Oh, there we go.

All right.

Seven o'clock on the top.

Let's get started.

Call this meeting to order.

I'll hear motions or discussion on the consent agenda.

I noticed on, sorry, did you share?

Um the minutes um December 4th.

It's uh William Harris, not Willie Hyver.

Um you know where that is?

Okay.

We also call him Big Bill.

So I'll I'll put that in parentheses.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from on 2.1 and 2.2 minutes from December 4th and minutes from January 8th.

Uh second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Failed to mention we excuse uh Ken tonight as well as Bo from this meeting.

And we'll turn the time over to Katie.

Okay.

Um yeah, so item uh 3.1 is public hearing and consideration of James Whitmore's request for conditional use approval of the SAJ Lehigh RV storage located at approximately 4300 North Digital Drive.

Um the Freedom Trucking Driving School was previously approved on this site in December of 2023.

The property is zoned light industrial and does not have uh utilities connected to the site.

Um the plan shows that the required 20-foot setback from the property lines and the A-foot uh masonry fence is met according to the development code.

Um the DRC had 12 red line comments, which mostly include technical updates to the site.

Um but please include all DRC comments in your motion.

Uh this is a conditional use, and conditional uses are allowed uses.

Um the planning commission can determine um if reasonable conditions need to be put upon them to minimize impacts to surrounding sites.

Um this is a public hearing item.

There were no online comments for this, so turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Is the applicant president come on up if you'd like to share some more with us?

State your name and my name's James Whitmore.

Uh I do have one question.

You mentioned an eight-foot concrete fence.

I was under the understanding that we had to get a special permit for eight foot over six foot, and eight foot is what we want to do.

So are we already there at eight feet?

Correct.

Yeah, so yeah, according to your site plan, you have the eight-foot fence called out.

And we actually require that as part of our code for um the use that you're doing.

So I really don't have anything to say.

Uh I think it's pretty well covered in all the literature that I read, and uh we're just requesting the use there for uh the covered storage.

We feel like concrete fence and buildings will start to improve the way that site looks up there.

The whole thing's kind of a mess, frankly.

So any improvement we can do to make it look better will start to help it.

That's all I have.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right.

Thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

Uh this time we'll open the public hearing and invite anyone who would like to speak.

Seeing a mad rush, we will close the public hearing and turn it back to the commission for further deliberation or a motion.

I think we've discussed this one enough times in the past, yeah.

Everything looks in order.

We can retain a motion.

Yeah.

Excellent.

Then uh for item 3.1, public hearing of James Whitmore's request for conditional use and approval uh at approximately 4300 North Digital Drive.

Um I move that we give approval uh with the findings that uh the proposed plans meet uh the code requirements, the 20 foot setback, um the masonry fence, um and um yeah that this is this is all in order after several rounds and uh of course include DRC comments.

Second motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed all right, you're good to go.

Glad to have the sorted out for you.

When will that go before?

Oh well that's done.

That's it.

That's you're good to go, you're clear.

Yep.

All right, 3.2.

Okay.

Item 3.2 is public hearing and recommendation of JDH developments request for an exception for a required trail connection to a master plan trail and to meet the block length.

The exception is a requested due to grade at Vivian Estates phase two B, located at approximately 2600 north and 600 east.

All code requirements have been met, um, but the applicant requests approval for the required trail.

Um providing a connection through the subdivision would give the community direct access to uh direct trail access to nearby master plan trails on 600 east.

Um in January 2019, the council approved the Vivian Estates phase two preliminary subdivision and the preliminary subdivision um shown um a connection that would meet the connectivity requirements.

The applicant requests removing the trail due to steep grade.

The code does allow exceptions to to the connectivity requirements based off of grade.

Uh the planning commission will provide a recommendation and it will ultimately be the city council's decision.

Um this is a public hearing item, and there was one comment online.

You can read that during the public comment period, but turn it back to the commission for any questions.

