speak.

So I'll call your name and you come up front to the microphone, state your name, and you'll have three minutes to say your piece.

So we got first of one is uh Ronald Mashigan.

Believe I said that right.

Pardon?

Yeah, ramps.

Well, we they missed it, but you don't need to go back unless you have to.

But take your time.

Your men, your three minutes don't start until you start talking.

I can make it.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

My name is Ron Meshagan.

And you said my name right for first time.

That was pretty good.

Yeah, some people don't.

Um my only contention with the whole plan is that it wasn't laid out like I thought it would.

I bought a home at 3417 East Lincoln on a greenbelt, my house back up to the pond, the top pond that you see on the list up there.

We were told when we moved in that that was gonna be a green belt area and a view of the pond.

We had to have a special fence in the back so that wouldn't you know shade the view.

Um my concern is is that we're no longer gonna have a green belt back there.

And I think that that was mislady misleading if that's the truth of you know the way things are gonna go now.

I don't know how much of that forest area is gonna be demolished.

Uh it isn't spelled out.

It would be helpful if I knew that.

Okay.

And uh, like uh gentlemen said before, I don't know if I'm for it or against it because I don't know all the particulars.

Right.

So maybe do we need to wait until we hear all the particulars?

Well, I'm actually gonna ask him about that in a little bit, so I'm glad you brought that up.

So that's one item we'll we will bring up here in a little bit.

But there's there's about 25 homes that are affected by the green belt.

That's right right now in the pines reserves.

Right.

I've lived uh in the pines uh for the last four years.

I sold a home there and then we rebuilt and uh moved to the pond area, which I always wanted, but it wasn't being developed at the time I got there.

I was on New Haven before.

And the thing about it, some of the items that you mentioned, I I it depends on what was written up in your covenants and your restrictions on what on like what kind of fencing you could put up and stuff.

But Ms.

Mr.

Basham will actually address what's gonna be in his to it's it's not gonna hide what your view is.

So we'll give him we'll give him a chance to touch on that here in a second.

Okay, good deal.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

And I'm just curious who who you heard from that said that that that would never be developed I they didn't say that it wouldn't be developed.

Or they they would always be the green belt.

We you know we were paying a premium for a green belt property that had a view of the pond.

Okay.

And I think from what I'm hearing, you're still gonna have that.

So but we'll get him to address that here.

Well, that's what I I heard the young man say.

Uh here we're young to me.

So it's young man.

Well, we'll let him come up.

We'll let have him come up here and say it so it's on the record.

Okay, okay.

All right, thank you, sir.

Did you have anything else though?

Uh no, that was my main concern.

Uh was just that we were gonna keep what we paid for.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

Yep.

All right, appreciate it.

Appreciate it.

So you want to go to the ramp?

He's halfway there.

All right.

Next time uh person we had up to speak is Lindsay Saunders.

And like I said, you'll have three minutes to speak.

Hi.

Hello.

Uh I'm Lindsay Saunders.

I'm actually his one of his neighbors.

Uh I also live in Pines of the Preserve Phase Two.

Um right against adjacent to that pond that's on the north.

Okay.

Uh 3405 East Lincoln.

And uh I did have all the same concerns that he had, so that answered those questions.

Um my other concerns were I know in the summer we're in rural, one of the Wagner Rural Water Districts, we get notices that the water is low and that water pressure is low, and we need to conserve water.

I was concerned, you know, additional housing in that area.

How is that gonna affect that?

Can the water district actually support the extra homes?

Um and then the other thing was the pond itself.

I know that like, for example, it stormed like crazy, the pond is really high right now.

Like if they do develop that, which it sounds like they might not.

I was worried like what would happen to the stormwater runoff.

Um I think my only other concern was the traffic, like you mentioned.

Uh down at Albany Street where it meets um the the road to the the east there, it gets really congested in the morning, like everybody going to Vanguard or the high school.

And so I didn't know even if like a traffic light was put in, if it would be another situation where it'd still be pretty congested in the mornings.

Um I have not heard anything about a traffic light going in here.

I don't know if city staff is pre fostered to answer that right now, but I haven't heard anything about a traffic light light going in there.

I don't have any knowledge of that.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um and then I think, yeah, just uh going along with the green belt, there's a lot of animals back there, like that we don't see very often.

Eastern bluebirds, we've seen bats, we've seen eagles.

We've actually we saw a bald eagle when it snowed.

So it's like I just didn't know if you guys had looked at like the wildlife impact if any studies had been done on how that's gonna affect the area if it's developed.

Well, there's only so much we can do.

I mean, we can't save all the wildlife, and then I know that everybody talks about well, where they're gonna go, well, they're gonna move on somewhere else, and that's what happened when your development came in.

But we'll give a a chance for the applicant to address a lot of these issues when we come back up because I like I said I have a couple of them, and both of you had touched on one of them already, so we'll get you answered those.

Okay, that's all I had.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right.

Next one sign up speak is Todd Walls.

Hi everyone.

Uh Todd Wall.

So uh I am Lindsay's husband, so we didn't know if we'd be long-winded and we wouldn't have enough time in any case.

So I don't want to echo anything you guys have already heard.

I'm in the same situation.

I I will echo the first gentleman's words that we were told uh I think I paid five thousand more dollars for my lot because it was promised that the green belt and the view, that's what I was paying for.

And whenever I talked to the builder, they told me at the time.

