Call to order.

And I will entertain a motion about the consent agenda.

I move that we approve the consent agenda.

A second that motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Let's give Jacob just a minute.

Sorry, Jacob.

Did you already approve the minutes?

We did.

Oh, you're so fast.

701.

No.

Where are you?

Okay.

All right, we're good to go for the regular agenda.

Jacob, take us away.

Come back.

Great.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um item 3.1 is public hearing and consideration of cascade collisions.

Request for approval of a plat amendment for Lehigh Plaza plat B located at 1115 East Main Street, adding one additional commercial lot.

And there are no improvements with this plat amendment.

It really is just the addition of the one lot.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Which which lot is it?

That's the new one.

It's lot four.

To the east there?

Or is I was looking at this and I couldn't quite figure out which.

Cascade, they uh they own the whole thing.

Yeah.

Right?

And they're just shifting the lot line a little bit.

Yeah.

Oh, was that?

They were just including.

So I guess that piece wasn't part of the original subdivision area, so they were just adding that in as part of the land they own.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Which would be uh cascade collision.

Did anybody yeah, test task?

Did anybody have uh questions for the applicant?

Or is you guys comfortable if we move forward?

Okay.

This is a public hearing at this time.

Uh if anybody is here from the public that would like to speak to item 3.1, this is your time.

Seeing the mad rush slow down, we will close the public hearing and bring it back for further communication or motion.

I don't see any issues with this.

Is anyone else?

I didn't see anything that stood out.

No.

Okay.

Moving that we approve the proposed plot amendments, with the findings being that the commercial subdivision is uh just legal subdivision, uh subdividing of land, that it does meet the requirements of the commercial zone, that it does meet the requirements of the development code, and please include the various DRC comments.

Second.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

All right.

3.1 passes, moves forward.

Um 3.2.

I say actually, I think this was just the approval.

It's done here.

You're good.

It's done.

Yep.

Yep.

Sweet.

Okay.

Uh item 3.2 is public hearing and um recommendation of JDH developments request for review of the Vivian Estates phase five zone change on 11.58 acres located at approximately 2125 north, 600 east.

Changing the zoning from TH5 transitional holding to RA1.

And this matches the general plan designation for the property of VLDR.

It's for the development of future phases of Vivian estates.

And with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present?

Come on up.

State your name and tell us anything that we didn't hear from the lovely report.

Name's NC Cooper, and uh no, it's basically the same.

We've this is phase five of uh in the state, so it's just the next phase kind of transition into getting ready to do the development.

Okay.

Any questions for the applicant?

Pretty light tonight.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Uh this is a public hearing.

If anybody is here to speak to item 3.2, this is your chance to come up.

And we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for further communication or a motion.

I didn't have any heartburn on this one just because it's in line with the general plan.

Um transitioning it from the TH5 to the RA1.

Agreed?

Same.

Agreed.

Okay.

Chair Error.

Mayor Acred motion.

I've been working a I've been working on that all day.

So I giggled.

Noreen will uh get mad at you if you uh ask permission.

You're not supposed to.

Chair error, I'm going to make a motion.

Do it.

On item 3.2, public hearing and recommendation of JDH developments request for review of the Vivian Estates phase five zone change on 11.58 acres located at approximately 2125 north, 600 east.

Changing the zoning from TH5, the transitional holding to RA1 residential agriculture.

I move that we recommend approval of the proposed zone change and that it does fit with the general plan.

And it will allow the property to develop in a similar way that's around it.

Um please include all DRC comments.

I'll second it.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion moves forward.

When does this go to city council?

Um it should be, let's see.

Um probably the end of March, it looks like March 24th.

There you go.

Yep.

All right, 3.3.

Okay.

Okay.

Item 3.3 is uh public hearing and consideration of Symphony Homes' request for preliminary subdivision.

Approval of Fox Trail, an eight lot, res single family residential subdivision located at 1500 north, 2850 west.

Um you may remember the concept from a few months ago.

I was here that night.

So this is like I said, eight lots.

They range in size from 16,000 to 33,000 square feet.

Um and then the flexibility was granted with the concept in the lot sizes as part of the densey and loo, um, which was um an agreement because of the decision to widen or the necessity to widen 1500 north.

Um so that one lot of flexibility and lot sizes was granted.

Um and the project still meets the base density of 1.75 units per acre, which is what the R122 zone would typically require.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Oh, and I guess I should also note for Ken again and for everyone.

This is not a PUD, it was just the density in loo.

So understood.

Any questions for staff?

Is the applicant present.

Hi, I'm Russ Wilson with Symphony Homes.

Um happy to answer any questions.

Anything else that we should hear that Jacob maybe missed.

Uh I don't see I don't think so.

Uh we're excited to get moving forward.

Great.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant?

All right.

We're pretty easy tonight.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

If anybody from the public would like to speak to this, and I know there were some online comments that we'll get to.

Um this is your time.

I'd like to quickly.

Yeah.

I'm one of the online comments too.

So uh Paul Jones.

I live backed up to that lot right there.

Um first I just want to say thank you to both Symphony and the city.

You guys have been working with us for a long time on this, and I appreciate everyone being going back and forth on this and and working through it.

Um I'm we're still not super happy that all these lots are much less than a half acre.

Um the only change when we went from nine lots to eight lots was that the two lots that were already a half acre are now bigger.

But the other six lots are still the same size.

They're all still less than a half acre, which isn't really what the zoning um suggested they should be.

Um to be honest, like we're we're at a bit of an impasse.

I mean, you guys may think we're good and we're gonna go ahead, and that's fine.

But um I would love to see actually the connectivity um revisited on this.

The the main reason we can't get those lots bigger is because we're forced to put that road through right there.

And I understand the connectivity laws and the reasonings behind it, but there's another road just two houses away.

It's about 200 feet.

It's really not very far.

Um so I don't know that the connectivity is really getting us what we want.

It's just making all of the homeowner homeowners less happy about where they're at because the lots are not the way they'd were supposed to be.

Um I think that's my only comment.

I'd love to have that revisited before we run through again.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh do you mind reading those?

Yeah.

Um so Stephen Hansen mentioned that, yeah, I guess I'll just read it since this one's actually pretty short.

As an adjacent neighbor, I like and prefer this eight-lot plan over the previous plans.

Park strips on this section of road have not done well, specifically uh several trees on 1500 north and the few existing park strips between 2300 west and the river have died or been pulled out.