Is the applicant present?

Tell us your name and anything else you want us to know.

Um yeah, name is Austin Cooper, work for J Development.

Um H DMI.

Um I just uh wanted to show some pictures that we took of the of the development.

Um so um just so we get a fill of where it is.

So this was this was the preliminary plat.

And as you can see, 600 East was straight.

Oh maybe.

Don't breathe row.

There you go.

Uh 600 East was was just went straight up and down um north to south.

Um and at the time that this was approved, where this this blue s uh square is or rectangle is that's where the road was flat from 2600 north to that point, and then started going on it on a decline at the point at that time it was a uh like an 18, 90 percent incline.

So they we we uh uh since then have changed it.

Now, as as you kind of saw in some of the other drawings, now it it starts going down at about this point.

Um and it doesn't go straight, it actually cuts back into uh the lots uh here.

Um and I did want to show this image.

Let's see, okay.

Yeah.

So this is this is a view of it right now.

Um some of this dirt will will be moved here, but most of this is this is actually about uh we're already three feet lower than the the road over here at uh 55 uh or 550 east.

Um and this is I mean this is the slope.

So I just wanted to get uh a picture that the um I mean you can you can see on here, right?

There's any any of the drawings show um all these you know lines that show you the topo of of the it's it's pretty steep.

But I wanted to present that this image to you just to show you how steep it is.

Um right at the the place where the the trail would be, it's right about here.

So this is about eight to ten feet um uh of an incline.

The the proposal for the lot, and I apologize if I'm going back and forth too too quick, but the proposal would probably be that it would be fairly flat till about here, and then there'd be from there to here that there's about eight eight feet, eight to ten feet.

Um at the steepest it is just over uh eight percent, which is uh I think the the max is uh of the uh for code is is eight percent.

So it's uh it's that's a little high there.

Anyway, um I just wanted to present that as kind of more information to give you guys some visuals of of what we're asking.

I think as as 600 east has now become in my opinion, I think it's now a thoroughfare as it's got a straight shot to uh the family park, uh the the soccer fields there, and then also all the way down to main street.

Um this could be a very busy, busy street, so we we're we're uh hoping for an exception based on grade and also safety um is kind of we're talking about.

So um anyway, yeah, that's I just wanted to share that with you and yeah, uh turn the time back over.

Any questions for the applicant?

Did Lehigh City do that road behind?

Yeah.

Yeah, that was all the high city.

Yeah, initially initially we had everything, uh I don't know if it ever got to full approval for the whole development, but we were we I think we were right there close, and the high city asked us to hold off on on the these last lots that are now part of 2B, um as they were looking at six six hundred, and then now with six hundred going in, it's kind of thrown thrown a lot of things forever loop on this project.

But so just to be entirely clear, I'm not sure if this question is more for staff or for you uh Austin, yes.

Yeah.

Um so this change in elevation, this slope.

This was Lehigh City's dealing or the applicants dealing.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, we I don't know, Gary, if you want to jump in either either one.

But yeah, we did design the road we we coordinated with their development, but it did go through a lot of different iterations and the it ended up um steeper than what was originally envisioned, or at least you know what was there before for this section.

Um but yeah, yeah, we went out, met on site, um you know I think it you could still make it work, it would you'd probably either have to do stairs, so anyways, it it's some discretion here for the commission to decide how to recommend and then ultimately the city council.

Without this connection here, how would um someone in the neighborhood get to the uh the trail?

Yeah, um so without the trail uh basically these these homes here would have to go to the street that's right here and then up to 2600 and then down six hundred.

Um so yeah, there's the the street access there.

Yeah, so for a lot of these homes on this end, uh, you know, not a hu huge change, but obviously these homes over here, it's a it's a pretty sizable change to have to walk all the way around.

Is the primary concern an engineering challenge?

Um yeah, engineering the so the the slope.

