All right, we are going to call this meeting to order.

The Board of Adjustment is a seven member board, which has the power to hear requests for variances and special exceptions.

The concurring vote of two-thirds of the full membership is necessary for approval of any action by the board.

A seven member board requires five votes, a six-member board requires five votes, and a five-member board requires five votes.

In accordance with Robert's rules of order, we require a motion to approve a request before the request can be debated.

As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive.

The board under specific powers granted it by the state shall authorize variances from the zoning requirements where special conditions existing on the land will result in unnecessary hardship for the applicant.

Financial disadvantage to the property owner shall not constitute proof of unnecessary hardship.

With that, Ryan, can you call a roll?

Roll is noted with all present.

Thank you.

And we need uh approval of the agenda.

Is there a motion and a second to approve the agenda?

So move so all in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Uh we need a motion to approve the minutes.

So moved, taken.

Second.

Um discussion on the minutes.

Should have said that about the agenda as well.

Sorry.

Okay, all in favor of approving the minutes, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

All right, we'll move on to item four, which is uh open forum.

Uh at this time, if any member of the public may make a brief announcement or invitation or request time on the agenda for an item that is not listed.

All right, seeing none, we'll move on to uh item five A Variance.

Notices hereby given that Chris Weibel has made a request for a variance on lot twenty-nine of Ridger River Ridge Edition, also known as 3334 Aspen Avenue.

The request is for a reduced side yard setback.

The minimum required side yard setback in the joint jurisdiction residence JJR1B single family district is eight feet.

Uh Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The first item is a variance for a reduced side yard setback at 334 Aspen Avenue.

The applicant has uh Chris Weibold, the property owner.

Uh this is located in the joint jurisdiction R1B single family district.

Request is for reduced side yard setback at a minimum of five feet three and a quarter inches.

Uh required setback in that district is eight feet.

Staff recommendation on the variance is denial, and the board of adjustments action would be to approve amend or deny.

The board of adjustment will uh review these variances, duty special conditions, a little of little enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship, and a variance shall not violate the spirit of the ordinance, and substantial justice may be achieved as a result of the variance.

Unique circumstances apply to the property which do not apply to other properties in the same vicinity or district.

The variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right that is substantially the same as that possessed by owners of other property in the same district.

The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship and reasonable use of the property is not permitted under the terms of this chapter.

Property in question is uh three three three four Aspen Avenue, uh shown on the map with the blue box around it.

Uh this is a proposed site plan of the garage extension, so it would be an attached garage extension to the current two-stall garage.

So it would be an attached garage extension to the current two-stall garage.

Um the orientation here, the north is on the right, so this would be it a extension of the garage on the south side of the property, be a roughly a 10-foot garage addition.

Um and with that proposed addition, you'll see on that southwest corner on the top left.

Uh, that's where the minimum uh setback requested would be the five foot three and a quarter inches.

Here is a photo of the existing home on the top, uh, along with a rendering of the requested addition on the bottom.

Uh so the addition would go on that south side on the left side of the property uh where you see a current uh area of gravel uh just to the south of the garage.

And with that, staff will end its uh report and stand for any questions.

Uh thank you.

Ryan, at this time call for a motion and second.

I'll move to approve.

Solemn.

Uh is applicant present would like to speak on this.

If you come up and state your name in resident uh city or residence.

Uh my name is Chris Weibel.

I currently reside at 3333.

Can you uh get to the microphone?

Yes, sir.

Uh my name is Chris Weibel.

I currently reside at 3334 Aspen Avenue.

Uh, the location and discussion.

Um I wanted to um note that um you know originally the uh city planning board has offered or recommended denial of the variants.

Um and my understanding that is based off of the valuation of like properties within the Riverage edition.

Um it was also based on presidents that this type of variance just hadn't been approved in the past.

Uh so we just don't have previous um approvals to to base this off of this last year.

My wife and I were lucky enough to um have a a child, and you know, we want to continue to grow into this home.

Um if anyone here has children, you know there's there's a lot of items that come with them.

Um so we're hoping to gain some storage and to to grow into this home and have the home grow with us.

Um I have done a lot of due diligence in terms of planning for the proposed addition.

Um working with Hamlin Building Center, I think we are on like this is was our fifth fifth revision, you know, keeping in mind um you know the the setback requirements, um but and uh for us to get a usable space.

We ended up you know requesting this variance to do so.

Um within the process, I also had an official um site survey completed.

Um this allowed me to have a very nice conversation with my neighbor to the south who would be adjacent um you know to the addition.

Um talking through the plan with him.

Uh he did not have any initial concerns.

I don't see him here tonight.

Um, but the main reason um there was no concerns is the the trees there.

I'm guessing people have questions.

Uh the pine trees on the south side are in fact on his side of the property line.

They're very close to the the property line itself.

Um with the design in mind, the trees can stay as is.

Um, if there's need to trim the tree or something, that would be you know the most aggressive approach we'd have to take.

Um, living in River Ridge, I've really come to enjoy the space.

Uh we have all beautiful lots, we have wonderful privacy, and it's it's nice being located outside of city limits.

Um I I'm really seeking approval because it it hurts me to think that this property is is limited in its growth due to the original placement of the structures on the property.

Um unfortunately we have uh 18 feet of setback clearance on the north side, and we have 15 and a half about on the south.

So perhaps there was a little bit of lack of foresight when the structure was originally put on the property in terms of expansion, but um that's where I'm hoping that people can um you know see that perhaps this is a a qualified uh variance.

Um again, thank you for your time.

I respect whatever decision the board uh comes to.

Yeah, thank you very much.

Um at this time we'll see if there's anyone else that would like to speak in favor of this item, and maybe the commissioners will have questions for you later.

Sure.

So you can uh go ahead and sit down.

Yeah.

Is there anyone else present that would like to speak in favor of this item?

Uh seeing none, is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition?

All right, seeing none, we'll open it up to board questions.

Ryan says I have to close the public testimony, which I will do now.

Thank you.

And open it up to board uh questions and comments.

I am unaware of any, I don't know if that would have come up in the survey potentially.

Uh might be something you want to uh run by the applicant.

Uh this was this is in the joint jurisdiction.

Um we wouldn't have a record of this plat that I'm aware of, where which is typically where we would find utilities.

I can see if we have anything on our JS, but I'm not aware of any utilities.