Perhaps heartscaping would be more appropriate.

Also, any chance improvements to the surrounding fence can be required, replacing the cattle fence for a standard residential fence.

And then Paul would get Mr.

Jones gave his comment already.

So Mr.

Jones, we did read it as well.

So uh we'll close the public hearing, uh bring it back for further discussion.

Uh I guess Kim, do you want to discuss kind of the reasonings for our uh connectivity standard?

Sure.

Or would you mind describing the reasons?

Sure.

Yeah.

So in fact, I I was just uh measuring from the existing street to the west to where this stub road would connect.

It's about a little over 400 feet, about 420 feet-ish.

Um all of our downtown blocks are 400 and 420, pretty pretty equivalent to what this is.

So it is basically a city block, even though you know, out on this west side, it might feel closer, but um we have connectivity standards for various reasons.

Um everything from emergency response is probably you know some of the higher priority to make sure our fire department can get around.

Um, it's just convenience for the people that live in the neighborhood, some of it's pedestrian.

If you if it it might be easy to get around in a car when you if this road didn't connect, but as a pedestrian, it would, you know, it's much more challenging to walk an extra you know quarter of a mile or whatever if you are trying to get to a some kind of a destination.

So it's just really about um live ability, making sure people can get around with all modes and like I said, emergency access.

Um if we if we look at some of the neighborhoods before we had our connectivity standards, uh when you don't have a lot of connectivity, it pushes all of that neighborhood traffic onto just one or two roads, and then it really starts to impact those people that happen to live on those that become kind of a collector road.

Uh this so it helps kind of disperse that impact as well.

So and as far as our purview, we're not even allowed to waive this.

Right, it's in our code.

Right.

Unless unless you know you had if it was adjacent to the Jordan River or railroad or a major arterial that didn't allow access, then obviously we exempt, you know, we can deviate from the standards, but unless there's some rational reason, you know, a reason, a compelling reason like that, we have to follow the standard.

Okay.

What's the lot sizes of the surrounding areas?

Um the lot sizes to the south.

Um it's part of the college farms PRD.

And so uh although they were zoned RA1, which is a 15,000 square foot minimum, some of them are smaller than that because they as a PRD they were able to similar to this, they had flexibility on front engine lot size.

They dedicated a large piece of open space over there on the the Jordan River, and then they have a small uh park for the neighborhood as well.

So that open space uh it's kind of a trade-off, and we got the open space in lieu of them being able to have a little bit smaller lot sizes.

So I uh I guess Jacob can fit on a bit of a lot of it.

It looks like several of these are around point four five, so they're a little bit under the twenty-two thousand, but a little bit bigger than the ones in the Fox Trail subdivision.

And R122 requires half acre lots, right?

And the reason that we are considering under is because of the d the widening of the road.

Correct.

Yeah, yeah.

They asked originally they had asked for two additional lots.

The base density is seven lots.

They asked for nine and they were they were um offering to do some additional landscaping along 1500 north.

They they still will have to put some landscaping in, but it was gonna be wider with some entry monuments.

Um when it went through the concept review, they were granted one additional lot, not the two, so that they're now at the density of eight.

So that's yeah, a trade-off versus the city having to reimburse for the additional pavement and right-of-way on 1500 north.

It's a tool that we've used quite a bit over the years to help pay for those additional road widening impacts.

Um instead of taking that money out of our road impact fees, we then we can use more of that money for putting sidewalks downtown or or other bigger projects.

So just for I guess an understanding from the public as well as us as commissioners, um that is a city council decision, right?

Correct.

We we can give a recommendation, yay or nay.

Uh, but really we're looking at code, does it fit?

Um, etc.

And then city council decides if they're comfortable with they they hold the purse.

We don't hold the purse in this body, right?

So we give our recommendation and then they make the final decision if they are allowing that in lieu of density or in lieu of um the improvement.

So just for protocol of what we're doing here.

Any other questions for staff?

Yeah, one question.

I expect staff probably does not have on hand uh the number, but I'm curious if the road were not widened, would those lots would they meet code?

Um with this layout here, um I don't think it did.

I think their base density was seven lots.

Yeah, they did any time we do a bonus like this, they have to provide show us how many lots could you fit with standard zoning, and that was where we came up with seven.

Gotcha.

So and that's where the one qualified for the widening and the pavement on 1500 and qualified for the extra lot.

Yep.

Can you zoom in on the cul-de-sac again?

And how many what are the lot sizes exactly?

So 20.

That's you got 20 just under 20.

And then these two are both 16, just over 16,000.

So if I did the math right, the only there's really what lot three, four, eight, and seven are under that half acre.

Um five and six are under the half acres.

They are too.

Yeah, yeah.

All of those are under 22 is a is our half acre.

Yeah, true half acres, 21, 700, some odd, but yeah, our R122 zone is so it's a l actually a little bit more than a true half acre.

So these are just slightly below a true half acre, but I'm not sure how they would fit eight or seven, right?

No, I'm not sure how they would fit eight without doing it this way and keeping the roads connected.

Yeah.

What was it the previous city council or the current city council that gave them the density?

Uh previous.

Yeah, it was back uh December.

Yeah, that would sound right.

Yeah, and I guess we were just talking about this.

You are the final approval body on the subdivision at this point.

Because normally the density in Lou would go to council, but it already went already.

So at this point it's almost it's not a standard subdivision, but it almost acts like a standard subdivision.

And how much road did we give up?

15 feet, 20 feet?

On 1500?

Yeah.

Unless it's a little number right off the top of my hand.

Oh, sorry.

Did the sorry, did the developer give up?

So it's 38 from center line of existing.

So a local street is 60 feet right away, so it's 30 would have been half 17.

Yeah, I guess if that dashed line I'm not 100% sure that's higher.

So I guess it's like could they have even ever gotten 22,000 square foot lots?

Yes.

Applicant, you're welcome back up.

I guess like the thing I'm struggling with is they gave you eight.

Was there ever a chance to get 22,000 square foot lots?

Two things.

I I think so.

I it's been a while, so I can't recall, but I think with um not making that connection where where it's at by almost doing like an S curve.

I I think that's what I showed on a previous concept.

Also, in addition, we did show a concept where we had two large lots on the far east side, which were well over 22,000 square feet.

We eliminated the cul-de-sac, and then we had six lots or yes, six lots facing each other.

So eight lots total.

