Recording stopped.

Good evening, and welcome to uh the February fifth uh planning commission for C D City.

We'll do a quick round of introductions of Planning Commission members and then uh I'll have James Sorrenson introduce staff.

Cameron Duncan.

Jennifer George, Dave Bromley, Danny Schoenfeld, Ron Mortimer, David Hart, Steve Rigley.

James.

Thank you.

I'm James Sorrens, the community development directory of Darren Alcorn, the senior attorney for the city.

Mike Wilcox Planning Director.

See, we have Thomas Irvin with us, senior planner.

Melissa Anderson zoning administrator, and we have Craig Kitterman who's an alternate to the planning commission in the crowd with us tonight as well.

And then Aisha over here is planning secretary.

Thanks.

Thank you.

We'll do a quick pledge of allegiance and then we'll get into our agenda.

Under God with liberty and justice for all our first public item tonight is the special exception for restoration on the sensitive overlay with 30% at 9677 South Quail Hill Lane.

Chair, can I recuse myself on this one?

Yep, please.

And then Craig Ketterman, one of our alternates will be sitting in his place for this particular item.

Wants to take it away.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Chair and Planning Commission.

Yeah, so this is just a proposal to restore a sensitive area.

It's a restoration plan with grading and landscape plan.

And it's at uh 9677 South Quail Hill Lane.

And so the city had been notified of potential disturbance in areas that were meant to be protected.

This slide shows on the subdivision plat where areas were designated as non-disturbance areas.

And we have an area that was identified, and you can see the corresponding pictures show that there had been like a retaining wall and grading done in that area.

So a citation was issued for this, and so the property owner has been working with staff and prepared grading plan as well as landscape plans.

So this was the plan that was submitted a portion of that area to illustrate uh how they proposed to remove the retaining wall, regrade it, uh similar to the extent possible as the original conditions, and then to uh re-landscape uh with uh they're going to put down some matting and seeding with uh native um grass seed, and then also uh putting in some uh some trees and so we only had a couple um recommended modifications to the landscape plan.

One is to add tree protection to preserve the the new scrub oak from any wildlife from consuming them, which they like to do when they're small little trees, and also to arrange the new trees and place them in an area in a way that kind of mimics the natural pattern versus a formal linear uh equidistance pattern.

So that uh the rest of the conditions are standard, so those two uh recommendations to the planning commission were added as conditions of approval, uh, and staff recommends that the commission approve the restoration plan with the grading and landscaping.

And so if you have any questions, I'll be happy to um answer them.

The applicant uh is here and they can answer any questions too.

So I I just have one question.

Um I noticed that if you go back a click, it says uh temporary irrigation system.

I'm wondering how long that will be there.

Because once the trees are planted, they obviously are gonna need water.

And how long do we anticipate that they will need water before they are able to live on their own without being watered?

Right now we don't have a specific date identified.

The plan doesn't have a specific date, it's uh cited as um, you know, to uh get the vegetation established.

Um not sure if it's wise to add a specific date.

Well, uh the code only requires temporary irrigation if it's planted during certain times of the year.

Um these are native plant materials that they're placing, which don't necessarily need to have irrigation if it's planted in the spring or in the fall when we tend to have a little bit more um wet uh season.

Well, this uh winter excluded, obviously.

Um I I would say uh there's normally enough moisture content in the soil that there's enough to get those established in the spring.

So having a temporary irrigation system uh plan for now will help get those roots established, but it's really um it if they're not planted during um or if they're planted past I think it's April in our code or before October, they do require a temporary irrigation system.

Yeah, no, I think it's great, and I I want them to get established.

I just don't want them to get partway established and then have a hundred and eight degree day and have everything die.

Yeah, so I think it's that's all I'm trying to get to.

Yeah, and I would say I I I think the the uh developers or the the applicants are gonna be watching that.

It's gonna be to their advantage, obviously, to not you know not have them die once they put them in, they're not gonna want that to happen either.

Okay.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Um would the applicant like to come up and uh any additional information or I don't have any.

Okay.

None from the applicant.

Okay.

This is uh this item has been noticed.

I have one more comment.

There is a condition, Dave, in there that kind of covers that because if the trees die, they they have they have to have to replace them.

So it's in their best interest to come up with a system that will allow that to sorry.

Oh, thank you for the log.

Uh this item has been noticed at the public.