Any other comments or questions?

I do have a question for the applicant if if you want to come back up.

So I do see that it's graveled.

What is the space being used for right now?

Um currently it's uh River Rock there on the cell side of the house.

Um I there that's how it was when I bought it.

Um I think the previous homeowner may have parked a vehicle there.

Um I just added gravel to make it look a little nicer.

Um so really there's not any current use for it, I guess.

And you're talking about this is a garage expansion.

Uh I guess help me understand like why that part over there is needed for the garage.

You've got ample room in the back.

You're talking about expansion for your family.

Yep.

Um, just um, you know, we're an outdoor family.

Um bikes, canoes, camping equipment.

Um so the idea was that we would be able to store some of those things in the garage.

Um just just to keep things within and avoiding to have to store things, you know, off-site.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

I have a question for the applicant while he's up here.

Um it it's hard to tell from the photos, and and I didn't make it out to the property, but is there much of a grade difference in between your neighbor to the south and your property?

The question is uh about the grade difference, is that correct?

Like a drainage swale or anything between the properties.

Uh in my opinion, the the grading on the cell side there is is relatively flat.

Um typically during like a rainstorm, uh the water uh on this property flows from south to north.

Um the lowest point is on the north side of my property, so the water typically flows there between the neighbor to the north.

Okay.

And the garage expansion would be at the same grade as the existing garage as it goes out.

It wouldn't step up or or step down.

Correct.

The idea would be to mate together the the concrete pad on the same grade.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, in response to Commissioner Schmeichel's question about easements, I was able to find the plat.

Um there is no easement along the side property lines.

It's on the five foot easement along the front and rear property lines.

So no easements are in place on the side property lines.

Thanks, Mike.

Anything else?

Um I would just add that uh sympathetic to the request.

Uh I failed to see uh a real hardship here, especially given the size of the lot in general.

If there's nothing else, uh Ryan, can you call the vote?

Jameson?

No.

Spear?

No.

Henrik?

No.

Braun.

No.

Letty.

No.

Solemn no.

Aiken?

No.

The motion fails.

Yeah, I read that.

And then ask for you to introduce it.

Yep.

And then there's a motion.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Okay.

Uh we'll move on to item 6B.

Which is a rezone request.

Notices hereby given that Access Holdings LLC has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings in Brookings County, South Dakota.

Block one of Mills Third Edition in the Northwest Quarter, excluding H1 and H2 thereof, Section 6-109-49.

The request is to rezone the above described real estate from a residential R3A apartments, mobile homes, manufactured housing district to a business B2 district.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh this first planning commission item is a petition to rezone block one of Mills third edition.

Okay.

Um sorry, we're going to uh start by convening as a city planning commission.

I'll call this uh meeting to order as a planning commission.

Welcome those in attendance.

Uh the city planning commission is a nine-member commission whose function is it is to make recommendations of the city commission regarding requests for land use classification changes, subdivision plats, conditional use permits, zoning ordinance amendments, and other matters.

The commission makes their recommendations based upon the adopted comprehensive plan for the physical development of the city of Brookings and the surrounding area.

As a matter of policy, all motions are made in the positive.

After a motion is moved and seconded, it is open for debate.

Those supporting the motion shall in turn give their reasons.

Those opposing the motion shall then offer their reasons after everyone is given a chance to be heard.

The commission shall review the testimony and information presented, make findings of fact and forward their recommendations to the city commission.

And we'll go back to Ryan introducing the topic.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

This petition to rezone is uh being applied for by the uh property owner access holdings LOC.

Uh the property is again block one, mills third edition, currently zoned, R3A uh residence, multifamily and manufactured housing.

The petition is to rezone this to B2, which is our general business district.

Uh the property is located um in an area that um is a future land use map of urban high intensity, which would support the B2 zoning district.

The staff recommendation is to approve.

And that action would be a recommendation that's made to the city council.

Uh the property in question is located just uh southwest of the 20th Street and Interstate 29 interchange, the area outlined in yellow.

Uh the current zoning map shows this uh in currently in a R3A zoning district.

Uh there is um R1A zoning just to the north across 20th Street South, the golf course, uh and there is a j adjacent business zoning to the west at B3 uh at the corner of 20th Street and 22nd Avenue.

The future land use map shows the area um within that red circle.

It does show in the urban high area uh for those commission members that were here a year or so ago.

This was one of our areas that we examined on a large group of areas along 20th Street South, uh, where we did change this area from open space and residential to that urban high, uh, which does now support this business B2 district, and that would end staff's report and we'll stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

Uh entertain a motion in a second.

So moved.

Second.

All right, thank you.

Uh with that, the applicant would like to uh introduce the topic themselves, I'd be appreciated.

Uh good evening, Mr.

Chair, uh members planning commission.

Um my name is Jacob Mills, representing Access Holdings.

Um happy to answer any questions.

Uh the brief intro that I would just give on this is uh we recently annexed this property about a month or two ago, and and this is sort of just a continuation of that process.

Um we're largely in the process of exploring uh infrastructure planning uh because this area lacks uh public sewer utilities, which is part of why some of this is necessary.

So there's no eminent project that we're planning.

Uh just seemed like a good time to do it, and the zoning uh seemed appropriate to what the plan was, but happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else in attendance that would like to speak in favor?

Good evening.

My name is Nancy Stewart, and um I live out at Western Estates and am on this list of homes.

And um I just wanted to double check because that those homes are actually excluded from this.

Is that correct?

Am I understanding that right that you're only talking about the yellow area?

That is correct.

Just the the yellow area.

Um none of the homes within the uh Western estates would be included in any rezone area.

Okay, good.

And then because I noticed on that other map you have the red circle of that is that this is just kind of a loose area of uh so the actual rezone areas.

Kind of you follow my cursor here.

That area would be the rezone, uh, but it's within what I called uh the urban high-intensity future land use.

That's uh uh part of our comprehensive plan, the city of Brooklyn's comprehensive plan, but that would not um impact the petition to rezone here.

It is just that uh yellow box.

Correct, currently.

Okay, so we will not be asked to move in the near future, like the next year or so or the property won't your your property would not be rezoned with this rezoning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to this?

Okay, seeing none we'll close the public testimony and open it up to board questions and comments.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question to Jacob.