So basically what would what would have to happen um I think this would probably be what would have would need to happen um is if if we did end up doing so if we didn't doing stairs, you do stairs there, but then you there would need to be retaining walls.

Um or we slope the the the lot next to it and just kind of slowly grade down to it, but eight to ten feet we're we're then into the lot 15, 20 feet, which then makes the lot the the usable space on that lot significantly decreased.

Um stairs could also be challenging it this is being maintained by the city.

We we'll dedicate it to the city, uh would it be the city and then we maintain the city with stairs, it's it's a big challenge.

Uh the way my understanding of the way the code says uh in preliminary it was agreed to that it we would do you know just just uh asphalt for the trail.

Stairs would have to be out of concrete, if there's retaining wall, any of that stuff, anything uh additive would be on the significantly, yeah.

And most of that would fall probably fall in the city.

Right.

Yeah.

Since this was a requirement, are you offering anything in place of this trail connection?

Um we we haven't offered anything.

Um from our perspective, um, looking at what has happened with 600.

Um it feels like the city's already taken quite a bit from us.

Um under this uh this plan, what was approved, our average usable space for these lots uh was um under the preliminary, the average average usable space was about 13 uh thousand square feet.

Um now with uh sorry, if if we do the trail, um it goes to about uh just over eleven thousand.

So we lose we lose about eighteen eighteen to nineteen hundred uh usable square feet per per lot on average.

If we look just at this this lot at the end here, um it's really small, but here it has it as a 22,000 square foot lot.

uh thousand square feet um now with uh sorry if if we do the trail um it goes to about uh just just over eleven thousand so we lose we lose about eighteen eighteen to nineteen hundred uh usable square feet per per lot on average if we look just at this this lot at the end here um it's really small but here it has it as a 22,000 square foot lot um now with this one it's at about a 17 uh just just under 17,000 square foot lot so this this lot alone loses about 5,000 square feet um this is is it it's and it's I mean it's it's big enough slopes here that we're not sure we're not even sure how we're gonna what what kind of home is gonna be able to go on there and probably have to do some settling with the dirt and there's a lot a lot of other things.

Most likely what we may need to do is combining these two lots into one to be able to have enough usable space.

Part of this the C C N's of the develop of this development is there has to be three uh garages.

It's getting down to where it may be hard to put a home and most of the homes in this are in this in this development are you know in between 1.2 to 1.6 million dollar homes.

So it's a nice enough home nice enough area that you know you get down to these smaller smaller lots with with now the road being pushed out it's gonna be difficult so we might end up having to we're probably actually gonna combine those two lots.

So I guess yeah long way of answering your question um it already kind of feels like a a take um putting the trail on this in now also makes that these these lots are smaller um so haven't come up with anything but yeah I very much take your point um if uh Lehigh is financing is backing um sorry I'm parsing this out my brain uh is the concern more having space and size in terms of lots or is it about the financial impact of putting it in so I mean initially looking at it from our end just from an engineering standpoint it doesn't seem to make sense.

You know we've we've looked at lots of different uh iterations we looked at putting it here that's even steeper we looked at putting along the the side of this which that's only about a two to three percent uh incline so from a safety standpoint from how to put in stairs that that's fine but 20 feet off of this one lot uh now makes this lot unusable the frontage doesn't meet code um in order to in in order to make it how fit code we have to push this lot which all the utilities are already in place we'd have to move all the utilities um that goes I mean that go that that's just time and money and um you know goes above and beyond what was what was in the preliminary.