Is there anybody here in the public who would like to speak on this item?

Anyone online?

If you're joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

Looks like we have one hand raised, uh, Mr.

Van Maren.

You may unmute yourself and state your name and rec and address for the record.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Commissioner's and Mike Steve Ammeran, resident of one for one seven eight South Banger Parkway.

Um is the uh landscape map goes down before the seeds.

I'd like an opinion from the landscapers on the commission.

Seems like I would put those seeds in so I have direct contact with the ground before the landscape map goes down.

And second, why not apply for a special exception to just grade the whole high grade area over in the subdivision?

It's not a running stream.

I know it's not natural, but over time it's probably gonna collapse anyway.

Just uh just an observation.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Melissa, did you have any anybody else online?

I'm sorry.

I'm seeing no other hands raised.

We'll close the public comment.

Melissa, did you want to respond to any of that?

Reiterate what they were again.

It was landscaping and why why the special exception or why wasn't there a special exception to the uh or applying for a special exception to this overlay area is what I think the first one is the the seed versus the now I remember the sea versus the natting or whatever.

I mean, we're we're we're totally relying on uh professional landscape architect that they're working with.

I have no problem with the way they're doing that.

Okay.

Well then I guess we're good.

And then just to clarify what they're requesting, it's a restoration permit to restore back a hillside that was disturbed.

It's not a permit or a request to disturb an area that hasn't already been disturbed.

So they're they're putting it back as close as as they possibly can to the native condition that they were originally required to protect.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

Um with that, we'll bring that back to the count or the commission for any further deliberation and action.

Anyone make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Okay.

I make the motion that the planning commission grant a special exception to allow restoration of 30% or greater slope in the sensitive area overlay as described in the staff report for the property located at 9677 South Quail Hill Lane, based on the following uh five findings and five conditions.

Sorry.

Second.

Second.

Craig.

Sorry, who David Hart?

Yes.

Craig Kitterman.

Yes.

Dave Bromley.

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley.

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld.

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

Next agenda item is the Sequoia Co.

Subdivision, special exception and preliminary subdivision review.

I'll introduce this item, Mr.

Chair.

So this is a request by Alec Moffat with Sequoia Development.

They're representing the property owner Copper Creek Partners.

They are requesting two items tonight.

One is the preliminary subdivision review for approval of two special exceptions to create a flag lot and some relief from public road improvements, as well as a subdivision of five lots for this property that's located within the R18 subdivision.

The address of the property is at 1368 East Copper Creek Road.

And the applicant that I believe is here and can present on his on his requests.

It's Alec Moffitt, 9055 South 1300 East, Sandy, Utah.

With a flag lot as a special exception.

In the staff report, you'll can see that they asked for the trees to be protected.

We have done a tree study on that, just want to let you guys know.

The lot was abandoned for many years.

We looked at it for years and we decided let's just buy it and tear it down.

So trying to improve the area.

But because of that, a lot of the trees have not been watered in a long time.

They're in pretty bad shape.

The city trees are in the park strip.

But the arborist has uh things with proper pruning and watering through uh construction that we could maybe keep a few.

Um right now in the winter, we'll see how they how they go since it hasn't been the what is winter.

Um with that in our actual tree report, we have agreed that uh in state that we will follow city code 2125-3.

Um we'll make sure all those trees are protected during construction.

So with the lot, we do have the we do have the flag lot, everything does comply with city code, and this is the most efficient way to reach the density that uh this infill development offers.

Um you have five lots, they all conform to setbacks, uh, square footages.

So it's Mr.

Moffat.

Could you speak right into one of those mics?

Sorry, there's one of the two, just one at one.

Okay, take one.

All right.

Um it's pretty straightforward.

So you guys have any questions?

Any questions from the commission?

Okay.

Um this item has been noticed to the public.

Oh staff, I'm sorry, kick.

Sorry, Thomas.

I know we've changed things around a little bit.

Okay, so as we've been stated, this is a five-lot residential subdivision, the R18 zone.

Um, as of about a year ago, this went through a rezone.

Used to be duo zoned as commercial and residential.

Um, we've reviewed several different iterations of this over the last little while, and we do believe this is the most efficient way to subdivide the property.

Um, as a part of this five-lot subdivision, um, there was in your staff report there are two um special exceptions referenced.