We were told we couldn't do that just because of the the connectivity, you know, making sure the uh what was it exactly?

It was I think it was something something with the roads street um traffic department.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, Luke shot it down.

Yeah, that'd be helpful.

Oh yeah, maybe I sent it to you.

Well I'm trying to remember.

Yeah, it wasn't that long ago.

I remember when this came through.

Was it August?

Oh, it's been a little bit longer than I was thinking.

I knew it was last year, but it's all I remember it.

I didn't know when it was, but I remembered it.

Because yeah, you had some weird shaped lots at the end of the cul-de-sac.

Like they were large and skinny and there was some weird how they extended out towards the 1500 north.

Um unless I'm confusing it with even another project.

But um that's got point on one, but that's the nine lot.

That's not so that yeah, that was the nine lot version.

Um that's probably just the narrative.

It's probably an email.

I'd have to go back in and see if I could find it.

Anyways, I I think there is a a way to get bigger lots.

It would just change it would just change uh connectivity and and uh I I remember now the when we presented the the idea of two large lots on the east side that would access 1500 north, the traffic department said no, we can't have driveways.

Separate driveways.

Yeah.

So but the lots would have been a lot bigger and it would have been cheaper for us to develop because we would eliminate that whole cul de sac um out of it.

So uh the college farms neighborhood that we did, by the way.

So um the lots adjacent to this are like they said about 0.45, 0.46, but I I did a calculation of all of the lots and college farms.

I think they're 97 total lots, and the average lot size is closer to like 0.33 or 0.34 or something like that.

So that's a different thing.

On average, they're different development with different rules, right?

Pretty pretty close to this.

It is nice to know what's in the area, but it's apples and oranges, right?

A little bit.

No, it's the one adjacent.

So I get it.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff or the applicant?

I failed to realize this does not go to city council.

City council already did their thing.

They approved the approved the additional lot.

Any other discussion?

By way of discussion, I'm conflicted in that it's not, I don't see this as being a big a big change, a big thing to approve.

But I just asked myself, like where do you draw the line as far as shrinking lots?

And I'm not sure where the line is.

Uh the bonus lot.

Um which is going to shrink the lots, which puts them under the code's requirement.

What Leeway, what what standing do we have in this situation?

To approve or deny.

I'm gonna ask him real fast if he has any input on that while I while I do some research.

So are we held to the standard that the city council approved, or are we held to the standard of the code?

Um it is in the code.

Jacob will show you really quick here.

So it's this note one.

This is so this table that we're looking at is where it talks about lot size setbacks, all those things.

It's hard to read, but you want to read it.

Yeah, I can read it.

Um for subdiv subdivisions located along a master plan major roadway or master plan trail, the applicable land use authority, following review and recommendation from the DRC may allow higher density, reduced lot size, reduced frontage, or other design considerations in lieu of payment to the developer for a riot of way, and or improvements required by the Lehigh City General Plan, Master Transportation Plan, and or Lehigh City design standards and public improvements specifications manual concept plan required, which yeah, I think that's probably a big caveat, right?

The concept plan required.

But it would be nice if it said, you know, not reducing it beyond one general plan designation or something, but it doesn't really give specif specifics on how far down can you go.

That's a good I think that was a good question, Bo.

So yeah, bottom line, by code you have the ability to to approve it and where it's already had the concept plan approved by city council.

So yeah.

That's the direction that changing the connectivity isn't an option.

The road has to go in, it has to be there.

Yes.

You can't have frontage on 1500.

How do you get full access to the lots in the back without like you could make it two lots are under by shrinking those two on the corner and making them really small?

Well then that doesn't instead of having four or five that are third acre or larger.

So please forgive my naivety.

Um said earlier that we can't get away from the eight lots, but couldn't we remove one of these lots and then the remaining five lots there just absorb that land, bringing them all up to code.

I I would not agree on that.

I think you I mean I'm guessing this might be a good legal question too, but that probably would have been a decision made before, right?

When this came to planning commission and city council.

Right.

That's not a decision for our body.

Yeah, it's a decision.

They already made their decision of granting.

Because I guess you would have said Lehigh City, you eat the cost on the road improvements.

We're not giving the density.

Right.

Maybe not a question for legal.

Maybe I just nailed it.

But we're past that.

We're past that moment.

Yeah.

Yeah.

They asked for nine.

It was compromised.

They got eight out of you know, seven.

It was what, and I'm trying to find it.

I know they had a layout that met the 22,000.

That's how we established that baseline.

And then they asked for nine council gave it a haircut and gave them eight out of the nine.

So yeah, that was a decision made last year to allow the additional density in in lieu of the right-of-way.

Any other discussion?

I don't know.

I feel like Bo, I'm caught between the R 122 and where do we draw the line?

But for this piece of ground, it is just the highest and best use for this piece of ground.

And honestly, I probably agree that it is given everything that we've heard so far.

I think it probably is the best use.

I just I don't like that we're shrinking lot sizes.

And that that decision's been made by city council.

So we're kind of in a pickle, I think is what we're in.

I don't think we're gonna pickle.

I think it's pretty straightforward.

The city council approved it.

And so I don't I'm not even considering the lot size.

I'm considering the layout, the connectivity, and the you know, subdivision approval.

You can go back to the map just one second.

The one that's uh this one.

Yeah.

Uh zoom out just so we can see there you go.

Cool.

I'll entertain a motion if someone's got one.

I don't have the cheat code in front of me.

Um I'll make a motion.

Is it the proposed subdivision does meet?

Does meet the requirements of the Lehigh City Development Code in regards to the subdivision approvals, and that we include any DRC comments.

Are you giving a positive positive?

Yeah, yeah.

Positive approval of it.

Motion.

I'll give seconds.

Motion in a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Aye.

Did you get that, Kate?

All right.

Motion does pass.

Um thank you for your time.

Uh 3.4.

Um item 3.4 is public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment, adding chapter 12D, flood damage prevention in compliance with FEMA requirements.

Um unfortunately, our stormwater reviewer, Shelley Brewer was sick and was she was going to attend to present this.

She has was the one who worked on this.

Um, so if you have a lot of questions, we may need to table it.

But otherwise, what I can tell you is this chapter, it um it's a new edition, it focuses on flood flood damage prevention and controlling development and flood prone areas.

And we had to do this because FEMA recently remapped the area.

We were asked to update the ordinance, but since we did not have an ordinance, we needed to create the ordinance.