I I asked the question, I said, Well, when are they gonna develop back here?

And I I was told, you know, it's it's at least gonna be something like 10 years.

I can't see anybody developing back there.

It's just so much of a mess, it would be way too much money to develop on something like that.

So that's what was told to me moving in whenever I made the decision to buy it.

So I'm not I I I at the same time I'm not a hundred percent against any sort of development for residential living back there.

I do think those are really beautiful trees back there.

I think it looks wonderful in the fall and in the summertime, and I think there is beautiful wildlife.

If if anything can be whenever this development is being considered, uh if there's anything that can be done to maybe establish some sort of you know, residential like sort of park area where some of the trees are kept in that area.

I mean, like I said, if you if you guys had could see the view, uh you kind of see where I'm coming from, it really is nice, and I think even if you're developing more residential living there, I think people moving into that new space would appreciate if um some of that for station is kept for them.

So I think it would help with the the resale value of the housing.

So but that's that's what I've got to have.

We'll talk about I will say this going back to what Jayley asked while it goes, is we don't know who told you that that property is gonna stay this way.

I mean that that I guess relatives tell people that.

Yeah, if it's if they don't own the property and have no control over it, it's hard for him to them to say that.

Right.

These are wonderful things you learned after the fact, right?

So it's important what's in the covenants.

So it's important what's in the covenants, it's also important on what you read for that property south of you too to see what's written up for that property.

And it was probably zone that agriculture at the time when you bought it in it when you bought your property.

But I think the applicant was involved with that property too, were you not?

So he might be able to touch on that in a minute, too.

So we'll give you the opportunity for that.

But can you tell us not names, but who kind of told you that that property was going to stay that way?

Uh well it's Shaw homes, because who we were working with.

The ones that were building homes in your area, though.

Okay.

So they say they probably really didn't know what was going to happen south of you.

Right, right.

Okay.

So yeah.

In any case, I mean, I do as you guys are developing this out, and as you're considering it, I do think even just for the the resale for the residential living, I think it would drive up prices on the you know what they were worth, I guess.

You know, if some of that was kept and not all of it was mowed down for new housing, I guess.

Well, we'll actually pick the Brunning a little bit more on this stuff that you're asking about.

Because like I said, I have two or three items now on here that I want to ask about.

So we'll we'll ask about that stuff.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Next person sign up to speak is C Keith Smith.

Good afternoon.

Um is Keith Smith.

Um here representing myself and my wife, uh Sherry Smith.

We do have a property on East Lincoln that we were uh privileged to be the first persons to um pick a property in phase two.

So when that the second that opened up, we were there and we actually got a chance to pick exactly where we want it.

Um with that being said, we picked that area because we were told by Shaw that we would have no neighbors to our south.

So that green belt would stay.

Uh we would have the perfect view of the water.

Our house is right on the water there, uh, which is why we picked that.

You know, we would see deers popping out, we would see turtles all over the place.

I'd have turtles in my driveway.

Um, you know, we've seen eagles flying out that way.

We see the the long-nosed cranes or whatever those birds are.

Uh they look like cranes, but I think they're called something else.

But we picked that because of the nature, you know.

We love the view.

Uh we love wooded areas, we love you know, just uh going camping because of areas like that.

So for us to pick a place to where we can actually live in an area like that, it was great for us.

Um but yes, we did pay a premium.

We paid extra to be in that spot.

So I pretty much came here to find information out about that.

What's going to change, what's going to stay the same.

Uh, we'd like what we were promised when we purchased that and we had to pay extra.

Um as far as the upkeep on the pond, I guess they told us that was the cities.

Um what we were told, and no one's doing the upkeep on that.

It's growing out and around just the the weeds around it are just growing up.

At one point, it was starting to block our view of the pond.

So our uh HOA person actually had somebody come out and cut it, even though he said technically we're not responsible for it, but he had somebody cut out, come out and they've only cut it twice since we've been there, and even now there's weeds up there, there's trash when it blows from the construction.

That's just it's it's just gathering right there.

And I don't like that look when I look out my backyard, I see trash and stuff all out there.

Um, we've got RTVs and dirt bikes that are back up through there.

I don't know if that's the city's property or what, but nobody's controlling that.

They're out there past midnight at times, and I live two houses down from Ron, they hear it as well.

My wife has to be up early, she's trying to sleep.

Dirt bikes are back there, they're just making a whole lot of noise.

So I don't know who actually owns that part.

That's a phone call to the city because there are noise ordinances that they should not be doing that.

Ron's already made that call, and nothing's changed, they're still back there.

But now you have an applicant that actually wants to do something with that property, and if they do develop it, if it gets approved to do to develop, they're gonna keep them off them people out of there because it'll be houses and stuff like that, if that's what's approved.

Well, we just we were told we wouldn't have any neighbors to our south, and that we'd have all those trees there, and that's what we were wanting.

So we don't want to look at our windows and see other houses now.

Let me ask you this, Mr.

Smith.

What's your definition of a green belt?

How far south of you is your green belt?

Well, we actually we have the part that's directly where you can see the entire length of that pond.

Yep.

Um, so we picked the perfect property right there.

But what I'm saying is is your green belt 20 feet, 40 feet, 50 feet to you beyond your fence line.

We were told it would be beyond the pond, okay, to where we would still see all the trees because my property goes right down.

My point being is we'll get the there's not enough room, there's not enough room between the pond and your fence line to develop, and we'll get the applicant to touch on this.