So we've looked at lots of different options and and it it just doesn't feel like with with all the changes that have happened to 600 it doesn't feel like engineering it uh uh it you know doesn't make sense the the one the one thing that may make sense is um you know putting in stairs here that would deter uh you know kids or strollers from going and and running from safety issue but at that point then you run into you know paying for the extra material for the the cement stairs paying for retaining walls or uh reimbursement of some sort for you know now the 10 to 15 feet of of uh of unusable space on on those two lots so my my inclination on the situation is uh it it would be stairs retaining walls making sure that you keep that space lehigh created the situation that would fall on Lehigh uh I hate that uh and I understand right things things happen um I I get how it how we're in the situation um I do hate uh simply throwing away connectivity standards um that's my initial take as I parse through this if that's uh that would still work for you Lehigh footing that build definitely definitely willing we we met with this the staff today on on site and um definitely open to seeing seeing what works and and what you know willing to work at just looking at it from the standpoint doesn't make sense and then you know sentiments here look this is jump in here.

Please engineer I didn't know if you want to read wait for comments.

So this is everyone in the room.

Oh sorry real quick do you have any other photos or angles of the grade?

So the only photos I have are this one that shows the all the slope and then from below where this is where the trail would be from below and this is where the trail would be from above.

Okay.

Yeah so it's just gonna show it's does those photos represent what you see on site and stuff.

I haven't been out there since they graded and done some things like that on there.

Yeah, I was actually there this afternoon when he took these the the one that shows the really steep slope, you're looking kind of south, and I think we walked maybe 20 feet from where the so it's so you know that it it's really steep really fast.

That picture is probably taken from about right here.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, so you're a little bit a little bit further south from where the trail is proposed, but but kind of to paint that picture of its yeah, it's pretty simple.

Where's the trail?

I I don't see it in the photos.

Where's the trail across the street?

Um you mean the master plan trail on 600.

It's graded, you can see it at the bottom there, yeah.

So it'll go all of this right again.

It's going across the street.

And grades all the way up to the family park.

So it goes along 600, it doesn't cross 600.

Yeah, so if we look at this, it's it's this gray grade in here.

Um this line that goes all the way down along the full development along phase two and then phase three.

Um there's eventually phase five.

So yeah.

This is your jam.

I love this kind of stuff.

So here's two cents for me.

I live in a neighborhood that's we're lucky to live next to a master plan trail, right?

And I love it.

I love the access.

I live on the trail.

I have a fence in my backyard, a gate that goes right onto the trail.

And it's awesome for me and my kids.

There was a huge lack of connectivity openings to that trail throughout the neighborhood.

So I get really defensive of this particular use where you're connecting to a master plan trail.

It sucks to lose that.

It hurts the neighborhood.

It hurts the opportunities for people to recreate.

It makes it so those recreation opportunities are less appealing.

You know, for a even for a parent to send a 10-year-old kid that much further along what is another busy road out front of it.

That's a huge deterrent, right?

Having that, even if it's a staircase, right?

Which I obviously I think it would be at this point.

Yep.

If it's a staircase, in fact, I think a staircase is probably the best scenario because then you're not having a kid slide real fast down that road onto a busy street.

And then stairs if it's huge.

Honestly.

I actually think the stairs is a benefit here, not a deterrent.

Yeah.

Um, in my opinion.

But I hate to see us lose that connectivity because I live in a neighborhood where that connectivity sucks.

Right.

There's we live in a trail that goes literally all around there are feet, hundreds and thousand thousands of feet of trail.

And there are there's one access point in the neighborhood, right?

And it sucks.

And people don't use the trail because of it.

They're like, oh, it would be awesome to go out on the trail today, but I gotta go clear back to that point of the neighborhood to get in.

So losing that access, I know it is relatively inconsequential.

There's not a ton of homes in this area.

They're not that far away, really, to get onto it.

But I think of that 10-year-old kid, right?

And that parent that might say, you know, you gotta go a little further, and now you gotta go on 2000 north, which is a little busier.

Austin and I I very much take your point.

Uh Leh City did this.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'm gonna sit in the red chair for just a second on that those comments, Tyson, because if stairs I think would be the best solution.

I live in a neighborhood on a hill and we have stairs that have to be maintained and shoveled, and they're a mess.

Um luckily we're in an HOA, so the city doesn't have to worry about that.