I drive by this lot every day, and and I'm wondering access to this piece of property.

Would that be on the service road?

Which the opening is further to the west, or or would you somewhere along on making another I call it a curb cut or approach off 20th Street South?

Uh would love for a curb cut that's controlled by the DOT and through the interchange process.

Um we we lost the access that we had uh because there used to be an access kind of in the north uh west corner of this property, but there's a minimum distance from uh turning lane or something like that.

It's like 550 feet from the trailing edge of the turning lane.

So to my understanding, I think we could apply for uh an access, um, but that would be controlled by the DOT, and I would assume we would be denied.

So we do have uh an access agreement uh recorded uh on that service road that crosses from the um 20th over on whatever that uh horseshoe bend or whatever that road is I forget what it's called.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

Okay, seeing none, we'll call the vote.

Michael, yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Jameson, yes.

Spear?

Yes.

Heinrik?

Yes.

Ron?

Yes.

Luddy, yes.

Solemn Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Motion passes.

All right, thank you.

We'll move on to item six B, a rezone request.

Um notices hereby given that legacy storage condos LLC has submitted a petition to rezone the following described real estate in the city of Brookings in Brookings County, South Dakota.

Lot one of Clark Second Edition.

The request is to rezone the above described real estate from an agricultural district district to an industrial I-1 light district.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

The next item is another rezone.

Uh, this of lot one of Clark Second Edition.

The applicant is legacy storage conos LLC.

The current zoning is AG and the proposed zoning is I-1 light industrial.

The future land use map for this area is classified as a business parkslash light industry, which would support the I1 Light Industrial Zoning District.

Staff's recommendation is to approve.

Planning Commission's action would be to approve, amend, or deny, and that would be a recommendation made to the city council.

The property in question here is outlined in blue.

It's just east of 34th Avenue, east of the Dakota Bank Center, north of US Highway 14.

The current zoning map shows this as joint jurisdiction ag.

It was recently annexed in, so would now come with the city's ag zoning district.

Adjacent properties to the west are zoned I1 industrial along 34th Avenue.

But there is uh compatible zoning in proximity with the I1 and B3 to the east and south.

Uh here is the future land use map, which does show this area within that business park future landers category.

And staff will stand for any questions.

Thank you, Ryan.

Entertain a motion in a second.

So moved.

Second.

All right, we'll open public testimony if the applicant is here like to address commission.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Commission members.

Uh, my name is Justin Booker with Banner Associates representing the developer.

Um I think Ryan covered pretty much everything that we wanted to express to the commission, so I I guess I can stand for any questions.

Thank you.

Uh I don't think this is going to be relevant.

Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor or opposition to this to this item?

Okay.

Well, in that case, we'll close public testimony as well stay for a second and open to uh board questions or comments.

All right, seeing none, uh Ryan, can you call the vote?

Spear.

Yes.

Henrik.

Yes.

Ron?

Yes.

Luddy.

Yes.

Solem.

Yes.

Aiken?

Yes.

Schmeichel?

Yes.

Jameson?

Yes.

Limmer?

Yes.

Motion passes.

Move on to item 6C, amendments to Section 94-362 home occupations.

Ryan, can you introduce the topic?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, these next two items are some uh discussion items on proposed ordinance changes, ordinance amendments.

Uh the first one that we'll cover are a series of on changes that we are proposing to the home occupations section of city ordinance.

Um we've had a lot of requests come through the planning commission and city council related to home occupations, uh, specifically quite a few that were for major home occupations that maybe didn't need to necessarily go through those steps.

So we took uh look at our home occupation ordinance and try to figure out if there's a better way to uh classify or organize or treat home occupations.

Uh so uh the primary there's a couple primary changes that were made here.

One uh we did propose a new type of home occupation.

Previously we had minor home occupations and major home occupations.

Um we did add what's called a no impact home occupation, and I'll go through all this in detail, but just kind of want to summarize um a couple of the major changes.

We added the no home occupation or the no in no impact home occupation.

Uh we did a little reorganization and we did um remove all of the kind of itemizing of types of actual home occupations that were kind of outdated and hard to manage.

You know, we get new types of home occupations with all the work from home and um remote working.

Uh so there's kind of the major changes.

But I'll walk through the changes kind of line by line, and uh these are for discussion.

Tonight we're not doing a a hearing and we're not voting on it, so please stop us at any time with discussion or questions.

It's just a discussion item.

Uh so in the uh the description of the home occupations, um, made no changes in that first paragraph until the bottom where we did add in the necess the necessity to categorize home occupations as no impact home occupations, minor home occupations, and major home occupations.

We did add a line at the end that all home occupations, whether they're no impact, minor home or major home, um, are not transferable to subsequent property owners or applicants.

That's something that we had been adding on as a condition on quite a few of our major home occupations, like the in-home hair salons or the recent gunsmithing home occupations, wood shops, those sorts of things.

We're basically adding that condition on to most of them, so why not just add it as a condition for all home occupations, non-transferable?

Um we added a section subsection B as no impact home occupation.

A no impact home occupation uh would not require a permit.

It's basically an allowable by right um home occupation uh and shall be allowed upon a premises provided that the occupation complies with the following.

One, such home occupation is entirely computer and or internet based.

Two, such home occupation does not cause on-street parking or substantial substantial increase in traffic in the neighborhood.

Three, such home occupation does not include on-site sales of merchandise or on-site training.

Four, such home occupation does not include any of the prohibited activities included in section 9432H, which we'll look at that later.

Um that is a new section that we're kind of doing some reorganization in.

Any questions on the the no impact section?

See, Ryan, sure.

I have go ahead.

You sure, Roger?

Yeah, you made no you made noise first.

Very good.

Um you mentioned um in B2 substantial increase in traffic in uh neighborhood.

Should sub how do you define substantial?

Right now we don't have a definition or way to uh I guess monitor that, so that'd be a good question.

We don't have you know a percent increase or a number increase.

Um and this would be uh you know, a buy right um allowance, so we wouldn't have a permit necessarily on any of these to be able to go out and monitor that, so that is a good question.

We may not uh necessarily know if these are uh occurring to know if there is an increase.

Before Roger goes, that follow up to that because that was one of my questions is if we're saying that they don't need a permit, they basically can do this, it's computer work.

Then why even call out increase in traffic that is a a great question.