At least that's what I'm reading for what I'm seeing in the aerial, and we'll get him to touch on that.

I don't see them doing anything other than maybe clearing out and make it less look nice for your development and this development here.

Okay.

So I think you'll still have that view, but we'll talk about that.

Okay.

Um, and as far as the uh traffic light, because I had a question about that as well.

I actually used to take my kids to school going down 209 to where 209 is 61st uh meets.

But being that it's just a stop sign, traffic backs up so far, I had to stop going that route, and I went, I started going uh county line now to get them to school.

So a traffic light would be perfect because it would I think it would get traffic through there.

Which school are you going to the high school or Kimberly?

Well, I have kids at the high school, the middle school, and then the uh the elementary.

So I'm in a good spot in the morning.

You're in a good spot for it to get them around.

Yeah, but they restructure the district, so I have to drive farther now.

So thank you.

Well, we'll touch on a lot of those items.

So I'll any questions that I'll uh close public hearing.

So the applicant want to come back.

Now, the first thing I want to talk about before I forget, I should have wrote these down, uh, Mr.

Batcham, because when you're you're this RSP you're asking for, which is really the smallest one in there.

We know that because you got the 60-foot frontage, the what is it, the 50-foot frontage, and then the 35 foot frontage, which is what you're asking for.

It's the it it's the residential zoning.

Right.

Okay, it's so specification that's not compact.

So RSP is not compact, so that's not the smallest RS preservation.

This is the reservation.

I thought we were asking for the smallest one.

No, sir.

We're preservation is the smallest, yes.

That's what I thought.

Compact.

Compact has the 50 foot, yeah.

So it's the smallest.

And this one has the 35 foot, which is less than 50.

60, well, 60 foot is our minimum lot width.

RS is 60.

So that you got RS60, RSC, which is the 35, and then RSC.

This is the 50s, and then the RSP is a good thing.

And we're doing 60, just like what is in the store.

So I'm on track.

I'm right.

So do you want to change the request you're making?

We can make I we're going to do the exact same project that we are doing to the north.

I'll be very clear about this.

This is extension of those products, and this is 60 foot lots.

Okay, let me look at this.

What you proposed to us tonight was the RSP.

So I did some research on that, like I always do.

And the RSP, I know this is a zoning issue, but these people are making some valid points.

With the RSP, you have three things you could do up on that north end.

You have if it's like up to five lots, you could go in there and your lot width and area has to match the ones on the north, correct?

And your second option is there's like 20 to 21 or something like that.

Uh you have another option of you of choosing, and then option three is the 50-foot uh green belt along that north side.

Is that not correct, McKenzie?

There are I think multiple options to go there.

There's three options for that work.

There's three options.

So have you considered looking at any of those?

Which ones have you?

We're we're absolutely extending the exact same product.

Same lot widths, same standard that is sitting in pines two and three.

It is the same, it is exactly the same development.

It was the development that was planned whenever we planned for pines two and three.

I guess my point is is what I'm gonna ask the attorney is that even though this is a zoning issue, we have three options that are applicable to what you choose you want to do.

And I'm not it's it's under the dimensional standards, and we don't have to choose the dimensions, but we can we choose the option saying we approve we recommend the city council approve of of the zoning RSP based on following option number three.

Can you do that?

We generally only approve or disapprove whatever request they make, not okay.

And so let's so that would come down later when maybe the site plan or something.

Yeah.

And to to directly answer the questions about the phone.

I'm just a way I could help them out answering their questions.

To directly answer the question about adjoining the pond, that pond's not moving.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

It's a green belt, and and so whenever they're buying something and joining uh what's an open space and green space, that detention facility will stay exactly as it is.

And and actually it's in it, it's an anneasement, so I can say this with certainty, even if someone else did a project on it.

It's it is a detention facility.

Right.

Um I can also say that there is floodplain to the west, and there are limitations physically because of the terrain for anything going further west.

So there is going to be a large section of what you see on this plan will stay exactly as it is and won't be touched.

Uh being very clear about that.

The rest of the property as you go around the south side between what is the detention facility, so the southern line of this and the detention pond is where the development will actually occur, and then mainly focused off to the east up to against 37th, which is already mostly cleared.

Um there is a road connectivity-wise that we will need to have that comes off of the stub street that is west of the detention facility.

That is just connectivity that comes down and it'll have one single row that is one row of houses on either side.

Physically it doesn't fit in there any other way because it is very much higher on the west side than it is everywhere else.

So they're they're egress it's going through the older development period, right?

Okay.

That it it'll have that's it's to stub out from there.

Okay.

There is no intent in what we're doing to change what is that detention facility and anything we do would have to come back to that.

And there's certainly a plat that has to come forward that has to memorialize anything that we're seeing, and there's an opportunity for this commission and and ultimately the city council and everyone else to have another public hearing with specific to that layout.

So what was the zoning?

The the one that was north of you was done with our own old zoning ordinance.

What are those?

Is it were those RS3s or RS4s?

Do we do we remember?

Let me look.

I don't recall what those are.

Well, she's checking that if you don't mind.

Um the area around the pond that you said is not going to be touched.

Um what about some of the trees in the landscape that's around the ponds?

Like how far out do you think you'll be before you start development?

So there is so there will be on the west side, there's a road that comes down, and there'll be lots that are sitting up on the high side just like they are on the north that overlook it.