But so if it's stairs though, how accessible really is that trail?

Because if I've got a stroller or if I'm taking my kids out on a bike, I'm not necessarily gonna haul those bikes downstairs or my stroller downstairs and then back upstairs.

So in that scenario, I'd still have to go out and around.

So But I still think it's infinitely more accessible than not having option.

But I I'm just thinking some people might view it as be like, well, it's really not accessible for those specific scenarios.

But you're right.

Something might be better than that.

It's not ADA.

Um it's not.

Yeah, it's an imperfect answer to it.

It doesn't have to be ADA.

I my opinion is let's still do it.

Let's put it in.

I'm with you, Tyson.

This is where I really will Gary.

I want to hear Gary's okay.

So I need to hear this is just totally a bonkers idea to to consider otherwise.

So stepping back a little bit, when six deeds was originally put in, um, there was a wall plan to be almost 40 feet tall right here, right?

As partially paid by Lehigh City and Hadco to both fund that wall.

Well, since then, and I wasn't part of these negotiations, but since then they've come back um and renegotiated with John Hadfield to lower that wall or even eliminate it, but then also reimburse him for the loss of the value of the property.

So I know that they have been compensated for it.

I don't know how much that was.

I wasn't privy to that information, but I know that he is worked out in agreement with had Hadco had co had filled.

Um had co there on the loss of the value of those properties because it does diminish the size to bring that grade up at two to one percent is or two to one is what they agreed to do.

And so it does diminish that footprint that a house could be set on there, and it does reduce the value of the property.

So they have negotiated those prices there.

Um as far as the six percent coming down there is that trail that goes down sixty east and up the other side.

There are parts of that trail that will be steeper than six percent.

Um so six percent isn't crazy to have a trail.

Now I appreciate that coming down and t-boating into sixties could be a dangerous situation there for kids and stroller and whatever else.

Um that's why we kind of would suggest and recommend putting the trail um on the diagonal there on the edge of the property where the trail will be almost dead flat.

Um and then it wouldn't even be T-boning, it would enter sixties kind of on an angle.

I think it's in the package there, if you have that there.

Anyway, that's kind of our engineering opinion is that it should be there.

It was part of the original plans to be there.

Um we like the idea of the trail connecting on through there, and then to move it over to the other lot there right next to lot 213.

Is there good enough to read what the other lot is there?

But kind of on the diagonal there where it would be pretty flat.

So uh awesome.

What does that do to you guys if that happens?

So it putting the putting the trail here would make the frontage here not up to code.

We'd have to push the lot line, which means all the utilities that are coming.

Right here need to all be pushed over.

Um say a style of that.

Um so is this the current set of this is what was submitted.

This is what was submitted there.

Yeah.

Um, it still could be put between the two lots where it was originally supposed to be.

And it was spaced out for that.

The utilities were put in place for that.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's just on on this side of the utilities.

Yeah.

And maybe there's some engineering measures they could put along the road to keep people from going straight in bowlers or something there, I don't know.

But is it a neighborhood maintained?

Or would that be a city-maintained sidewalk?

Which I can see where stairs then become a headache because it is an HOA, and that means I appreciate too if there's retaining walls, that adds to the cost.

The stairs are expensive.

Um asphalt trail would be much, much cheaper.

So what's more expensive to the city uh retaining wall and maintaining stairs, putting in the concrete stairs, or covering, you know, footing the bill for um removal, you know, shifting utility lines and you know, accommodating um, you know, what would happen if we did this gentler you know, to the original uh set by lot two thirteen.

It's a little hard to say, but I'm guessing that uh I mean if it's sixes, then it sounds like it's probably gonna be similar.

I don't think it'll be double the cost one way or the other.

Uh you guys give it a few.

Maybe he has a better view on that.

Takes takes it for creating the situation.

Is that what it uh guess the Lehigh's footing the bill for having created the situation?

Yeah.