I mean, we should want to make sure that uh these are indeed no impact home occupations, so um, I guess we're we're saying it does not cause on-street parking or substantial increase in traffic.

I just I uh it seems like an oxymoron Yeah, it's kind of more reiterating the the idea that this would be a no impact.

We can certainly look at um removing that if that's something the planning commission would like to clean up at this point.

Mr.

Chairman, I I just go on top of that.

If we have no mechanism to enforce it, I would say remove it.

I mean, if we don't have it I'm in favor of most of things in government.

If you don't have a way of enforcing it, there it shouldn't be in the ordinance.

That's just my opinion.

And that would apply to number two.

The traffic, yeah.

Okay.

Because this, if I'm reading this, I'm going, well, maybe I can increase the traffic a little bit, but just not substantially.

We'll take a look at removing that.

The question I would have is is it just removing the traffic substantial traffic and leaving the no-on-street parking thing?

Okay.

Um vehicle trips per day or something, is what's associated with it.

So if you start to see that a particular residents, it's more of a complaint basis.

But if they come in and they're asking questions, like, oh yeah, I can comply with all these things, and then all of a sudden that provision isn't in there, and all of a sudden we're starting to see that one house is generating 20 or 25 trips per day.

We may have to look into it further to see, but I'm fine with removing the traffic portion as long as we keep the on-street parking.

I think in general um looking at updating these home occupations was necessary because technology has changed how business is conducted.

Um in addition, I think the old standards were based a lot upon more delivery vehicles going into neighborhoods and delivering products to a house, then that would then take it out for distribution, but anymore with online shopping and I mean just yesterday I had two FedEx trucks on my residential street passing each other, and just there's a substantial traffic that's generated just with the way shopping patterns happen these days.

So I have a question.

Um, if there were a business that was mostly 90% of it was um computer internet, say it's somebody who is designing some sort of a pamphlet for someone, but then this the client has to come and pick it up, and all they do is come and pick it up.

Would that be a no impact?

Would that be a low impact?

I believe that would uh fit within the minor home occupation uh section we would which would get to next, and it would still be an administrative approved permit, um, but it but it would uh not fit within the no impact.

So section three.

Um I guess that's more discussing sales, but we will get into that on the minor home occupation.

So another questions on the no impact, or I will move on to the minor home occupation changes.

Uh so minor home occupation.

Um this one would still require a zoning and use permit, a ZERP.

Uh it's just uh an administrative review of their application for home occupation, and as long as I'd meet the criteria, they pay their uh permit fee and and get a permit without having to go through the planning commission city council.

Uh so the occupation must be conducted entirely within the principal or accessory building.

Previously, we did not allow it to be within an accessory building, and that was one that kind of wasn't automatic, it moved them on into a major home occupation.

Recently we had, I think, um, I know we had a wood shopping example and a gunsmithing example that they did in their garage, and so it kicked them into the major home occupation.

So we would uh in this proposed changes allow the minor home occupation to also occur in the accessory building.

Um the occupation is clearly incidental and secondary to the principal use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes.

We did remove that item there.

Um we added below uh no advertising or display signs shall be permitted other than a nameplate attached to the dwelling.

The nameplate should not be illuminated and shall be more than one square foot in area.

No off-premise sign shall be used.

Uh that's consistent with um signage that would be allowed in the residential uh district, although I think it's slightly slightly less than would be allowed in the residential district.

I think currently they would be allowed two square feet for like a um a single family home.

Uh number five, no external alterations are permitted except for a separate entrance located on the side or rear of the dwelling, provided it maintains residential character, complies with building codes, and does not create a retail appearance.

Uh we remove there shall be no extra display, storage, or other exterior indication of home occupations that actually will get moved to that uh 94 392 H that I mentioned above.

It's part of our reorganization.

Uh number seven, um removed and moved into that um 392Hox explosive flammable combustible that is moved to another area.

Um any process that causes offensive dust odors, noise glare uh removed but added on to a later section.

We'll get to that.

Uh the occupation shall not generate additional pedestrian or vehicular traffic beyond that normal to the district in which it is located.

Uh we removed nor additional vehicular traffic, vehicular parking in the neighborhood and added um any need for parking generated by such use shall be met on the same lot containing the customary home occupation and not within the required front yard.

Number eight.

Shall be by appointment only and only one client may be present at a time.

So Commissioner Spear, that's I think where your question would come into play.

So if they did have somebody come to pick something up, they could do that under the minor home occupation, but they would need that minor home occupation permit to do that type of activity.

Number nine, uh we removed no on site sales of merchandise and replaced it with only incidental sales are permitted as part of a home occupation.

Incidental sales must be subordinate to the primary business and comply with the following.

A the primary activity is a service or production, not retail.

Sales occur only by appointment or as part of the service.

Items sold are directly related to the home occupation.

So for you know, a hair salon they can have limited number of hair products, but not have their entire garage full of hair products on like a wholesale uh level.

Um D online or mail order sales are allowed if no bulk storage occurs and no retail storefront is established.

Uh and lastly, number 10, such home occupation does not include any of the prohibited activities included in 94 392 H.

So again, those uh items that we removed like the toxic and offensive stuff.

Those get removed above, but then added in that 90 uh 392H.

Uh we did remove all of the itemized activities that would have been considered minor home occupation.

So the um tutoring, counseling, mail order, all that we removed removed all that, and if they meet those requirements, a minor home occupation is a minor home occupation, regardless of what the business is.

Any questions on the minor home occupation changes?

Um I have a couple.

Um the first would be for number four for the signs.

Um I think it mentions later something about the hours, you know, between 6 a.m.

and 9 p.m.

or something, and then maybe that's just listed under the major occupation.

But the point is we live in a state where it's currently dark outside right now.

So should there be some opportunity to allow a little bit of lighting just to make sure that whatever client may be visiting has some proper wayfinding.

So we have hours of operation mentioned in that new section uh 94 392 H, the prohibited occupation activities.

Uh here it does say employees, clients, customers, or activity that would be visible to adjacent neighbors between the hours of 9 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

So I guess the hour the allowable hours operation would be between um 6 a.m.

and 9 p.m.

Anything beyond that wouldn't be does that answer the question?

Well, yeah, but like right now you'd have between 5 p.m.

and 9 p.m.

of night time.

Yep.

Of theoretically, yep.