There are lots that'll bucket back up to it, and they'll be maintained the reality is it's a natural natural.

It's quarry pond, so it's not natural.

It wasn't like it was it was it was an old quarry that got built, so that's why it sit there.

We built a controlled outlet structure on it whenever as part of the projects to the north, but that is still sitting outside of a reserve area and outside of maintenance.

So this will be brought into a reserve that will be maintained by the overall pine zone or um homeowners association, and there'll be lots butting up to it on the east and the west.

Most of what you see is pretty scrubby east because it's been torn up by construction and everything else.

And then what you see on the west, we can't get over the cliff to really mess.

I mean, it's truly a vertical cliff on a quarry pond.

So there's gonna be houses sitting up there just like there are on that, but we can't really there's a lot of it that's in the quarry that you're just not gonna mess with.

And then all of the green belt to the west stays.

So all of the existing trees, everything you see on that west side isn't touched with any of this.

And anything that I I mean, I think it's a fair statement to say from a from a city standpoint.

Any development that developed to the south would be required to connect to the stub street.

That was so there's a requirement that we get up and connect on that western side of the facility.

It was designed for that and circulation was built that way.

I just know that a lot of times in the development you can't save trees because you got to get the utilities and stuff in there.

So I was asking for those that were concerned about the trees.

If they had a general idea of how much was going to stay around the pond, it sounds like you guys aren't really going to be touching any of that, so that should answer their question.

I but I always I don't want to make any because it's a detention facility.

Right.

And we have to get the infrastructure in and the improvements around it.

So I don't want to.

I I can tell you where we won't touch, yeah, and that that will stay preserved, but that is still utilities, and there is a utility function associated with that.

And to to some of the comments, it needs to be maintained.

Yes.

And and that's something that's not ha I mean it's it's a it's a existing facility, and so now it's gonna be in an HOA and the HOA is gonna have maintenance responsibilities associated with it.

See, and that's what I was getting at while ago.

The city's not going to go out there and take care of that.

No, it's not the city's, it's not the city's facility.

And it's not going to be turned over the city, it's gonna be an on-site detention that's owned by the HOA.

So they will maintain that detention.

And it'll it's all pines one, two, and three are all, I believe, this are all in the same HOA, and the same HOA will extend for the facilities that they're that are being done.

So, like right now in Pines three, the pool is being built that serves all of Pines one and two.

Um, so it's it's a com it's truly a single development.

So there's some part in this of I while I'm very respectful of what someone understood about what is open space and what I'm seeing, they were buying up against a a pond lot that was intended to stay a pond lot, and that's where those premiums come.

But if this development was always intended to be right where it is, and this is the first one.

I don't see any of your development other than maybe running on a utility line or something like that.

I don't see you doing much.

Maybe cleaning up the trees if you need to do that, but the pond's gonna be there.

The pond's on site on site detention.

So you you you let me let me go back because you threw a wrench in the works a minute ago.

You're saying these lots are gonna pretty much match what's on the north side.

They exactly are.

And like I said, I think that was R th RS3 R, but those were actually larger lots than the RSP, if I remember right.

The RST is actually smaller.

Did you have anything on that, McKinsey?

I'm telling you, we're doing 60-foot lots.

Well, that but what I'm saying is that's not what you ask.

Okay, so I want to hear what McKids is saying is match up what's up front on the north end.

Yes, to the north is all was zoned RS3 zoned.

Um besides the minimum lot sizes, one of the big differences between RSC and RSP is the amount of the development that has to be usable open space as an amenity.

Um Alan, is that okay if it's 25%?

Because that's what's in RSC.

We far exceed the 25% requirements of that's why we went to where we're at.

And 25%, 50% of that cannot be floodplained.

It's we're well extended.

Okay, excellent.

And we're we're fine with those requirements.

That is not an issue in this one at all.

That part of the point of why we asked for it is because we had meaningful open space that we're actually preserving for once.

So I I can say we're going to have the open space that is required by this.

We're doing and by all means, this we actually are ready to submit a preliminary plat for this.

So this isn't two years down the road.

We'll you'll see this very things that we're talking about.

And you this this commission in very similar to the form it is right now, I expect to be the ones to sit in here saying this is what you told us we were going to do, and you'll see that it is exactly what we're saying.

Okay.

There was a couple of issues that uh somebody else brought up.

I knew I should have wrote those down.

Oh, yeah.

So are you gonna be on rural water district here also?

Or is okay, same thing.

So do you know anything?

Okay, do you know anything about the water pressure out there?

Is um anything about the I I can't tell you whenever they have that so that there's some unique problems that the district had that were not um capacity constraints, they were actually um uh like facilities going down recently that caused problems in the district, so like literally pumps went down and they had a significant that I don't think are in our indicators of the district's ability to perform.

It's it was truly a an issue of maintenance a problem.

I don't want to call it maintenance because it's not it, you know.

Hey, we had a pump go down on a bill, and so it went.

But the district has to provide so this is in the district service area.

The district um has substantial infrastructure from from an ability to serve in this area, and they have no concerns with serving the development, and we have to have that.

Real water district, they're invited to your TAC meetings technical advisory committee.

Do they usually show up to these?

Or get any comments from them?

Not usually, no.

But either way, they'll be invited to anything on this development.

Okay.

And they have to we have to have their we have to have a letter from them of will serve, and and obviously if we don't have water, we can't get the development.