One is the creation of a flag lot, as you see here, where you have the staff and the body portion of the flag.

Um, the way this is designed, it meets all of our standard requirements, the length of the flag, um, the square footage of the lot, it does meet those requirements, but it is in fact a special exception that does require your review and approval.

Um, there is a reference in the staff report associated with the uh five-foot sidewalk.

Um, there was been some discussion with staff since we initially wrote the staff report.

Um that and after a visit on site, the condition of that sidewalk is really bad.

They are already dedicating it, likely they're gonna end up having to replace that as well.

So that second special exception is no longer valid.

And so if you do make a motion on this, there'll be some changes to that language.

It we are going to require that they replace that four-foot sidewalk with a full five-foot sidewalk.

Um, as far as concerning the uh park strip trees, we do expect them to do the best they can work with the urban forester or work with staff.

It's obvious by their layout, certain trees won't make it, but obviously we do want them to give it their best try and see if we can keep some of those mature trees at the park strip.

Any questions for me?

I have one.

So is the sidewalk further south?

Four feet or five feet?

Four.

So we're gonna have a foot and then a jog.

Correct.

And that's what you want.

Well, that's what the city engineer wants.

And I listen.

That is the city standard.

Yeah, it is the standard.

So it would be a special exception to seek otherwise.

All of the corners around there do have four foot sidewalks.

Can it be blended?

Well, they usually do a curve.

It's not gonna be a hard jog, they never do it that way.

Oh, I wouldn't put it back.

Wouldn't either some poor kid on a roller skate.

To be clear, on their plans, they show on one page, they show it being replaced, and another they say retained.

I think the reality it was intended to be replaced anyway.

So there's no need for that.

Okay, I don't have a problem with them replacing it.

I just we ought to be able to tie it in, tie it in, smooth it properly.

Correct.

Not just put an edge where it drops into an abyss.

The side plan shows it tapering from five to four.

Yeah, so it's not a hard one.

If it's built per plan, okay.

Any other uh questions?

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here tonight that would like to speak on uh in relation to this topic?

We'll have you come back up in just a second after the anybody online if you are joining us via Zoom webinar and would like to speak to this particular item.

Please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

I am seeing no hands raised.

Okay, we'll close that to public comment.

Thomas, did was there some clarification we needed on the sidewalk?

Sounds like they're my yeah, please come back up.

I'll restate my name.

Alec Monfit, 955 South, 13 Utah.

I would like to ask for the special exception for the four-foot sidewalk.

Um, yes, a lot of it is in bad shape and will be replaced.

We want it to look as beautiful as possible.

We're building homes that we want to sell.

Curb appeal is a big part of that.

Um, so the areas that need to be replaced, we will replace.

Uh but the four-foot sidewalk, the entire neighborhood, it's an in-field development in the residential area, it's all four foot, and I'm with you guys.

A lot of you guys have the same feelings I do.

Kind of looks weird having five foot diving into four.

Um, especially when it's not really needed.

So, plus, it just adds more impervious uh hardscape to to the area.

So we want to keep things as green as possible, keep as many trees as possible.

So, any help that we can get there, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll bring that back to the commission for, or is there anything else?

Thomas from you.

Well, the code does say that the city engineer has to approve that.

So we might want to hear from her on her thoughts on the issue.

Well, it to clarify, it's it's to recommend uh make a recommendation to the planning commission.

It's ultimately up to the planning commission to deter to determine a special exception request, such as this.

But yes, I I think it would be good to hear from our city engineer, please.

Brittany Ward, city engineer.

Um the applicant is correct.

The neighborhood to the east of this development does consist of four-foot sidewalks that used to be our old standard.

Um, our new standard is five feet sidewalk.

In situations where the existing four-foot sidewalk is in great shape, and there's no trip hazards on it or anything, and it's in like maybe just uh a single family home, subdividing into two lots, and it's within the middle and center of a neighborhood, and both ways along along the street.

Um, continue that that four-foot sidewalk.

And those types of situations are when times I would consider recommending to leave the four-foot sidewalk in place as long as they can protect it during construction.

But if at any time it is damaged during construction and they need to replace it, then I do require them to upgrade that and put in the five-foot sidewalk for our standard.

In this particular situation, development, this is a gateway or entry into the neighborhood.

It is on a corner lot where the 88 ramp is in bad shape as well.