So there's a lot of definitions in here and then some specific regulations.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Thank you, Jacob.

Um questions for staff.

This is the one we can table.

We may.

We can table anything.

To what period?

To when?

Because like the per the author, I'd love to hear from the author and what she has to say about it.

Yeah.

And yeah, I think to the next meeting if if that was your decision.

Um next regular meeting.

She just came down with the flu or something.

So it's going around, it sounds like something like that.

And I think the the big thing on this, she mentioned to us we have to have this adopted by is it July 1st or June?

Yeah.

There's a timetable, but it's not we're not tight.

But yeah, I guess if you want to hear more, ask more questions about it, definitely could table it.

At some point we have to adopt something, I guess.

Is that this is being pushed by FEMA new definitions?

It's not necessarily uh an outside force other than that.

That's pushing.

Correct.

Yeah.

And that's just because they they updated their survey in the area.

Yep, exactly.

And I I think it also, well, I I think it also affects like if we had a flood and if we're applying for emergency funds and things like that, the federal government requires cities to have something along this lines to this add protection for our residents as well, or is that just the city if we're applying for funds?

That's a good question.

Yeah, I don't know.

Does the do the residents have to have something to lean on in our code as well?

Yeah.

I I would think it's probably just more for federal, which comes down through the cities.

Um but yeah, I mean it does add some additional layers of regulation.

If you're gonna develop in the floodplain, it has very specific requirements.

So it goes way beyond, you know, we have some basic things that say really we try and encourage people not to develop or do anything in the floodplain.

But this does, you know, it talks about if you develop you have to be a certain elevation above the what they've determined is the flood elevation with your buildings and if it's a commercial building, you have to have all of your utility things above that flood elevation.

There's all kinds of details in there.

It's really FEMA's attempt, you know, after all these years of flooding in the US, they've learned a lot of things, and so this is trying to avoid so that they don't have to pay out so that so they're incentivizing cities to have regulations to avoid with insurance for different things.

So this is to try and avoid the headaches that they've moved through probably times with all the flooding and yeah, anyways, but yeah, I shall be, I'm sure she'd be happy to she really wanted to be here, but yeah.

I mean, I think one of my questions would be like is are there things in this that we would need to go back based on a redoing of the map?

Are there things that we would have to retroactively as a city go back and fix so that we're meeting the standard, or is that just in the future if something happens here if it meets the code, we might be or if it meets the criteria, we might be able to get the funds, but if not, and we didn't fix it, then no.

I think it's just going forward.

Just going forward, okay.

But if but if an existing structure came in with a permit, they needed they were doing some project on their home.

Maybe they were extending you know, they were putting an extension on the back of their home.

Yeah, they would then have to come up to this new standard, is that correct?

If they or fifty fifty percent of the value of the Yeah, if that if I was reading this correctly, it was a requirement in there.

If you do more than 50 percent of the value of the home as an upgrade, then you have to qualify for these new rules.

You have to bring it up to if that makes sense.

I probably didn't state that correctly.

I didn't see that in here.

Is that in here?

Yeah, I was just looking for it.

It's along thing.

Yeah.

Do we have any public comment on it?

Uh there was not any.

Not on this item, no.

This is a public hearing.

Did any did anybody have further discussion?

Okay.

Uh if anybody's here to speak to item 3.4, this is your chance.

Public hearing is open.

All right.

Is this one that we oh sorry, my bad.

Sorry, go close the public hearing.

Is this one that we adopt or is city council adopted?

Uh the city council has to recommend while I'm also sad that Shelby isn't here to present this.

I'd love to be able to better understand it from her.

I am happy to also put forward a motion if we don't want to table it.

City council's got to approve it anyways.

Yeah, but if we were the last body, I would feel less comfortable, but with with it going to city council and her having a chance to present to them.

There, yeah.

All right, okay.

Item 3.4, a public hearing recommendation of Lehigh Cities request review of a development code amendment adding chapter 12D.

Flood damage prevention and compliance with FEMA.

The recommendation being that we approve the proposed amendment to Lehigh City's development code, with the findings being that the proposed development code amendment is in conformance with the purposes and 10 provisions of the general plan and its various elements.

And that it is based upon information presented.

Uh there was nothing presented really during the public hearing.

No comments, no nothing.

There was one DRC comment though.

So please add those spaces between paragraphs for consistent formatting.

And that is all.

Motion and a second, all in favor.

Any opposed.

Okay.

I did not catch that.

FEMA authored this right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Yep.

Sounds good.

All right, 3.5.

Okay.

Um item 3.5 is public hearing and recommendation of Lee High Cities request for review of a development code amendment to Chapter 37, removing the exception for the maximum setback of 50 feet if there is a module parking allowed.

Um you may remember this from last meeting.

We had to deal with this, and I was partially what inspired this code amendment.

Um really probably the purpose of this is to simplify the design standards and eliminate some of those conflicting requirements.

The allowance for a module of parking between the building and the street, but also having a max setback of 50 feet.

And it's pretty rare that you could meet both.

So the idea is to clean this up and no longer require the exception to have the setback.

So with that, I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Thank you.

I do have a question.

Yeah, I understand the reasoning why, especially even after we saw it last week.

Um or two weeks ago.

But however, but um does this just leave it wide open?

Are we gonna put some limitation on how far back it can be?

I guess is it gonna be far back from the end of the module, like the curve of the I mean, what are we?

I guess it just says for the one module of parking.

Um, and there's dimensions for what a module of parking is in the code.

So I guess that would kind of put a natural limit on it.

Which is about sixty-two feet.

Um if you figure, you know, 20 foot, 24 foot aisle, 20, 18 to 20 foot on your stalls, and then a 24 foot aisle that's about 60, 62 feet.

So we're we're not gonna define like saying it has to be 65 feet or less.

Or or whatever.

I mean, we could write it that way.

I just feel like someone could come in here and say, well, the code says I can go back eighty feet because there's no number there.

Right?

Or or whatever.

Yeah.

That's just that's the only concern that I really have with it.

I I don't disagree with the idea.

Removing it as a I mean, it's nice to not have an exception right for this.

But um I worry about somebody taking advantage of it in ways that we might not be protecting ourselves from.

Yeah, it may not hurt to put a upper number.

I guess the module, and then you'd have some landscaping required out front.

I'm trying to think about a situation where it ends up being more than that.