So we're this isn't that's not an issue that is going to come up.

And of all the places that I'm confident and have had conversations with them, we've they very much understand what's happening here, and in our system was designed in Pines 2 to be able to handle this in three.

There's eight-inch lines that are extending down into this specifically for serviceability.

Okay.

Well, like I said, I know this is a zoning request, but there was a lot of items to me that um people brought up that we probably ought to talk about because if you go to I think it's table 3.4 and the dimensional uh standards on the RSP, it talks a lot about this stuff and like what you're gonna do on that perimeter.

I know that one we talked about last time was changing some zoning of the size of the lots on the perimeter side, and that's what this one calls out for too.

Can so I have no problem with asking you that, even though if it's not zoning related.

All right.

I'm I'm as transparent as we possibly can be because we're bringing I have to bring the same thing back to you.

But you threw me for a loop when you said you're gonna match what's on the other side is exactly what's there.

We're talking about 30-foot difference in lot sizes.

Exactly what's there.

So why would we approve of the RSP if it's not even close to the RS3?

Because of the requirement for open spaces that come with it.

Well, I'm not going, I don't and I don't buy that.

If let's let's put it this way if it would be if the planning commission would rather recommend an RS zoning because that is exactly what it is, that's fine.

It's just gonna lose the open space mandates associated with it.

And you have that the RS on the new zone.

Yeah, straight up RS on the new zoning.

If that's it's just you're gonna lose that doesn't come with the open space requirement.

Which is the 60-foot lots.

So yeah, that doesn't have the that would not have the the lots would match the north.

But it has also opened not require the perimeter uh green belt.

It would also not require any of that stuff.

So that's any open space preservation.

Right.

But if it's if you if that's the if that would be the preference of the planning commission to recommend an RS zoning, we would accept that.

But you know, the purpose of that green belt or that trail system or something between the north and south is just to try to get them to blend in.

That's why you have the larger lots right there, it's just to kind of help transition it from the RS3 to the RSP.

It isn't going to be a difference in the U actually go with the if you want to go with the RS and have uh 60 foot lots up north without the green belt in there.

I know you're gonna lose a lot of trees, but you're still gonna have that uh some of the green belt, you're gonna have a little bit of green belt around that detention area and stuff like that.

I mean that's that's okay too, I would think.

If you're one you're talking about making all of it an RS development project, if that's what the if if the commission would prefer to have that as their recommendation, that's the issue to us.

You still have the 25% green common area, right?

Not in the RS.

I thought the RS did, plus 50% of that still had to be outside the the floodway.

RSP is the only one with the 25% requirement.

RSI includes a 15%, an RS does not have one.

But even if it doesn't, even if you don't have that within this development here, the concern is what everybody's asking, I think, is the northern and the perimeter matching up to their so I'm not sure if the rest of the green space is gonna matter to them.

It's what they're looking outside their back door.

If that is the preference of the commission to have an RS recommendation, that matters not to me.

It's not going to change the project.

We're doing 60 foot lots.

I could go either way, actually.

So I think we leave it as it is.

That at least gives them the preservation.

The problem is is we put a notice out with a specific zoning classification.

But I thought we would go with less strict zoning.

I don't know that we can though.

But we've done that before we've gone the city council has.

But that's city council.

Well, city council.

We're not.

Planning has to approve or disapprove.

That's your own.

We make a recommendation.

I developed it.

But I thought I'm not saying one way or the other.

I'm saying that I don't if if you would prefer to have 60 foot lots and not have the green space requirement associated with it, it's not going to change the development plan.

One bit.

And if there is a protection that you feel that is the appropriate protections for the neighborhood to the north, I'm perfectly comfortable with that.

See, and I thought that the city the planning commission could actually go less strict, because he's asking now saying, okay, I will go with the RS instead of the RSP, which is less strict.

I thought we could do that.

And you could still go to the city council with the RS instead of the RSP, wouldn't it?

But if we're going less strict, I don't think that's fair to the people that came looking at an RSP, which is more strict.

Right.

I well, I think I think the the definition from a green space, it's all perception issue.

It's really the issue.

Yeah.

My understanding, and and this is that the planning commission has a right to make a recommendation about any about the zoning in the way that you see fit.

Now how the council has to hear it from a public hearing standard.

Well that there's an there's an open meeting act consideration that would be a problem that I'm more worried about, not necessarily what zoning classification would be about.

And that's you know our obligation to the public, not the same.

Right, exactly.

They came with an RSP in mind and not what you want to change it to.

Go ahead.

And if I if I may.

Hold on, let me look it up real quick.

Okay, while he's looking that up, I'm just gonna say a lot of times when it when I'm considering these things, I look at it as if this is changed, and then something happens with the developer and then somebody else owns the property, what are they gonna be expected to do?

Exactly.

They need to be able to do that.

Are they gonna do are are we going to want them to do an RS or are we gonna want them to do an RSP because we want to have a percentage of that open space?

So it's got nothing to do with you, it's got to do with things happen, right?

If I it is in Grammit is in the zoning ordinance, if that helps, um an applicant, planning commission, or council may change his or her requested zoning district during a public hearing to a less dense or intended zoning.

I'm more worried about the open meeting act.

Our zoning ordinance allows for that.

But I'm just making sure we don't have any notice problems.

So I I think the question is we're caring to come.

Even if it wasn't them, if it was somebody else before us, right.