It's next to a commercial property, so it's not like it's not like a single family home development in the very middle and center of a neighborhood where it would be out of place.

Um, and the sidewalk is in poor condition, it does need to be removed and replaced.

And so in this situation, I would require it to be re replaced per our city standard to that five feet.

Steve, so I have a question.

The uh sidewalk coming from the road from the highway there.

Do we know how is that a five foot or is that a four foot?

I think that's four feet as well.

Um if that property were ever to redevelop or subdivide, they would be held to that same five-foot standard.

Okay, so it'll go from a four-foot to a five foot and back to a four-foot there.

It would um during construction, our inspectors will address that transition from the five feet to four feet and do it over um a gradual line so that it's not an abrupt end.

Cost difference between four foot and five foot sidewalk is very minimal, uh, especially in the situation where they need to remove all of the sidewalk anyway.

Is it an ADA sort of requirement that they went from four to five or so that it's wide enough to accommodate people or what?

The ADA, the 80 the the four foot to five foot standard is ours.

When the current um ADA ramp at the corner does not meet current ADA standards, so when that gets replaced, it will have to be those standards as well.

There's not even a detectable warning surface on there.

Yeah, Dave.

I I just wanted to be clear.

I'm not opposed to the five feet.

I just don't want an abrupt stop.

I want to blend it.

That's all I was asking.

So I was not suggesting to go back to a four-foot.

I was suggesting that you have a uh incongruency, and that the two should meet rather than having a foot displacement in a job.

That was my concern.

I will make sure that our inspectors do that.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Thomas, is there anything else?

So you can go either way with this.

I mean, personally, I feel that if you're gonna be replacing all of it, which is what we saw when we went on the site visit, the majority of it's in bad shape.

Putting the five foot would probably make a lot more sense.

It would tie better into the ADA ramp that's required at the corner.

There would be a transition, but we've done that quite often and done it well.

So if you choose to go that direction, then just don't include that language for that special exception, and the first uh the first finding would be deleted.

Okay, and that would cause them to have to come into compliance with our current standards.

Okay, okay.

Thank you.

We'll bring that back to the commission for further deliberation and action.

Is there any feelings on the sidewalk or I like the five-foot sidewalk myself?

And I think staff can transition it just fine, whether they extend it from the property to the to the west, the four feet and go till they get to a driveway or something like that.

They can make a transition, it doesn't have to taper, whatever fits appropriately.

When you look at the property on the um the west south side, that's all concrete.

There they filled in the sidewalk on both sides.

Um so there's I think there's no problem.

Yeah, they can just uh merge it right into there.

So I think I support the five foot Dave's in favor of Dave would did you want to say something?

No, I'm in support that as well and ready for a motion unless there's other any other further conversation.

Okay, you've got a motion, please go ahead.

Okay.

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes, David Hart.

Yes, Ron Mortimer, yes, Steve Rigley.

Yes, Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld, yes.

This motion carries.

Mature trees in the park strip are preserved.

Again, I think that that is going to be subject to, as we even noted out on site, the flag lot, there's going to be one.

Even if that's healthy, that's gone.

So I think that there needs to be some pragmat pragmatic approach to wherever the entrance is for the driveways.

So not sure what to that modifies number three.

Can that tree be moved?

Oh, salvaged, or is it not worth moving?

I don't think it would.

I wouldn't worry about that stuff personally.

Just ask.

So are you looking for some clarification language or to ensure that all healthy mature trees that do not conflict with drive with future drive approaches?

That would be sense.

Wouldn't that be built into the preservation plan?

That is they kind of get to that point that know where the driveways are going to be at the start of preservation to ensure that all healthy mature trees in the parks are preserved.

Yeah, that's in conflict with we got a change three.

The the idea behind that is that we you would allow us as staff to work with the applicant to preserve as many as possible.

And maybe that's what you place in that instead of all as many as possible.

Because they can place drive approaches in certain locations that could allow for the tree to be preserved.

They could also purposely place a drive approach in such a way that it eliminated a tree.

Okay, got it.

Okay, I'll make that adjustment.

No, just getting he hasn't needed that motion yet.

Is there any discussion further on that?

Go ahead.

We need a second.

No, but I haven't made a motion.