Like if you have your standard drive width, right?

And then the module parking, it's not like it's multiple modules.

I don't know.

Yeah.

And doesn't this only apply to certain uses?

Right?

Um yeah, that module of parking being allowed.

Um that module parking, regardless, is still conditional, right?

It's the it still has to come forward with a conditional approval.

Not the module parking, no.

Because yeah, since this is just in state highway and general non-residential, I think it's usually for auto, more auto-related use is kind of like the what was the one last week or two weeks ago?

Office warehouse or industrial list of uses.

It's on a different page, and I think it got removed from this upload.

Let me see if I can find it.

But it would have been 37.

Yeah.

But yeah, I guess it would be a permitted use in those situations.

So then you wouldn't actually have to have seen that project that came last time.

Right.

So here's kind of the list.

Um maximum of one parking module for auto-oriented uses, gas station, car wash, auto repair, auto sales, but then I think there were some other ones as well.

Industrial uses typo right there.

Except 20.

That's an awesome one.

Oh, yeah, there's the module.

There's the module.

Our code is perfect and infallible.

It has no other no errors.

What do other cities have as a rule for this?

Some cities are like, you know, maybe park cities on the other extreme where they allow very rarely do they ever allow parking in front of a building.

Especially in certain districts.

And and this that's why we do regulate it by we have different design districts.

So if this was Main Street or downtown, then we we probably wouldn't want this to apply.

We want the buildings to be up to the street, but for these specific uses where they're very much more auto-oriented.

We want the buildings to be up to the street, but for these specific uses where they're you know very much more auto-oriented, that's where we've decided to not hold on to that standard.

We used to say across the board, the our preference was always to orient the building to the street, but with gas stations, some of those uses it's just so difficult to get the pumps and the people to be able to pull in, not have to drive literally around the back of the store to get to the pumps.

So we just said okay, not all this doesn't fit all sizes, so that's where the general commercial so yeah if we were to go into some of the other districts.

This isn't even an allowance, yeah.

But I do think it'd be a good idea to give a maximum setback.

Yeah.

To make that clear that an actual ceiling, like an actual so we don't play that game.

And again, who who knows?

Like I'm not saying that it would, but someone with bad intentions could take advantage of it, right?

Yeah, so if a parking module is 60, I think is um for the 18 foot stalls, and then normally if they met all the requirements, we'd normally have 20 feet of landscaping from the back of the sidewalk to where the parking starts.

So if we said 80 feet or 80, 85 feet, maybe give them a little bit of because a 20 foot stall depth, that would give you 64 foot module.

74, 84.

If we said 85, that would be you know, that would keep it as tight as we could.

Yeah, um you could say with you know no more than 85 foot total or something like that.

That would just be my suggestion that we give some limitation.

Yeah, so you could just say maximum setback of 50 feet shall be allowed for building, except for uses or less a module of parking is allowed, in which case the setback may be allowed up to 85 feet or something like that, not to exceed 85 feet.

Yeah.

I don't I don't know what the right number is, but whatever you guys are comfortable with, I think we should put a number in there.

Yeah, I'd rather have somebody have to come and ask for an exception and explain why they need additional space than to just give somebody the freedom to do it, whatever they wanted.

But I also really appreciate that uh that we wouldn't have to see it.

So did I miss a really good meeting last time?

No.

I just feel like this issue's popped up, I don't know, several times over the last few years.

It's like one of those ones that's just like it's a reoccurring issue.

So if I just finally decided to men the code.

Yeah, because we generally allow the module and parking.

I think it's for certain uses, right?

I think it was for probably all those businesses along Boston Street.

They can all came in for the same exception.

The landscaping one, the swim school, you know.

So um this is a sorry, did anybody have any other questions for staff?

This is a public hearing.

This time we'll open a public hearing for out of a 3.5 if you're here to speak to this item.

This is your chance.

Seeing none.

Then there were no comments online, correct?

Not for this item.

Uh we'll close the public hearing and bring it back for further discussion or a motion.

I will make a motion.

You may.

Just kidding.

Right now.

On item 3.5, public hearing recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment to chapter 37.

Removing the exception for the maximum setback if there is a module of parking allowed.

I move that we recommend approval, but with the recommendation that a maximum setback of 85 feet be uh included in our recommendation.

It's a lot of recommending.

Uh finding that that's it fits with the development code.

Um it's been in conformance with its purpose, intent, and provisions.

I'm gonna be prickly.

Can we change that instead?

I don't pretend to know that 85 feet's the right number.

I was gonna agree with Can we just say or whatever staff feels is necessary, and then you guys can think about it and put what you want.

Sure.

I would change the moat well different scenarios or I it's I mean if they want a different scenario, then they have to come in and get an exception.

No, I'm just thinking of if yeah, like I I've laid out one tonight.

I I think that 85 should be good, but I guess you just want to allow a little more.

Give you some time to think about it, think through it and see if it's give you time to put the numbers together, figure out a recommendation distance.

Yeah.

Kate, can you figure that out?

Or would you like us to just start over?

I don't I don't want to start over.

I'll second that.

Motion in a second, all in favor.

Any opposed.

Okay.

3.6.

I just want to cover it.

Um you would like us to add a max setback with the module parking.

It might be 85 feet, but you would like us to research it further.

Perfect.

Cool.

Thank you.

That's I will pass that information along.

Up to 300 feet.

Up to 300 feet.

Back to the property.

On the landline.

On the lot line.

The last item, well, the last regular item of the evening.

Um public hearing and recommendation of Lehigh City's request for a review of a development code amendment to chapter 35, urban forestry.

Creating a limit on rock mulch.

Um let's see.

Yeah, so this seeks to create a limit on the amount of rock mulch that can be used in commercial developments as well as multifamily residential.

Um concerns arose over the last several months, probably last several years, about the long-term maintenance of rock mulch as well as the kind of urban heat island effect and kind of the heating up and uh the impact it was having on some of the trees in the park strip.

Um an original draft of this um text showed the limitation to be only 30% allowed.

I I know there was some additional conversation within city departments, and that number was raised to 60% to allow more rock mulch, but uh I guess you have flexibility on what percentage of rock mulch you would like.

But um that was the number that was settled on.

Was the 60% of no more than that can be no more, no more than 60% of the total landscape can be rock mulch.

Um the amendment also encourages the use of native plants and encourages single family developments to consider a limitation as well.