Do we want an RSP or do we want an RS?

And that is that is RSP, we're going to have the pond.

The pond it unless Garrison.

So pond's gonna be there regardless, right?

But that to be fair, and I'm not if you have an open space requirement, it doesn't say where that open space happens or how it happens, it's just required to be the open space.

All these people are want this pond.

It's gonna be there.

So it's part of the draining system.

Right, but we want green.

Right.

Oh, do you want 35 foot blocks?

RSP is a 35 yeah.

He's telling you that, but what's what you said and what it's legal is saying in the document is that it's 35 feet.

But in all due respect, he could change his mind and say, Yeah, we planned on doing that, but since you approved it, we went ahead and decided to scale it down.

No, not saying you're gonna do that, but just the reality that is that is a possibility or someone else's.

And sells it in someone else's.

And then we have that zoned into that.

You're gracious either giving us the green space, which is is one of the requirements if we look at it that way.

But also going back into the 60 foot, that's a big that's a big deal.

I mean, to me, that's a big plus subject to the open meetings concern.

Yeah.

I'm so I want to and I want to make it.

Yeah, procedurally, there's no problem with that.

If that's something you want to do, that's not the concern.

And I think we're gonna be okay so long as you make a clear record that it is a less dense classification.

Then this if you choose to do that.

If you choose to do that.

To maybe solve both of the issues that that I'm hearing, because we can do this.

Do we always give you a rough time when you come in?

I don't I don't win no matter what I try to say.

I come in, I'm gonna give you the green spaces on this is where we're at.

It's okay.

Um I'll say you've done well on this one, okay?

How's that?

Okay.

I will tell you then we would I'm willing to request a less dense zoning than we were than we asked for and ask that you approve an RS, and I will tell you that we will bring back the same green spaces that I other would in a plat associated with this.

Um have a pretty fence.

I don't I don't talk about fencing adjoining detention facilities because that is a complicated matter that I don't know.

Let me ask you one win that's let me ask you one more question then.

Let me ask every question.

Let me ask you one more question.

Would it have been better to come into a PUD or would that not have worked for you at all?

I'm not saying no, I'm not saying to go back and do that.

We had a very passionate conversation about it was a PUD last time, and I will go for straight zoning any time I can make it as simple as we can.

Yep, I I understand.

Just being uh and that's not to from a protection standpoint.

This one we put a request in because I thought green space was gonna be a big part of the conversation.

Yeah, um and I could tell you I'm bringing a platform, but I you're not wrong.

Yeah.

That I I I know in this case I'm very comfortable that I'm gonna be able to deliver, but you should think that way.

And so if an RS zoning um is more comfortable, which I can understand in places why it would be, and I'm telling you, you're not gonna get a difference in the green space.

Right.

I I'm happy making that request and and uh of the planning commission and requesting you because I'm talking about 60 foot lots, maybe 50 versus 35.

That doesn't mean the house is gonna be any bigger.

No, I know.

I will say that.

Yeah.

Now I have a question.

If we do change it to RS and go to the less lesser of the two, then does the protection of that pond go away if they sell the property.

They don't they do not um develop it like they think they are, and they sell the property and someone else comes in.

Well, then the corps may consider that a wetland now, has they done that?

They haven't.

If not, it's disconnected.

Okay.

Um there the there is a protections for the pond and that it's in a detention easement that is maintained.

Now, they can come in and vacate a detention easement, but that's a public hearing, and it's a whole nother conversation.

So I it's as protected as something can be that isn't contained and owned.

Like, I mean, that this is the problem that we always have.

If you want it to be that, then you need to own it, or else someone else can go in and change it.

And I live in that world too.

Someone else can buy that and vacate it.

But that's I I am very confident that it is that's not where we're going because they're spending a lot of money heading not that direction right now.

Right.

So this is this is literally the only reason we haven't applied for it is because I needed to get past this process.

So I guess we would actually never approve of the plat and let you appeal it if you wanted to, if you tried to fill in the pond.

And that's not gonna happen.

Right.

So that that is a course.

We still have control.

This is not a difficult effort to do what you're asking to do.

Okay.

I I do think that that Commissioner Payne, that is a way that we can I can tell you you're still going to get the green space that you're worried about and that you're concerned about, and there are the protections that you guys have rightly been concerned about related to a smaller lot density being in place sometime in the future.

So I'm happy to request going to RS.

But you're proving to be a role modeling back and offer the strict dense area and going less dense.

That's I mean, we don't see that very well.

That's all you're doing.

That's what I'm doing everywhere, apparently now.

So we'll talk about this again in a couple weeks.

So it's gonna be straight with you.

That's where we're at.

Well, it's always good to see you.

How's that?

So you're officially requesting it to be changed to an RS.

That request of an okay zoning in little of that.

Anybody have a other discussion?

So all we're doing is just replacing the RSP with RS is what we're doing.

And is this a zoning issue tonight?

So we're not talking about any dimensional standards and we did, but not for the zoning change itself.

So all that'll be addressed later.

Yeah, and I'd like the motion to say that it's RS and that it's a less dense classification.

Yeah, it sounds good.

Okay.

Any other discussion?

Well, I really appreciate you trying to work with us, Mr.

Betcham.

I say try and I mean really working with us.

Sometimes it feels we feel like we pick, or I feel like we're picking on you, but we're not.