Okay, make uh motion that the planning commission determine preliminary subdivision review for the Sequoia Cove subdivisions located at 1368 East Copper Creek Road is substantially complete based on uh the three findings and three conditions in the staff report with a modification of the third uh condition um to add that as an moment to state that the the applicant work with staff on a tree preservation plan to ensure that as many as possible as as many mature healthy trees as possible be retained in the park strips and brand or preserved.

I'll second that.

I just have a clarification.

Did you say working like that?

Sure.

Okay, that's it.

Yes.

Yeah.

Is there a second?

I'll still second it.

Oh Cameron did perfect.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan?

Yes.

David Hart?

Yes.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

Steve Rigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you.

All right.

Next item on the agenda is the 9272 office condominium preliminary review.

It's on 700 East.

Yes, this uh item is an office condominium plat request submitted by Brooke Hints of Alta Commercial.

Uh they're representing the property owner and Porch LLC.

They're requesting this subdivision of a commercial condominium plat for an existing office building located at 9272 South 700 East.

The request uh consists of subdividing the interior of the space into 22 separately owned uh condominium units along with their associated common space.

Um we do have the applicant here, and they're able to present on their request.

I can't hear you back here at all.

So if you would want to do that, if you would just speak into one of the two mics, what one of the two microphones in front of you?

If you could speak into one of them, just one or the other, yeah.

And then just state your name and address.

I'm just wondering on this property.

Um what is the I'm sorry, ma'am?

What's the ma'am?

Are you are you what are you saying?

What do I need to do?

Hold on.

Are you the applicant on the what?

Did you apply for this?

No.

Okay.

And then we haven't opened it for public, so give it just a minute.

Just a moment.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Yeah.

They've not got to be able to do that.

I have I've never read the words.

Did anyone else apply?

Oh, the applicants, yeah.

Thank you.

If you could just pick one of the two mics, name and address for the record, please.

Reg Hintsey, um, 7612, Cardiff Circle, Cottonwood Heights, Utah.

Um, yeah, we're the applicant.

We've uh converted the building, we're in the process of concluding the building.

We've been doing this for about 20 years.

We've actually done four or five other buildings in Sandy over the years.

It's been a few years since we've done some.

So anyway, um it's uh a kind of speech for itself.

I don't know if there's any questions or if you don't want me to kind of explain what happened.

Go ahead.

Okay, anyway, so we're taking we we purchase buildings that are that are having a hard time leasing up.

They uh they don't compete well with uh the new class A buildings around, and um we feel a need for people who want to own their own space, and so we buy a bigger building and we convert it into or cut it up into smaller spaces and make it possible for people to own their own space in a in a condominium type setting, and it's worked really well.

So any other questions for the applicants.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Mark, excuse me, Thomas, I'm sorry.

Okay, so this is a building that's uh commonly known as the Rand Life Building.

It used to be a fitness facility.

Um basically what they are doing is uh a change in ownership, not a change in use.

There will be no um improvements changed on the site.

Um parking will be jointly owned by all the various tenants.

Um there's 22 specific units they're subdividing it into.

Our our particular review consisted of ensuring that they have uh rever reserve funding for building maintenance so that all the all the different tenants uh owners, I mean, within the building will have some money just in case there are major issues with the facility and it can be maintained in the in a proper order.

Uh our building officials reviewed this facility to make sure it meets all basic life safety requirements, such as egress and fire safety, and it has passed that review, and then staff will review the bylaws and the recorded plat, which we've done a preliminary review on and finding that it meets all of our standards, and uh we believe we can we can recommend approval of this subdivision.

Steve, did you have a question?

Yeah, I just have a question on parking.

Park our parking is not based upon the number of tenants, it's based upon the size of the building, correct?

So it's not gonna change as far as parking, even though you're not gonna be able to do that.

Correct, it's it's by square footage of the office, and it was preliminary approved under the previous site platform.

So there's plenty of parking based upon the square footage, even though we're subdividing in a 21 correct.

Usually it's it's car keeper in the house system.

Okay, yeah, that's what I thought.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Thank you.

This item has been noticed to the public.

Is there anybody here that would like to speak to this item?

Do you want to tell her she can come back?

I think she's while we wait for that.

Do you want to see anybody on one?

Yes.

If there are any uh uh participants on the zoom uh that would like to speak to this particular item, please use the raise your hand feature now, and we'll address you one at a time.

She's okay.

Okay.

We do have one hand raised.

Uh Miss Krishna Afota.