Does that effectively need or if it's between the two, we'd rather have the straight.

Yeah.

It's gonna screw up lot sizes, even if exceptions were given and whatnot.

The time the time it would take to move all the utilities as well as sharing it between two lots rather than one lot taking the whole thing and having to shift all the lots over and move everything around.

Uh it just feels like it'd be easier, but uh um from a time timeline and and in my mind potentially even uh uh maybe even uh money.

Um I think this it feels like this is would be cheaper.

Uh but I haven't I haven't run any of the numbers, so I don't know for sure.

How steep, I mean I would these stairs there's a world of difference between like you know 45 degree stairs like in a house versus we're up half a foot, have a bit of a landing up half a foot.

What you're dropping eight feet over forty feet.

It's yeah, there's big landings, you can ride a bike down it.

The the difficulty with if pushing it back further and having big landings is then potentially has more retinue.

You're going further and further into the the tall hill so you have more retaining sure I do think it increases I if if you've got several landings yeah this is more likely for parents to say I can get the stroller up right one at a time push for a bit you know the the the 10 year old who isn't proficient on the bike can get up and down.

All right.

Any other questions for the applicant or staff.

All right well thank you.

This is a public hearing this time we will open the public hearing and invite anyone is the comment and Katie will you please read that comment this is from Montane Hamilton.

It's a shame we have connectivity standards and no reason to have those connections due to them connecting to nothing.

In this case without the connection there is no good way to walk anywhere south or east without a large detour.

That said there is likely not to be a lot of need for this but if we are actually planning for a future this exception should not be approved.

We should be encouraging a more walkable community and once this connection is given this will lock this problem this will lock this problem in for decades.

Any pedestrian access to roads is dangerous but forcing more people to make car trips only makes this a bigger problem.

We cannot continue to be hostile to pedestrians by giving them less choices and excusing cars and our lack of planning for creating dangerous conditions for them.

The connectivity standard should be upheld here we have already created the situation by not connecting these roads which would have provided the connectivity in and of themselves we should not compound the problem again.

That's it.

All right seeing no more comment I'll close the public hearing and turn it back over to the commission.

I think it's retaining walls and stairs for me.

I'm not a fan I just think it's a maintenance issue for the city going forward like with retaining walls mean maintenance concrete cracks concrete it's just it's just money that the city's gonna have to throw down the drain into the future.

Yeah that's just my thoughts on it it's a it's a maintenance condition.

And it's to me it's kind of a problem that Lehigh City created itself by having to grade the road out which we had to do to get over to 600.

So for me I'm not a big fan of forcing a retaining wall in that's then an ongoing maintenance bill for us I'm torn um you know I I understand that for me if if we're gonna have something connecting to a trail I'd like it I know there's no ADA standards but I would like it to be as accessible as possible for everyone but understanding that that puts you know the developer and the city in in a tougher spot to do that um I think at that point I'd almost just not have anything at all but I still don't know because I do want access for some I'd prefer if it was access for everybody.

I completely agree on the I said a lot without saying anything no no no no no I mean I mentioned eight I wouldn't look at eight percent or greater slope sure yeah.

And what is ADA four percent?

In this case it would be eight percent eight percent so it still would meet so it'd be ADA compliant but if we didn't do retaining walls it would take away the ability to build houses on there um not necessarily I think if you look at like a normal stair um well eight percent is one and twelve um so that's about what a stair would be so it would probably be pretty similar to this grade here you know like maybe a seven to eleven rise to run ratio something like that.

Okay.

But I also don't want to lose the comment that our engineer made that there was some consideration to the devaluation of the property with it that has already been agreed upon and and or received um so that part of it is less impactful for me seeing that there has been some remediation there for the developer and the loss.

So to me it's more more than the value or the inconvenience for the developer it's more about the standard of connectivity.

I also don't like the idea that in a way um it and by no means we're looking forward to mouth.

I want to clear on that, right?