So home occupation could still do their business from now until 9 p.m.

I think so.

I'm asking about me.

Having a some type of signage that can be lit or can be whatever to allow people to be able to see it when they're trying to find said place.

So the question is about the signage, not the hours of operation.

I don't know.

I think specifically about a lit sign.

I think if I may speak uh chair, is one of the things to keep in consideration is this is a residential neighborhood, and we don't typically don't allow lighting of signs in a residential neighborhood.

But you're required to have some type of you're not required to have a signed.

Like a house number that should be significantly lit.

Correct.

But you can have like a light above a house number.

So it can be illuminated, it just can't be self-illuminated.

Is that the question?

You're trying to do that.

You can have a light pointed at a sign, you just can't have it be.

That might be something to clarify in our in our language here.

You know, I think the intent was no like digital signs, no internal illumination, electronics, whatever thing.

Yeah.

No offense to the electronics, but yeah.

Um so that would just be the question is just making sure that there is sufficient lighting for like wayfinding and safety.

Yeah.

Um maybe just the distinction of it being illuminated versus self-illuminated, i.e.

LED or whatever.

Neon.

Although neon signs would be kind of cool, right?

And maybe limit it to business hours.

Yeah.

And then the other question that I have is just, yeah, that maybe we need like a definition of what defines bulk storage.

That would be uh 9D online or mail order sales are allowed if no bulk storage occurs.

So the question is on the um just what defines bulk.

Yeah.

Like I said, the kind of the example would be, you know, a reasonable amount of product on hand for displaying it and selling it like in a hair salon, um, but not taking up an entire garage or accessory building with a warehouse of product.

We don't have uh a certain set amount that would fit the description of bulk, or again, really um many ways to inspect that, but uh the idea is just to ensure that it's not uh occupying all the required parking in a garage, or they're not building an accessory structure for storage.

But no, so is the idea more of like bulk storage of a pallet sitting outside of somebody's house?

Is that uh no outdoor storage would be required or it'd be allowed.

So we wouldn't allow the outdoor storage, but it's more so um kind of reducing the amount of impact within the dwelling.

Um previously we had a square foot requirement on we still have it, does not occupy more than 500 square feet of gross floor area.

So I guess that would include the activity and storage in my mind.

So you know, if they started um storing it using their entire garage for storage space, then that counts towards their square foot of that home occupation.

So I guess that's one way we could like maybe saying the occupation and accessory storage of occupation should not exceed 500 square feet, and then you wouldn't necessarily need to say bulk storage simply because there isn't a definition and it gives somebody an opportunity to say, oh well no one case of this product or something is considered bulk.

We could add uh a section there that the occupation does not the occupation and associated storage.

Um 500 square feet.

We can look at that.

Mr.

Chair?

While we're on item D, I had a question about that one as well.

And mine, you know, I'm more read that and interpreted as trying to control online sales or mail, mayor, yeah, mail order sales.

My question was is that um is it enforceable?

Is that something that we should be trying to control with the ordinance, I guess.

Um it seems like many things that are shipped out would be shipped out from another location.

I guess I don't.

I'm just wondering what the intent is, I guess.

It's just a pretty common um business potentially to have in a home occupation setting.

Um but maintaining it or or enforcing that it does continue being just a mail order and online and and not allowing for any of the uh retail portion of that to occur out of the house.

Uh was the intent of this.

Theoretically uh online or mail order sales can happen with a no impact.

That could be a possibility.

It seems like if Commissioner Jameson was saying, if it was limited to 500 square feet, the idea of bulk is kind of irrelevant because you can only store so much stuff.

If you're a Amazon's eBay seller and you sell pens, you could have 10,000 of them.

And does that qualify as bulk?

I mean, I think you maybe don't need to make that distinction because then in major home occupations you have a lot more room, right?

So if you needed more space.

Yes, Mike.

If I may speak to this, um of the things we want to be concerned about is truck traffic that's generated in these residential areas.

So I will give you an example is we did have to um enforce on a home occupation, they weren't actually permitted as home occupation, but they were getting bulk storage.

They were having semis come into a call the residential call-de-sac.

They had lifts, they were getting pallets of material and they were rolling them up the driveway with a jack and dropping the pallets in the driveway, and then they were or they were rolling them into their garage and they were getting multiple pallets.

In that particular case, that's considered bulk storage because they're displacing the parking abilities within the residential garage.

And you typically wouldn't associate routine deliveries of a semi into a residential cul-de-sac, and they were getting pallets of materials delivered.

Um I also looked into our sign ordinance.

Right now in a residential area, no illumination is allowed on signs.

So if we're looking at lighting up a sign, that would be contrary to our sign regulations in the residential district.

Um so we do allow like lighting on the house and it can shine on the address and such.

Um in this case, I'd be careful about allowing illumination on signage because that's not typically associated with a residential area.

If somebody were to hang a neon sign in the window and say, hey, I want to put this out and it's one square foot, or you know, I I think you gotta keep in mind is they're asking for kind of an exception to a residential dwelling area to operate a business, and we're okay with it as long as they still maintain that residential feel.

And so how many people are gonna put up a sign for a business on their house and try and advertise it.

And and my guess is most people are probably going to, if they have a potential client or customer, they're gonna know the specific address or use Google.

They're not gonna be looking for a sign, they're gonna be looking for the address on their phone to get them pointed in the right direction.

I'd be a little cautious about opening up residential areas for illumination for sign purposes because that's not typically associated with a residential area.

I mean, you so I think you can get self-illuminated numbers on a house, things like that.

I think that's what I'm maybe getting at is making sure there is a distinction of a light lighting something and something having its own power source and being illuminated.

I could also see to your point about even just exterior like landscape lighting to like on a path.

Like it is dark to what you're saying, like not even to know, like, yeah, I know what the house is, but yeah, I mean, just safety, like you were saying, like landscape lighting.

I I get pizza delivery guys coming knocking on my door going, Hey, are you this house?

Like, no, the giant numbers on my house show clearly show you that it's not so like people already get confused.

So the the point I'm trying to make is it being what is the wording?

Um that it can be it can have light on it, just making the distinction that it's not self-illuminated or power operated or glowy or whatever.

Because to me, when I read it, it made me think that it's can't have a light on it either.

It's just how I read it.

As written, yeah, it would be no illumination.