So again, an encouragement, a recommendation, not actual teeth requiring it.

Um I know, yeah, and this might be mentioned there's a public comment uh related to this.

I know there's some thoughts on some of the other park strip requirements and things, but the uh I guess what I'm trying to say is the sole intent of this code amendment really was to focus on the rock mulch component versus some of the other elements.

So uh with that I'll turn it over to the planning commission for any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Yeah, this is a simple one though.

Uh churches are considered commercial.

No.

Yeah, non-residential.

Non-residential.

Yeah, I would say that's a good question though, because a lot of times church does end up in like a residential zone and then a residential tank.

Yeah.

But it's a non-residential use.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes.

Churches are commercial.

Considered commercial.

A non-residential use.

Because that could be different, right?

Non-residential and commercial.

Because the language in the packet is commercial.

Yeah.

So would it affect a church or not?

Well, just um parts for oh, yeah, that's that's specifies non-residential there.

Um maybe that's an amendment to this section is instead of multifamily residential and s institutional.

Commercial.

I guess it's institutional, actually, probably would cover church.

Schools, churches.

Yeah.

If you wanted to add the word churches or non-residential.

Well, in schools for that matter.

Yeah.

If you want it to be more specific, you I think you could add it.

Because schools would definitely be institutional.

How'd they get the 60 versus 30 again?

So when this code amendment started with the planning department.

Um, and I think our original idea was the 60 per the 30 percent.

So to have it, you know, pretty strict on how much rock mulch we allow.

And then I believe some of the conversation, I don't know if it was with engineering or public works.

I'm gonna throw Gary under the bus a little bit.

And parks, they wanted to raise it to 60 percent.

So this might be a uh I think might have that partially might have been due to where what type of road classification it was.

So anyways.

Is there was there's been a large push in Utah to zero scape, and that feels like that's where the rock mulch has come from, especially with the governor's mandates and stuff like that.

Does this hurt us at all as far as state funding and things like that if we're putting limitations on zero escape in commercial areas?

I don't think it would.

It were just changing the material like your mulch material from you could still do um non turf.

It just would be bark versus the rock.

So we still have the zeroscaping requirements.

It's just I think the state and and we could look um there's a whole section.

Well, anyways, um some of the states is uh recommendation, some of it's required, but their main goal was to eliminate big turf areas that don't really get used, like in the park strips or you know, they're trying to they're they're not saying you can't have lawn but make it in areas that are actually usable, like instead of just your entire backyard.

You should have a turf area and then the corners and stuff.

That that's kind of their recommendations.

But yeah, I don't think it the state level we can look.

I don't think it really gets into the type of cover that you have.

It's just limiting grass.

We'll look at that.

These were the bad examples.

That's true.

Yep.

So Gary, why did you push from 30 to 60?

I think it was kind of uh group effort in engineering.

Um it just seems like 30% was too low.

Um for the total required landscaping area there.

I think one of the big things that we were pushing for is where it says not including public ride of ways.

Um that was kind of one of our biggest issues there, you know, because there's a lot of road projects where we didn't want to have landscaping put in irrigation systems, run power out to it, stuff like that.

So that was kind of our big thing there.

I think maybe it was maybe more the parks department that was pushing for 60 percent, but um if I remember right.

So they could still use some other form of mulch, just not rock molts.

Yeah.

So are we we're are you pretty stuck on sixty for rock mulch?

Well not molds, just rock molds.

I guess was the other alternatives.

I guess there are bark mulch, but that's a disaster most of the time.

It's a disaster and care.

So we kind of went back and forth and kind of had some words.

Kind words, probably.

So anyway, that's kind of where we ended up at.

Okay.

So did you carve out not including public right-of-ways, if I'm reading if I read that right?

Yeah, in fact, our city engineer was pretty adamant about that.

He really wanted to have that in there.

Um I think the rest of it is kind of whatever, but that was kind of one of his big things on there too.

Because there's a lot of projects that we do on roads and stuff coming up that where that would just make sense, and we wanted to have that excluded if it made sense to do so.

And mainly that's for sprinklers or just maintenance, but the the city would have to do on that piece of.

It looked terrible and stuff, so it just seemed like it was a good option for us.

We've done lots of roads that way too.

So I did love our valiant effort of all the trees on Pioneer Crossing.

That lasted four minutes.

Well, and uh we pulled those.

So anyway, um, I mean, my thought on this, uh I did have questions about that 60 percent.

I think if you carve out the area the right-of-ways, I mean, why why wouldn't we want to limit it to less like I mean inside the public right-of-way, yes, let's give the exception, they can go above the 30%.

But why would we want them to go above 30% elsewhere where it doesn't affect utilities or road projects?

Well, and you can obviously make a recommendation too.

I'm asking for your expertise though.

Yeah, I think that was kind of a trying to figure out a debate between the parks department, engineering, planning, um, and even public works of what this would evolve to.

It just seemed like 30%.

If somebody like wanted to have more than 30% that they ought to have the option to do it.

And I guess we're kind of a lot of the way of property rights.

And if they want to have 60%, um I could see not having a hundred percent.

That would but uh I don't know, we just kind of settled at 60%.

I don't know if I can give it an exact pinpoint reason why we're gonna do that.

I don't know if that number is good or not.

I don't know.

Right, yeah.

So we're kind of making it up as we go almost.

So any other questions for staff?

Go to the public This is a public hearing.

If anybody is here that would like to speak to item 3.6.

Uh we'll open the public hearing now.

Seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

Uh there is one online.

Sorry, we will reopen for the reading of this little novel.

Just so you know it's passionate about rocks for the synopsis.

Yeah.

Um I don't even know if I could do a synopsis justice, so I either should read it or you should read along silently.

I think you should read it.

Jacob, read it.

Go ahead.

Um I maybe should also, I don't know, just another thing I thought about was I think our intention with this is it's a first step towards you know, trying to curtail some of the you know excessive rock mules that we've been seeing.

And this may not be the perfect answer, but we're we want to do something to start moving the you know, moving down that road.

Could someone sorry, we're in public hearing mode.

I'll I'll ask my question after.

Go ahead.

Sorry, your comment.

I maybe shouldn't have done that right there, but okay.

Uh this is from Montane Hamilton.

And it reads while I support the improvement, um, but the way we're changing the code is a little haphazard and makes the requirements a little confusing.

Likewise, I think reducing to a lower number would be better, and the original 30% is a better number.