You may unmute yourself.

Please state your name and address for the record, please.

Hi, uh, I'm from 9229, Brighton View Drive.

Um I live I live on the corner of the property.

And I think Jackie, who just came and spoke right now, uh, she's my neighbor.

Uh we just wanted to clarify that um there's no additional buildings building um that'll be built build on on the site of the property or anywhere around.

Um that that's that's our only concern.

Okay.

You guys can hear me, right?

Yes, yes, we can't thank you, Mr.

Athota.

Anyone else?

Yes, I'm seeing no other hands raised.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close that to public comment and bring that back.

Thomas, do you want to address that question?

Sure, it's just as we stated earlier.

There will be no additional structures.

There will be no physical changes on the site or physical changes within the building itself.

This is literally changing the ownership designations of the space that exists already.

So no no additional buildings were going to be constructed on the property.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll bring that back to the commission.

Were there any other questions for staff or anybody?

Excuse me, to the commission for further deliberation action.

Any thoughts or want to make a motion or not everybody wants?

I'm ready for a motion if you guys are have any comments.

Okay.

Um I prose the the planning commission determined that the preliminary review for the 9272 office condom meetings located at 9272 South 700 East is substantially complete based on the findings and subject to the conditions listed below.

Findings one through three and conditions one through six.

Is there a second?

Second.

From Dave.

Ron Mortimer.

Yes.

David Hart.

Yes.

Dave Bromley?

Yes.

Cameron Duncan.

Yes.

Steve Wrigley?

Yes.

Jennifer George?

Yes.

Danny Schoenfeld?

Yes.

This motion carries.

Thank you and good luck.

We have a couple of administrative items to uh do.

We've got um the January 15th uh meeting minutes that we need approval for make a motion that we approve them.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Those are approved.

James?

I don't have anything additional tonight.

Mike, do you have anything that you want to maybe our new employee?

Yeah.

I do.

Um so this last week um we had a retirement gathering and and uh celebration for Doug Wheelwright.

His last day was on Monday.

Um we're excited for him and taking that next step in in his life and and fully retiring, I believe.

Though I did he did hint at maybe doing some consulting still, but uh he completed a very amazing career.

He in total had over 53 years working in planning.

Wow, which is incredible.

Uh 15 years with Sandy City, 30 years uh with Salt Lake City, and then he also worked, I believe, with Weaver County and did some private consulting for that uh portion of that time as well.

So uh we wish him all the best in retirement and um we're excited for him and his family.

Um we've been um uh working on replacing Doug and as a development services manager for the last couple months, and we're excited to announce that we have made um a selection, and uh that employee will be starting on Monday.

Uh Clinton Spencer will be replacing uh Doug as our development services manager.

He comes to us from Harriman City, uh was his last employment, but has also worked in Ogden and in Orem in his career.

So he's uh comes with a wealth of of knowledge and experience, and and we're excited to have him join our team and uh we'll introduce you to him uh during our next planning commission meeting.

Awesome.

So we're excited for you guys to get to know him and and work with him.

So yeah, same exciting news for us.

Excellent.

Is there any anything else?

Um as far as the future meetings are concerned.

We will have a meeting on um let's see, February 19th will be our next meeting.

Uh so we will have a meeting that night.

Um we've got at least uh three items, I believe, that will be um on that agenda right now, possibly more, but um, but that's what we can anticipate uh for next week.

Um or sorry, not next week, uh in two weeks from now.

Apologize next week uh by way of note, um, as I mentioned during our executive session, uh, we will have a board of adjustment meeting this month.

Um there's been a uh a request um uh for an appeal of an alleged error by the planning commission on a previous uh item that we had uh heard back in November for the Falls Creek uh estates subdivision that's located off of Wasatch.

Um so we'll let that process play out, but that item is scheduled for next Thursday.

Okay.

We'll report back as to what occurs during that meeting.

Question on not on that issue, but uh on scheduling and so forth.

Uh is everybody is is that uh file working now except for with me, or is that so?

Yeah, so okay, so it's not yeah, okay.

Do we need to find another solution?

Google should Google Google Yes.

Google works.

Yeah, and until you do that May 7th, I'm out.

Okay.

Um with that, uh, we'll take one last motion.

Motion to adjourn.

All in favor?

Or adjourned.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Good job, thanks.

I I saw the look on your face and I could feel it's like