I'd like to go ahead and uh I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve BAZ 002651-2026 from AG to RS the less dense, the less dense classification classification.

I'll second the motion.

All right, have motion second a roll call vote.

Mindy Payne, yes, Jonathan Townsend.

Yes, J Lee Klempa, yes, Jason Cohen.

Yes, Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

Now that'll go before the city council also, uh, right here at 6 30 at April 7th.

So you'll get a chance to hear this again if you want.

And I I'm not sure.

I hope you caught all that what we discussed, but actually the lots that he's proposing now are going to be bigger than what was originally we thought was going to be presented to us.

So the pond and all that, he's pretty much assuring us it's going to leave it, it's gonna stay like it is, other than a little cleanup around the area.

So anyway, you have you have a chance again to talk at April 7th, right here at 6 30.

And if you have any questions, reach out to City.

And this we don't quite understand it all.

Make sure you sign up to speak if you want to speak to, just like you did today.

Yep, and that one you definitely have to come early to to sign up.

I think it's a yellow form for the city council.

But if I may, I'd just like to show you the picture of the well, we kind of closed it now.

I mean, I wish you would have shown us earlier, but it's kind of late now.

All right, but thank you.

But it's something you could show the city staff in preparation for the next meeting.

And city council.

Yeah, city council, yeah, not next week.

But just try to show the staff before so they know what you're gonna show.

And keep in mind for those that are unfamiliar with the process, there's a lot of checks and balances that have to be done along the way as well.

That also includes the plat coming before the commission for review and approval.

So uh we will make sure that we hold his feet to the fire uh for the lack of a better term.

Okay.

I know that I know that he's like he's like all he's like my butt's on fire right now.

I know I know this item's over for tonight, but we I think we address a lot of your concerns too on the views and stuff like that and size lots and things, so and the drainage and real water district, give them a call.

So all right, next item on the agenda is item number seven appeals.

We have none item number eight, general commission business.

We have done item number nine, remarks, inquiries, comments.

Do we have any?

Not from staff.

I just I just want to say to the to the four who spoke representing um their neighborhood this evening.

I thought you all were just so fantastic.

I I haven't in a while seen a neighborhood represent it in such a kind way, uh, and and communicate it your needs so clearly.

You were open to uh whatever it was that was going to be said today.

You know, mines weren't necessarily made up already, and I could just feel that even from you know three or four rows back.

So to your neighborhood and and and the group that you uh represent.

Kudos to you, and I I wouldn't mind being in your neighborhood because of the way you guys represent it tonight.

So it sounds like you might never know what what the next home is, huh?

Right.

But you guys represent it really well, and and like I say, we we I've seen a lot in just a few years, and the way you guys did it tonight.

Kudos to you.

That's all I wanted to say.

Yeah, thank y'all for coming.

Thank you.

Thanks.

All right, so any other remarks, inquiries?

Did you have something, Jay?

Not after staff.

Okay, well, I did have something, and I guess maybe I caused the stink the other day.

I don't know, but you did.

I did.

I kind of figured I might, but the city council was looking at the general guidelines, I guess, on speaking before the city council, and uh when you sign up to speak, the forums sign up speak.

So I made a cut I had a few comments, but I didn't notice it.

I didn't see the forms until I'd forgotten until like four o'clock that at the Tuesday before the city council.

So I hurry up and marked up stuff and I sent some information to Rocky and Councilor Ford.

And I know they didn't have a chance to talk to them, and plus I didn't give detail, I just gotta hurry up text up.

So they were gracious enough to table it to their next hearing, uh next meeting 24th of March.

And I I had thought that they were gonna it was they wanted us that it was gonna come before the planning commission to look at the forms to review and then send that and discuss and send that on the city council, but it was not on the agenda.

Did you know anything about that, Graham?

No, it since it wasn't put on the agenda, it wasn't something that really we can do anything about at the time being.

But the city attorney I thought had looked at it and made some comments.

Well, what I'd like to do is I I I saw that one on agenda, so I kind of mark up stuff, so can I just hand it off to you?

Well, we'll deal with that and place it on for official action at some point.

Did you send didn't you send this to Trevor and Rocky?

What you had marked up?

By text real quick.

Oh, I mean an actual document with proposed changes.

I don't think I did.

No, I don't think I did.

Go ahead and email it to them.

Well, that's something we can meet with separately and whatever final changes we can distribute to everybody.

I know the city manager went, I think, clear it up March 24th, so I didn't want to leave in, you know, I didn't want to drag my feet in the wagon.

So you know I had thought we were gonna well let me let me say this.

They they do have uh, you know, you got the general guidelines that tell you how to behave and all that other stuff, and you know talk talk in accordance with this and stuff.

Then you have the sign up forms, whether you're gonna talk in support or whether in favor opposition, those kind of forms, these forms right here.

Yeah, so it also we have a for the forum to sign up to speak before the planning commission.

Remember two years ago I brought up a deal about we ought to add that to our item on the agenda for opportunities for people to address the planning commission that's items that's not that's not on the agenda.

And I think Amanda was going to look at that, but she never did.

She's gone, of course.

So before they when they adopt that, that's fine, but and people see that form, we ought to add that to our agenda as an item.

Yeah, every time business item.

So if you look at the city council agenda, basically anybody from Broken Arrow citizen, whatever, or I guess anybody technically, not necessarily citizen, can show up and talk about anything they want.

Like a new business item.

When it's not even a new business.