We do have in our definitions different types of illumination in our sign ordinance.

So we'd want to clarify in here if preference or desire is to allow external illumination, we would have to clean up our ordinance here to uh state no internal illumination.

That that's something that the commission feels uh would be acceptable.

Right, before we move on, there was one potential addition where it talks about 500 square feet.

Correct.

So the occupation does not occupy more than 500 square feet of the gross floor area of one story.

Do we need to add or accessory building?

Since we're we're calling out that it can be either now.

That crossed my mind too.

I don't know if we would want to say or uh because accessory structures could be pretty small, so uh yeah, I think because number one says the occupation must be conducted within the principal building or accessory building.

The occupation then doesn't take more than 500 square feet, so that would be for either or both or whatever.

Either location.

Maybe we want to look at doing uh no more than 500 500 square feet of the gross floor area of uh principal and excessory structure combined potentially to that make more sense?

That does you could probably just combine those into one sentence.

All right, any other questions on the minor section?

Mr.

Chair.

I do have one more on this just as an example because it says mechanical equipment, which is not customarily or ordinarily used for household or hobby purposes is prohibited.

So is that for like a trucking company that works out of their home that parks their semi on the street?

Is that what you're thinking on that?

Is a vending machine company that has their trailer and truck with product?

Is that what that's kind of there for?

I think it's more so for actual mechanical equipment on the home itself and not necessarily related to parking.

Like if somebody added like a drive-thru window on on the side of their home, that'd be a mechanical item.

It's not customary to a household.

That's my interpretation of that, Mike.

I would agree.

It's more if you have to make um modifications to your mechanical system, whether it be for ventilation purposes, um, you know, um, so a commercial kitchen or uh or a device or mechanical device or something on the house, on or in the house.

Thank you.

All right, so the last section then uh the let's see, permit for minor.

All right, so major home occupations.

Uh changes we made here uh were less substantial, uh, more reorganization.

Uh number two, the occupation is clearly incidental to uh clearly incidental and segregated to the principal use of the dwelling for residence purposes.

That was moved to our new prohibited section uh six and seven.

There shall be no exterior display, exterior storage or other exterior indication of home occupation, except for a sign.

Seven, no occupation shall require substantial interior or external alterations or involve construction features not customary to any dwelling unit.

Uh that was moved.

Nine and ten are the toxic uh flammable explosive, uh ten is the offensive odors, dust glare, those were removed.

Um we added at a section uh seven, the home occupation may have two clients customers at any one time.

I have an example of that.

Um would be, you know, like if you do have well previously we would have required that as like a condition of like a uh hair salon.

Uh so we would continue that um treatment for any home occupations that are big become major and and have clients there's still be limited to two clients customers any one time.

No changes to eight through ten, and we added on again that reorganization item of uh prohibited uses.

We eliminated all the itemized businesses uh permit would still be required through a conditional conditional use permit.

Article five of this chapter, that's the conditional use permit uh section.

And then um as I mentioned that section of prohibited home occupations.

So the following are prohibited for all home occupations.

Two, exterior displays, exterior storage or other exterior indication of the home occupation.

Three, internal alterations or construction features not customary in a dwelling unit.

Four, toxic explosive flammable, combustible, corrosive, radioactive or other restrictive materials are prohibited.

Five, any process or activity which invol uh uh causes offensive odors, dust glare, noise, smoke, heat, or vibration detectable to the normal senses of the off the property, and any equipment or process which creates visible or audible interference and radio or television receivers.

And six, uh those hours operation, um employees, clients, customers, or activity that would be visible to adjacent neighbors between the hours of 9 p.m.

and 6 a.m.

Uh those would all be prohibited for any of the uses minor, no impact or major.

And then I guess the last item that we added, uh compliance with state and federal laws, all home occupations shall comply with applicable state and federal regulations, including but not to licensing, taxation, health and safety standards, and any industry-specific requirements.

The issuance of a permit under this section does not exempt the applicant from obtaining other permits or approvals required by law.

Uh this came up most recently with a couple of um gunsmithing businesses, uh, gun cleaning, gun fixing, um, where they are required to have their uh state and federal permits.

Um this just kind of cleans that up and applies it to all home occupations rather than adding as a condition.

Any final questions on those sections?

Sorry, Ryan, did it say did I miss anything about parking?

Parking was called out in other places in traffic?

Did I miss it in this one?

Parking is not um called out in the prohibited H there.

We just have it mentioned in other sections individually where they are.

So, like uh in the no impact.

Um we would maintain it in the no impact based off of our discussion.

That's still minor, right?

Okay.

Two on premises.

Two on premises parking spaces.

Oh, you're you're talking about you're talking major?

Yeah.

Two on premises in addition to those required for the dwelling unit that still maintains for the major.

Okay.

And then I guess where my math is working is if we say that two clients can be there at the same time, and then we call out at the end that employees.

Are we putting any number of employee count on this?

It's at the very bottom.

Uh number three.

So number three here, residents of the dwelling unit and one person who does not reside in the dwelling unit may be employed or participate in the home occupation, so be limited to two.

Well, I guess residents could be multiple residents plus one additional non-resident.

And so now if I've got an employee and two clients, somebody's got to fight for a parking spot?

So the idea of this is a home occupation, so a single family dwelling would require two spaces for the homeowners.

So those would be their parking spaces, employee parking would essentially be the homeowner.

Okay.

And then the two would be for the two clients or customers.

Okay, great.

Thank you for the clarification.

Uh my question would just be general.

Are there unintended consequences for no oversight on no impact home occupation?

Um I would point to the previous application with uh the gunsmith next to the school.

It's my understanding that if this had been adopted prior to that, that wouldn't have been administratively approved.

Is that accurate?

The one next to the school.

Right here, it's listed as rock work as an OLED.

Oh you wouldn't yeah, um, because in that case, they actually did not do any on-site training or merchandise.

That was one of the requirements is that they had to do everything off-site.

Uh so in that case, they would have had no on-site, I guess they did have on-site sales.

Um they were doing sales and employees were picking them up.

Uh there was no training on site.

So, yeah, I think that would be no impact.

So I I think with We'd have to you know look at the sales component of it.

If there is on-site sales, I believe with that business he had to do the point of sale at another licensed um distributors or sale.

He couldn't actually do them on his premise.

So you'd have to team up with another another license um retailer of firearms and do the point of sale at that location.