Uh but to approve this exception could be taken as Lehigh effectively saying we create a situation, it's really inconvenient for us.

We're not gonna provide what we promised and to this community individually and what we have said we're doing as a whole across the city.

Yeah.

So to me, uh I see that um again, not a fan of creating an ongoing um maintenance issue, but this is this is kind of part of the could we legally not execute, yes, but I do see it as part of the social contract of between the city and its residents.

And there are there are areas in the city that have also asked for uh this type of an exception in the past, and we have landed on okay, you don't need to put the road connection in there, but we still want a pedestrian connection, whether that be trailer stairs.

I'm thinking particularly of the area around the the new temple that's coming up.

There are staircases throughout that neighborhood because of that.

They ask for an exception to the standard, and we said okay, no road, but but we still want that pedestrian connection.

So I think there's a standard to uphold there as well.

Um I always worry about precedent as well.

But I I just think that we put a lot of energy into that connectivity standard, and it always gets questioned.

I understand grade challenges, but I also think that that standard is crucial to uphold, or we will lose it throughout the city.

But I will entertain a motion.

I'm happy to do that.

I don't know if Nicole have anything to say.

I already did.

Oh no, I'm in the I'll make a motion.

Go ahead.

Getting in my motions after not doing the um so for item 3.2, uh public hearing recommendation of um the uh well had cut, right?

J D H I drew right through the right through it.

Uh development uh developments request for an exception on the required required trail connection to the master plan, master plan trail on uh Vivian Estates phase 2B located approximately 2600 north, 600 east.

Uh I move that we uh deny the um offer negative recommendations.

Yes, forgive me.

I'm rusty, right?

Offer a regulative negative um recommendation uh with the findings that the proposed trail um is um uh it's part of our connectivity standards that we do not want to uh compromise on that it can and an 8% grade with stairs be done uh in a safe manner.

Um I'll also add uh you know note that um we recognize Lehigh City created the the situation and uh so it uh we we still have a responsibility to our citizens to to meet the standards that that we've promised and DRCs.

I'll second it.

Motion in a second, all in favor.

Aye post was that a na?

No.

I went to ask if he needs a post.

Those habits are balancing that reaction.

All right, carries forward with a negative recommendation.

What does this go to the city council?

Um February, end of February.

Let's see.

Is it the 24th, Kate?

Um February.

Aren't we delaying or in March or we have the three full weeks?

Let's see.

We changed things up a little bit.

With the new council.

Sorry.

The the city council debate over their schedule this year was intense.

So basically three weeks or yeah, just fightable.

No, just a little bit of the same.

So it moves forward in February 10th.

I will note for the applicant.

We are a governing body that does not control the purse strings.

And they'll look at it and they'll determine if it's financially feasible or not.

Or something that they're willing to take on.

We recommend we are not a legislative body.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um city business.

I don't really have any.

Um just a reminder maybe that your work session would be next.

Or two weeks from now.

Yeah, the fifth.

We don't have a meeting next week, right?

Uh yeah, that's right.

So it's the fifth Thursday.

Um there'll be several trainings.

Utah open public meetings act and then um, we'll go through the bylaws and then we might go through some Robert's rules of order just if you guys have any questions.

Never by call.

So is there a way to participate in that remotely?

Yeah.

Okay.

Also it will be uh recorded.

Okay.

I'm not gonna be here on the fifth.

I also will not be here on the fifth.

Oh.

Sounds like you're not gonna be here on the 5th.

I was I mean, I can change my plan, but I'll be planning on driving on the 5th.

But yeah.

Uh pending snow pack it to our next meeting then.

It sounds like maybe that would be the right call.

I think it would be best.

The open meeting one is required.

By the state once a year.

Um what is our first meeting look like?

First meeting in first regular.

I would rather snow pack.

I get that.

Oh, you'll be out of town the 12th.

Oh my gosh.

I'm gone the ninth.