Well, yeah, but I mean it's but they get three minutes, and the the caveat is placed on the agenda that no action can be put can be taken on whatever they want to talk about.

But I mean we have people come and talk about random fees.

Well, plus it can't be related to any item on the agenda.

That's generally they will ask you like if you're here to speak on a specific agenda item, they'll place that on the yeah, under the well.

My point was they have that form also, and it's it's on here, it checks.

Uh you'll see it.

It says uh well, maybe it's on the new form.

But they have that on there, but we don't have that item on the agenda, so we need to talk about it and add that item, even if nobody ever comes in and talk, but we'll have it on there to meet their form that they have.

And plus we used to in our bylaws, remember we had the standard uh agenda laid out, the format that needs to be put in the bylaws too.

Well, it's probably I'm just gonna make an observation.

It's probably not on this form for us because it's not on our agenda.

Probably a different form that they use for seeing it.

Well, let me let me just really if you let me just read.

Here's the here's the form request appear before the board or commission.

And that's us, the commission, the planning commission.

So it has it on there.

It has I wish to speak in favor of this full item, I wish to speak in opposition this form, and I do not wish to speak.

But then now it has a blocked citizens opportunity to speak.

Okay.

And that's when it goes in there talking about this item uh is available to citizens to speak on any subject, etc.

And the change I want to make on that, then I'm gonna turn over to or whoever at Rocky, whoever I need to give it, or Jane.

I think for us it ought to say citizens may speak on matters not on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of the board commission.

In other words, we don't need to hear people talk about the water pressures and stuff like that that are coming in.

That's not related to us.

They need to know that.

Plus, I want to add the three-minute time limit on this form here that they sign up to speak.

So it's no big deal.

And I don't want to create a showstopper, but wouldn't you know I thought that is on this form then?

Right.

But we don't have an item on the agenda.

I don't know when we would put this way.

If it's not an item on the agenda for opportunity for a citizen to speak, when would they come in and talk?

When would we let them come in?

It would it you can put it any item any any place on the agenda you want to.

No, I mean if it wasn't on the agenda.

That's why we would add that if you really wanted to.

I think we should.

But if other forms if that doesn't make it, I would put that under general commission business or even just remarks.

That's what I would do.

Wherever you guys want legal, wherever you want to tell you, wherever you tell us you want to put it.

I mean, those are all small changes.

I don't see any problem with it.

It's just a good question.

I mean, they're coming in to talk about whatever, and nothing we can do, no action, so let them talk and well and like you've pointed out, we're you're a recommending body, so I I think if they really want action on something, they're probably gonna go to their elected city council.

And all you would have to do on number nine is just put commission, uh you could put citizens, commission, and staff, period.

Well, city council has like a separate item, and they just blow right.

Citizens opportunity.

It's it's it's on there.

So whichever way.

So on our form also, it talks about so.

Do you represent the city clerk, Graham?

Is that are you actually representing the city when somebody brings in documents that they want the planning commission to consider and they say it turns you turn into the city clerk at the meeting?

Are you do you write the case?

The city clerk just brings us whenever there's a legal question.

The city clerk knows what to do with certain documents.

But if somebody walks in and they want to turn in documents before the meeting to talk about us and before the planning commission, it says the provide it to the city uh city clerk.

Well, who here is the city clerk?

The city clerk usually gives it to the whomever before the meeting.

Who is that person?

There's like three people in office, three or four people.

So it could be any one of those.

So they need to when they come in, they need to go there before they come to our meeting then.

Yeah, well they have to turn it in before noon.

Yeah.

Before noon?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, because they leave at five and the meetings at 5 30.

So okay, because see I read I read the form.

It says return return this form and eight copies of any supporting materials to the city clerk at least five minutes before the start of the meeting you are attending.

So I'm just wondering who's the city clerk.

I'm not trying to cause trouble, just trying to make it right and educate myself.

And and I wasn't giving you rough time.

I didn't know if you actually represent the city clerk in the meetings.

Well, we represent the city, the city clerk's uh city officials, so technically yes, but the city clerk just for our sole documents just to receive documents.

I mean okay.

Well, I I have a few other couple others on here.

I will just I will forward this on to you want you want to send it to you, Jane?

So what we recommend if you have changes to those, you know recommended.

Yeah, recommended.

Just mark those up, scan it, distribute it to whomever, be it Rocky, Jane or myself.

I got yeah, I will.

And that way we can kind of have a look at it and you know, send it to whomever it needs to go to because I'm sure city management will want to have a look at that too.

So well, I feel like I owe them something after they they held up that table that at the last city council meeting about me having some comments.

I thought, you know, I thought I better get something to them.

I thought we were gonna each get a for the forums to look at review in the agenda and then talk about it.

So I will get them well.

Any final changes we can put on that agenda and just make it a quick agenda item.

But for the for the next meeting, I think we ought to bring up the item, bring it up that we're gonna put it in the bylaws and in the agenda on the agenda every time.

Yeah, and we'll do that for whatever changes we recommend to make it easy on everybody.

Sounds good.

Anything else?

All right.

Item number 10 adjournment.

I'll make a motion to adjourn.

Second, have a motion second roll call vote.

Mindy Payne, yes.

Jonathan Townsend?

Yes.

J.

Lee Clempa, yes.

Jason Cohen.

Yes, Robert Gorenson.

Yes.

Sorry, I was late, boss.

I don't like denying my own.