Here is a proposal for change sections instead of the current proposal.

I believe this item could use a little work with staff.

Community forestry section 35.220, water efficiency standards, D landscape requirements.

Maybe I should open these up next to each other.

Yeah, I'll just read it.

That'll be easier.

Um, D landscape requirements two, lawn shall not be installed in park strips, parking lot islands, or on slopes greater than 25% or 4 to 1.

Um grade.

Uh one or subsection one or park strips shall conform to all street tree planting requirements, including proper irrigation of existing lawn.

It's being removed from park strips to conform to these requirements, all existing street trees.

Um that conform to the city's tr street tree selection guidelines and associated irrigation system shall remain.

Two all park strips for non-residential and multifamily residential uses shall contain at least 50% living plant cover.

It is recommended to use drought tolerant and native plants, including but not limited to grasses and sedges, wildflowers.

Three organic mulch shall be used within three feet of tree trunks to avoid sun skeleton of trees.

Uh rock mulch shall not make up more than 30% of the mulched areas.

Four exceptions to the park strip requirements may be provided for public agencies, including Lehigh City, administered transportation projects.

Lawn shall not exceed 35% of the total landscaped areas defined in this chapter.

Um small residential lots which have no backyards, which the total landscaped area is less than 250 square feet, and which the front yard dimensions cannot accommodate the minimum eight feet wide lawn area requirements are exempt from the eight feet width requirement, and the maximum of 35% lawn requirement.

Uh two corner lots that are 8,000 square feet or less are exempt from the maximum of 35% lawn requirement.

For the side yard area adjacent to the street.

Three mulch areas shall use organic mulch comprised of no more than 30% rock mulch.

Four, it is recommended to use drought tolerant and native plants and non-lawn areas, including but not limited to grasses and sedges, wildflowers.

Five for institutional churches, schools, etc.

And multifamily landscapes in common areas, lawn shall not exceed 20% of the total landscaped area as defined in this chapter.

One mulched areas shall use organic mulch comprised of no more than 30% rock mulch.

Two, it is recommended to use drought tolerant and native plants and non-lawn areas, including but not limited to grasses and sedges, wildflowers.

Yep.

Thank you.

We'll now public close the public hearing.

Could somebody today put a hundred percent rock mulch in?

Uh they would have to have 50% plant coverage.

Right.

But I don't think we have anything that would prohibit them from zero escaping as long as they still have the trees and plants required.

But even in this example, the second picture down the church.

That would not be allowed, the tree on the right, because it's within 30 feet of the tree, correct?

Three feet.

Or three feet.

Oh, for the three feet.

Yeah, three feet.

So they just want the roots to stay cooler.

Right.

So again, these are out of compliance.

They would have to have a three-foot ring considered out of compliance.

Yeah, if this were too much.

Right, for sure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't know if we've ever, I don't know if we've gotten like a 100% rock mulch plan.

We've gotten some pretty significant, you know, pretty highly rock mulched projects.

But that is a good question.

Also, leaves the drop in rock mulch are a nightmare as well.

Yeah, like that for every time I do see rock mulch, it looks really good when it goes in.

And then it looks like the top picture, unless it's a church, it looks like the top picture within a couple within a month, a couple months.

Yeah.

So I think it's in this it's easy to get this gonna be terrible.

It's easy to get lost in the weeds on this one.

Told you it was going to be bad.

I apologize.

But it was the only thing that came.

Um but for to be tonight, we are just talking about the percentage of rock mulch that can be used.

Right.

I think we need to work on this, because I think there's a lot of great things that can happen and should happen.

Uh Montana's comments explain a lot of that.

I think for tonight, right?

It is how much rock mulch do we think we should recommend to City Council?

And then make sure that I'm still curious as to why you guys want to carve out uh your right-of-ways.

So we'll we'll come back to that.

Okay.

Maintenance.

Maybe everything right away to me.

Is that just the side?

That's side of the street, right?

Like the planner street.

Planner's thing in the middle.

Back of sidewalk towards the street would be the right of way.

So anything within that area.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I I it's one of those things.

Well, the city can do this, but residents.

Now, this is also not residential zones.

We're not talking about residential zones.

Right, right.

We're talking about just commercial.

Thank you for that.

Non-residential non-residential zones.

Non-residence.

Institutions.

Churches and schools.

Institutions.

I guess multi-family residential too.

Okay.

That first paragraph says commercial.

Yeah.

In the report.

So anyway.

Um other questions for staff.

More discussion.

Maybe a motion.

Well, I don't know if I'm ready for a motion, but uh I do think 60% is too high.

I think we can recommend a lower percentage, whatever that might be.

Split the difference at 45.

How do you measure that?

I have no idea.

I'm not there with my date measure.

I have no idea.

Same way you measure 30 or something, right?

Right.

But still the commercial.

Yeah.

You know, they have engineers.

Yeah.

They have the tools to do that.

I in feeling I agree, but I don't know.

I don't know enough to to say 60 is bad.

Or I'd I think 60 is too much.

I mean I agree that it feels too much.

Yeah.

But 60 is better than 100, though.

190 or 80 or 70.

Yeah.

And I do know in some areas of Lehigh, you put down wood mulch, and it's going to end up in the lake or in Riverton.

Yeah.

Yep.

I like 50.

It's good.

I like it.

Yeah.

I feel like I could more easily eyeball that and say, Yeah, this feels like half and half to me.

Yeah, this feels like half and half to me.

That's probably not the right way to go about landing on a number though.

So no, I don't.

I I think I think the number has to be recommended from staff.

It's it just my feeling.

It needs to be recommended from staff.

I haven't heard a strong argument.

Um tonight that's 60% of why that is a good number.

Um but I think the numbers need to be recognized by staff.

But there's also a lot that goes into landscaping and why it's certain ways.

Like there's two right now in Utah, there's two major arguments about around the water world with lawns and making it up and how much vegetation we require versus rock and how it looks.

There's just so much that goes into it because yeah, you put rocks in, it does raise the temperature of different areas.

So I think this is just one that for me, I don't feel comfortable putting a number at this point on it.

And then I think staff needs to recommend or just bring up a number that it doesn't it feels rushed, is what it feels like.

And you probably did discuss it more in depth.

I just I just haven't felt that yet.

You made it sound like that was an argument.

I'm guessing a fist bite.

That's what I heard, right?

No?

Let's just make a boxing ring with rocks.