So if there's no on-site sales or onsite training, then that would be one that would qualify as a no impact.

Yeah, and I'm not trying to create more work or uh undue regulation, but uh it's I think worth considering maybe the city can comment on how burdensome administrative approval would be for no impact uh home occupation.

If it makes sense to allow it to be uh done without any oversight by the city.

I think we need to go back to the no impact and so um is it entirely computer or internet based?

Does it cause any on street parking?

Does it include on-site sales and it's not a prohibited activity in 392?

I mean, if it meets those, you know, I to a certain point, um, it's just like when somebody goes through our zoning ordinance and it's a permitted use, you know, they provide us the information, we review it if it meets all the criteria of a permitted use.

Um it's really not heavily regulated until you get complaints, and then we investigate it.

So like if they check the boxes and say they're doing all these things of a no impact, um, and they basically uh submit the application and it's approved, and then if there are concerns that are raised after the fact through monitoring, uh then we could go in and enforce if we observe that they're in violation of one of those things.

So maybe I misunderstood.

They a person would still have to apply.

There'd be kind of a checklist that we'd go through, they would have to check to okay, this is what we're proposing.

Does it is it computer internet based?

Yes or no.

Um are you doing you know, requiring any on-street parking?

Are you requiring uh are you having any on-site sales?

You kind of go through that checklist and answer the questions.

It's similar to like our minor major home occupation right now.

We have a checklist that they go through and they fill it out, answer the questions.

Um we'd have to do something similar for the no impact, the minor and the major.

So is there something else that could be added to this?

Just so this is purely supposed to be somebody working on a computer, basically at their own home, right?

Essentially, so I know that guy had no, I'm just gonna use this as an example because it was brought up.

He had no on-site sales or on-site training, but there was a bunch of stuff shipped there to be sold off-site.

Right?

He was receiving parts at that location, which I would say that would potentially up the traffic.

I'm just I'm just trying to think of like this, this to me, that generated probably more discussion due to the location next to the school and you know the questions that were had, and I didn't have a problem with it, but I would be a little bit concerned with that just going without and and I guess I guess I would just say if he's having if they're if they're having a bunch of stuff that's being shipped to their home that's being sold off-site, I would think that would be an impact to the neighborhood and not in the spirit of the no impact category.

In that particular case, in that example, he'd still have to get his um state and federal license requirements.

I also think that is no longer purely computer-based at that point.

Right.

That's kind of that's kind of what I was getting at.

It's not just a computer-based business.

So there it's not in the spirit of that no impact because you're having parts shipped on site that just because it's not being sold there, maybe it's maybe it's a instead of just no on-site sales or uh on-site training.

Maybe it's maybe it's a instead of just no on-site sales or uh on-site training, maybe there's a I don't know, you'd have to figure out how you would word that with the city attorney, but I would say if you're having parts shipped to your home that are being taken somewhere else and sold, that is not in the spirit of the no impact home occupation.

And that's in my opinion.

I I agree with you.

And I wonder if there is something like why are we even talking about sales?

Um is it a service that's provided?

I could see that, but I I'm having a hard time with that one because I do go back to that that conversation, and that makes me think that that could just get approved through here.

I'm just thinking about I have ADHD and way too many hobbies.

I probably get more packages than a lot of people do, even if he's you know assembling some parts or whatever, it's I don't know how to necessarily define it, but yeah, if you get to a point where you have so many packages or so many deliveries or something that you were getting complaints, then maybe revisit it.

But yeah, how many how many packages are you receiving because of a hobby or a side hustle or whatever and doesn't necessarily need to be entirely computer-based?

It's maybe just about the quantity of like, yeah, sure, I get a package of something every once in a while, but it's not freight shipments on a semi, you know.

Going back to my point, you know, I trust the judgment of the city, but if I understand this correctly, if I were to want a home occupation, I get to look at this and say, well, I don't qualify as minor.

I'm gonna I'm gonna be no impact.

I decide I'm no impact, and I don't even need to contact you, the city, right?

I would assume that that occurs currently as it is.

Yeah.

Uh we I would imagine there's many minor home occupations out there that are operating that never went through the process.

And as long as we don't receive a complaint, how do we know about it?

So it's already occurring that way.

Um can't I control that?

Uh it would probably continue as is um for these changes as well.

Okay.

And then we investigated it, and if they did meet the no impact occupation, um, we would just complete our investigation by saying, um, you're allowed to do this by right.

If it did fall under the minor home occupation requirement, we'd require them to then fill out their zoning permit to get their minor home occupation.

Would it make it more clear if under the no impact it was one such home occupation is entirely computer and or internet based, and then underneath one you did A, B, and C and put two, three, and four, change it to A, B, and C.

So you strictly have to be computer internet based for no impact, and then in addition to be computer internet based, these other three categories fall underneath that, or these other three provisions fall underneath that internet computer based, so that we don't have this confusion.

So the the example um with that, I guess we called it a gunsmith and out by the school is that would then be moved into a minor.

Yeah, I I think you're on to something.

Because that first one, I mean, if you don't meet that one, then there's no way you can meet the others.

Right.

Would that make sense to make it clear?

I think what we were trying to do is simplify the process because what we learned from COVID is how you conduct business now is entirely different, and just about every one of our staff in the city would be in violation because we work from home occasionally, and that's we're just computer.

I think of all the people that work off of just simply a laptop, whether it be in a coffee shop at home, whatnot, that they can conduct their business that don't need to go into a traditional office setting anymore.

And we're trying to allow those individuals to do what they they're already doing without a heavy permitting process.

Yeah, that answers my questions.

Okay.

Yep, thank you.

So the current idea is that somebody who works from home for a company is a home occupation.

Well, it's just to clarify, yeah, because their place of business is somewhere else, but they are working from home.

And I mean there are people that never go into an office.

Right.

But I was more I more thought of this as like I am a sole proprietor.

I own the company, the address of my company is my house.

That would be a home occupation.

We do me working for you know my current company, but just working from home, I feel like is different because my work address is yeah, somewhere else, you know.

Not necessarily because I know people that they never go to a physical address.

They have their desk, their computer, their telephone, but they don't own the company, they're not responsible, they don't have any legal requirements or whatever in terms of like they have changed the use of their home.

Now then is their place of business.

But it's not their business.