Uh let's move it to May.

Yeah.

C CL May.

That's right.

20 27.

I'll be on spring break.

I'll be gone in May.

Do we need to have a meeting on a random meeting?

Yeah, I'll be I'll I'll be in Los Angeles for a shoot.

So do we I guess we'd have enough for a quorum to do the work session, but then it's kind of an important work session, right?

So maybe we just let's bump it to the 27th of February if there's cancel the work session then 26th.

26th.

I won't be here the 27th.

Okay.

No one will be here.

Wait.

I won't be here the season.

Two, three with you.

Maybe not.

I don't want to.

Nate can do it.

I can walk Nate through.

Or if you want, we can bump it to the March work session.

Kim and I will get together and get it scheduled.

Okay.

Hey, I'll I'll send I'll send emails, of course, but let me just note.

Um I'll be missing a few more meetings than I'd like in the next few months.

Do you work?

Just I'm just on the road a lot.

Ideally, you would not be here.

That's normal.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

They're all there's a reason that's got this.

Okay.

This is the last meeting.

If we hold it and they're gone, I'll be.

That's new work session.

So if we don't hold it, then so ideally you'd you'd prefer, yeah.

I have no idea.

So you wouldn't be here, you wouldn't be here.

You're I'm I'm here.

On the okay, for the work session.

Yes, for the fifth.

Yes.

Oh, go on and here.

We just need to know if Ken will.

Yeah.

Sounds like we cancel the work session.

Yeah.

What else were you planning to just do?

We'd have a quorum, but we're gonna be missing enough that it's yeah.

Okay.

Is this normally we have other people like they're presenting projects to us?

Uh work sessions are more just for training, or if we have there's no action items.

So it's just more training, or if it's like a big item that's coming up that needs some extra discussion, or you know, like the downtown revital revitalization.

We had somebody come and teach us how to professionally argue with each other once.

That was conflict resolution training.

Yeah, I don't think that was the missile trying to compare.

That's what I got out of it.

We have to shooter training once.

That was a that was a sober time.

But uh I have to do those at work and they're gonna be able to do that.

So okay.

We don't do active shooting.

Yeah, unless something comes out.

I think we'll just end up canceling February work session.

Okay.

And then we we'll decide.

I guess we could do the bylaws on the 10th of February.

Just not the open meetings act.

Yeah.

So we'll just postpone that to March.

What's that?

12th.

12th of February?

Yeah.

Okay.

You said 10th.

That's a chance.

Oh sorry.

That's okay.

I'm just checking.

Okay, so very much.

I live and die by my calendar.

Sorry.

I apologize.

So the fifth is canceled.

Yeah, it sounds like the nephew is gone.

The 12th is pretty full.

Yeah, the 12th looks like it's a pretty full agenda.

Yeah.

I think we have another week of the last planning session agenda?

Four hours is definitely a thing.

Oh yeah, that's the thing.

Can I move now that we run a two-minute timer?

For sure.

Okay, well that was a that was an error that I did not run a timer in the last one.

I'm gonna give you crap until you're still doing seven o'clock on the 12th.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

It shouldn't be that bad.

Don't be a Britney's meeting.

Don't say these things for me.

Why would you just like that?

Is it a Brittany meeting?

Or is it a I mean there's just a lot of items, but they should I don't know.

A couple zone changes.

Some of them should be able to do it.

Oh zone changes.

Those are always Brittany in charge, because that's all.

So you guys Katie meetings are the short meetings this year.

Jake will looked at.

Oh, okay.

So spraining my ankle to break the curse.

How about we'll put it we'll put it on at the end of the agenda for the bylaws.

And then we can kick it if it's to be 10 o'clock.

We'll just roll it again to the second meeting in February.

Okay.

Okay.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor.

Awesome.

No.

You can.

Do you know the history?

Do you know the history of this gap?

Absolutely.

It was from what's the thing, uh Scott.