60% of the ring is all rocks.

No, just engineers and they're going to have to.

I could argue left and right on this one all the way.

I I don't disagree with you.

I I do think that I I guess from my perspective, a recommendation would be not 60.

But what the number is should be something that staff comes up with and recommends to city council.

Well, feels it feels to me like 60% is the number that came from staff.

60% is the number that came from DRC.

Right?

Yeah.

Yes.

Well, and I mean at some point, right, this might be something that you know, city council or even city staff is gonna have to defend to a business, right?

Or somebody who's wanting to come in and develop, and so I think it might be helpful if we did have maybe just a little bit more reasoning behind the argument of this is why this this is the information or the data that goes into this number and or what we feel like the benefit is when it's not lower than this or not higher than that, just so it's a little bit easier to defend if if and when it might be challenged in the future.

Or questions are asked about it.

Comment on that.

Yeah.

Please.

I think if looking back, I think the 60% was probably something we came to a conclusion on because it kind of didn't limit developers' hands so much that gave them up to 60%.

Not that they would always go to that amount.

Um there might be some reasons and places where it would make a lot of sense to have more rock mulch than others.

Um it is a little bit more water-wise use, um, which is what we're always trying to do.

So um it just I think gave some more flexibility to developers to use that tool if they wanted it to, rather than tying their hands, because we're kind of trying to keep property rights to people with property rights and not tie their hands too much.

I'm sure that's kind of how we came up with that 60%.

So kind of was probably a good compromise somewhere in the middle.

Why not 50 if we're compromising?

Yeah, because somebody wants to be able to do that.

We can do indie, and they landed on 60.

Yeah, I think again it's massive.

That was the compromise.

Right.

Yeah.

Probably that's probably true though.

Somebody wanted to.

You know, and every department has kind of their opinion, parks department, planning, engineering.

Everybody's kind of got their opinion.

It just kind of wherever we landed at.

So an engineering liked 60.

I think we're okay with that.

Okay.

So just for synopsis.

Staff recommended or wrote 30.

DRC hashed it out and decided that they were the group was more comfortable with the number 60.

And there was multiple meetings even before DRC with the various city departments.

Because I don't think it was just engineering that said 60.

It's not all on, it's not all on engineering.

I think we're no no.

I'm yeah.

I'm not saying I'm not throwing engineering.

But yeah, I think there was multiple meetings even before it went to DRC.

And that was the number that was settled on when it went to DRC.

Even but yeah, when it when the code went to DRC, it was written this way.

And that's why there's not I would say probably more DRC comments.

Okay.

Because 60 was settled on.

I think if it stayed at 30, there would have been more DRC comments from various departments.

And see that works for me, because I I trust DRC to be the experts in this.

Yeah.

So I'll yeah.

Thank you.

Any further discussion or motion?

Motion for item 3.6, public hearing recommendation of Lehigh City's request for review of a development code amendment at chapter 35, urban forestry creating a limit on rock mulch.

The motion being that we recommend approval for the proposed amendment to Lehigh City Development Code, with the findings being that the proposed development code amendment does seek to get ahead of challenges that come from too much rock mulch in landscaping.

The proposed development code amendment allows flexibility for city projects.

The proposed development code amendment is in conformance with the purposes and intent provisions of the journal plan and its various elements.

And please include those DRC findings.

Can I get clarification?

Is this for the 60% rock mulch?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

I think this one's also a recommendation, not just a straight approval.

I think you said recommendation.

But if you didn't, then good conclusion.

We have a motion.

I will second it.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Did you get that, Kate?

Okay.

All right.

Does carry forward with a positive recommendation to the city council.

Any city business.

There's a work session next week.

We've got a riveting program for you.

I hear we might go on tour.

There will be a tour at the end.

There will be some other content talked about by legal as well as myself.

And oh, not you by Craig.

Yeah.

Craig Chambers.

Assistant City Attorney.

So they bring it to me because we did something wrong.

No, it's just the standard.

The standard discussion.

I don't know.

Is there anything else that we need to bring up?

I think that's it.

It's here, right?

Right here.

Uh 5 30.

I was gonna say 7 o'clock, but no, we'll be done.

It's by 7.

So as as applicants have a number of days left to put in their general plan amendments.

How are we looking towards this?

I think we received our first one today.

So not a lot of general plan amendments coming in.

But you'll probably there will be a whole slew of them right after the month ends like we always do.

Yeah, things have been better on that front actually recently.

So we may only get the one.

We may get one or two in the next couple days, but yeah.

Um that's it.

Can I motion close the timeout?

I just can I make a personal whatever you want, man.

Well, I just want to you guys are doing here you're here for school, right?

Do you have any questions you want to ask of our chair error?

Chair.

Oh, that's good.

Yeah, yes.

If you my daughter's if you give it to us, you need to give it to her.

Yeah.

Please do.

That needs to be the cover.

Are you in the production?

No, I am not.

That's why I'm here.

They're um tonight's opening night.

Tonight was opening.

My daughter is in the ensemble.

Sasha Lakin.

Oh my gosh, I know her.

Okay.

That's so cool.

Good.

It's always good when people like have a positive reaction to knowing your child.

Sometimes I'm not sure.

I mean it was like, oh, it was acknowledged.

It was a she smiled.

So I'm taking that as positive.

And she she went on the French trip.

Yeah.

Oh yeah.

We were uh we were best we were like best runs during the French trip.

Oh fun.

Oh, that's awesome.

That's awesome.

That was positive.

That was that for me to see.

See, I have a good kid.

I do.

I do.

Um yeah, it runs through next Tuesday.

So yes, everyone should go see it.

Well, our meetings are very exciting.

You're more than welcome.

For extra credit or whatever.

Other reason.

An assignment.

For credit.

The assignments.

Regular watch planning commission?

Just some like city meeting.

Like any city meeting.

Nice.

Nice.

You picked the right one to come to.

We're done earlier than usual.

Yeah, right.

There was no yelling.

We'd be out of here in an hour.

It was I was trying.

Sorry.

I won't believe that.

It's fine.

Um but thank you for coming.

Yeah.

Next time, come talk to us.

Come come talk about every item.

Give a give a comments.

Ask questions.

Whatever.

Can I motion to close?

Adjourn, yeah.

Adjourn.

Motion to adjourn the meeting.

Second it.

Motion and a second.

All in favor.

Aye.

Any opposed.