I guess an example here would be, you know, say there's say you're an online teacher, you don't own the school, but you're an online teacher, it's all completely um online.

Now if you start um offering like study sessions or work sessions where you're inviting your students to come and meet with you on office hours or something like that.

Um it's no longer completely remote or internet based.

Um but we have had people that have had to get uh um a minor home occupation permit because they simply needed to put an address to qualify for grants.

They run everything off of their computer.

But um in this particular case, we'd say it's a no impact.

We wouldn't even make them go through the ZERP process.

They're simply doing it to comply with the federal grant requirement.

I mean, I think we can move on, but I actually have questions about the I I major.

Do think COVID did change a lot of how we work, but my occupation is to my company.

And so now you probably have several houses on every block where somebody's working from home.

That's why we're trying to clean this up so we don't have to send them through a whole process.

They could do that by right.

Which seems like a given.

Yeah, I think I think the home occupation is a good thing.

So when you're defined as like you are a business owner or something, yeah, or yeah, somebody working from so is a stay-at-home mother, is that uh home occupation?

Because that's that's uh hard job to have a I think you're going over.

I know people that do not set foot in the place of business where they are technically employed.

They do not even have a location they can physically go to.

So now they have converted bedrooms to offices and have changed you know the use of their home for their occupation.

We're just trying to streamline this so that we don't mean I'm mostly just confused about like how the current unchanged situation defines that.

But I I get that there needs to be something for that, but I don't think that somebody just working from home for a company.

Somebody's a call center like that's I just want to mention that uh the county planning and zoning does start at seven o'clock, so we'll probably have to move our second discussion item on to February.

So we don't need to we only worry about getting to that last item.

So we want to wrap up the discussion on the home occupation.

So we still have still a few minutes, but we're not gonna get to that last item.

I think Mike has one final comment too when we adjourn.

Um feel free to wrap up the discussion here on home occupations, we're not gonna get to subdivision.

Um yeah, so yeah, I apologize.

I want to get back to questions that I had about the major home occupation.

Um number three, it's one person residents of the dwelling unit plus one person, whatever.

Is that one person at a time?

Or just one employee ever that can set foot?

Like one at a time.

So if so if you're you're if you have the number of residents in a dwelling, so if it's a family of three, you know, it's a family business and all three of them work in the business, and then they bring in they can bring in one at any time that does not reside in the in the dwelling unit.

So if their family grows to four, they could have five employees, or what I'm what I'm more getting at is me as a designer, if I wanted if or needed a uh uh uh intern.

But one intern was only available on Tuesdays and Thursdays, but there was another intern available on Thursdays and Fridays, or Tuesdays and Fridays, whatever to where there was never more than one at one time, but there were technically two employees.

It's one employee um at a time, I think if as long as they're not stepping foot in the home.

Okay, probably never going to know uh the difference.

Um I think the intent is that it's the employees that are in the dwelling.

So the family, and if you had one intern come in physically, um and then that changed from Tuesday to Thursday, as long as there's one intern.

I think that would probably be just fine.

Both couldn't come in, they both couldn't come out at the same time.

Yep, and then I think we'd probably need to have more discussion on that because I would disagree because I certainly don't want a landscape company that's got 20 employees, and you're allowed to have 20 different people come at different times of the day to the house, because that's not typical with a residential setting.

So I think we have to probably clarify that and and make a determination on that because we still need to keep in mind the primary purpose is a residential structure for residential living, and you've got residential neighbors, and that the commercial business is completely secondary, and so I think we need to make sure we're protecting the integrity of residential neighborhoods, but still allowing individuals to work from their homes, but without you know creating a negative impact into that residential setting.

So major home occupation excuse me.

Major home occupation would still come to this board though for approval, right?

So we'd be looking at all those things through a conditional use process.

Yes, yeah.

So it's not like it'd be administrative.

So I mean, do you have to have the language absolutely airtight on it?

I guess is yeah, because another question was going to be regarding the parking.

If somebody came in with what would be otherwise considered a major home occupation, but they had in some way, shape or form a way to show that they don't have any need for parking.

Uh do they still have to have two parking spaces for a major hoccupation?

They would need to have they would need to be prove on their site plan that they have two off-street parking spaces in addition to the parking spaces required for the residential dwelling.

They would need to confirm that on their site plan.

If they can't, I guess they could pursue the route of conditional use and variance to the parking requirements, which now that the planning commission acts as the board of adjustment, you would see all of that in a previous world when they were two separate boards.

We ran into that quite a bit where they would come and show a site plan saying they meet all the requirements for conditional use, get approved and then turn around and go to the board of adjustment as a separate body and get a variance because they couldn't meet the requirements that they just told the planning commission and city council that they could meet.

Now that we're one in the same body, you would see all of that.

So they're that they have to be a little bit more upfront and honest on their application and submittals.

So I think in order to get out on time, maybe one or more one or two more questions if anyone has them, and we'll adjourn and let Mike make his announcement.

Yeah, because I think that we're okay.

Uh entertain a motion and a second to adjourn.

So moved.

We're adjourned.

Mike?

Uh my one thing is we're trying to set up a training session with the city attorney, like to do a training session with the city council, planning commission, and historic preservation.

Those are our three most public serving bodies.

They're looking at a potential study session on January 20th, if we can pull enough people together.

So if that date works, what I can also do is we can send out an email tomorrow, just a quick poll to see if you're available on that particular date.

We may be looking at an additional option, is maybe the 17th of February.

Um, but it was gonna be uh I think the city attorney is gonna provide a conflict of interest type training session for our three most publicly facing bodies.

So um study sessions, I think let me verify, but I think they start at 5 or 5 30.

I can verify the time.

Um we just gotta see who's available, and since we had it, it was brought up at like 455 today.

BHPC meets Thursday and they're talking with the council members this week to see if they can get enough in attendance but um if not I said we could at least record it.

It would be typically study sessions are next door so it would still be recorded and we could put it on the team site for planning commission members to see but sometimes it's nice to attend those because if you have questions you can kind of do a QA with the city attorney on that.

So just to keep in mind we'll send out an email tomorrow to just wanting to see if there'd be of one interest and two um potentially try and keep um that date opening if if you're available so thank you.

Thanks everybody I think these are actually gonna be for Scott here Scott can I grab your signatures one last time please one of the