make sure that the um discussion points had been highlighted. Can I can I add something as far as my hesitation with with approving it? I think the access and the safety does sound like it's an issue. Trail Haven is a gravel road. I live on a gravel road. When there's a lot of traffic on it, you get a lot of potholes. Even even if they're using dust control, you get a lot of potholes. It's difficult when you're driving over really big potholes and trying to pull out onto a busy county road. You're bouncing along in these potholes and trying to get up speed and get out on the county road which can get busy at certain times. So that this the safety I think could be could be an issue too and a reason to toy it. Okay. So um I'm going to check does everybody does anybody need I need it. Okay, we're going to take a five minute um to go to the bathroom before we move on to the next agenda item. All right. And so then we're going to pick up again with our uh commission meeting with agenda item 6 C which is Karani Acres second edition preliminary plat and variance. And we're going to begin with a staff report. Thank you madam chair. Yes, this is um item 6 C is a public hearing as well. Um Karan Acres second edition. Um this is a request from um Michael Kerinimi who's requesting approval of a preliminary preliminary flat and variance which would uh realign the shared property line between uh six the properties at 6855 Willow Drive and 6840 Rolling Hills Road. Um both properties are zoned rural residential. Yeah. Pause one second, Dwight. Uh, we're just going to ask Councilman Vinamp to please ask the folks out out in the area. I think or close the doors, whatever. I think we're supposed to leave the doors open. Am I correct? I think we're supposed to leave the doors open and just ask the folks to move outside. Thanks. Okay, Dwight, please continue. Sounds good. All right. And as I was saying, both properties are zoned rural residential and both are guided rural egg residential. Um the site itself consists of the two properties. Um 6588 Willow which was a a lot within the Kanei acres subdivision and 6840 Rolling Hills Road Rolling Hills Road which was part of the Rolling Hills Acres Subdivision. Um the request is yeah again to realign those the shared property line which uh if I can get my laser pointer out presently is um right along this line and they are um adjusting it to um allow the transfer of approximately 10 acres of land um from uh the property on Willow Drive or with the Willow Drive address to the property with the rolling hills address. Um so the properties both um meet the minimum dimensional requirements within the rural rural residential district. Um and um one of the properties meets the frontage requirement of the subdivision ordinance. However, um the property with the Willow address um does not meet this requirement as it is a landlocked part parcel and um receives it access from a shared private drive that runs through uh two properties to the west. Um so that that doesn't um meet the subdivision uh requirements and would require a variance in order for the plat to be approved. Um touching on some of the natural features, uh there are a significant amount of wetlands on the property. Um and these were delineated with the previous flats of the um Karani acres edition and the rolling hills acres edition. Um and so with new plats, all wetlands are required to comply with the wetland overlay district, which includes buffering and signage. Um however with this application this wetland has already met those requirements and and um and is uh has been satisfied with the previous plats. Um so just touching on the variance again section 945 uh outlines the standards for lot arrangements which includes access to an improved street uh which the proposed plat um does not include uh that access for for uh lot two. Um staff believes that that application does meet the standards and practical difficulty thresholds of the variance as the existing parcel is landlocked and is not being worsened or intensified with the request. Um and the circumstances are uh unique to the site itself as it it as the buildable area exists on a peninsula surrounded by wetlands. So, in order for it to have that frontage on uh on a public road, which would be on Rolling Hills Road to the west, um you would be having to do a significant amount of wetland fill in order to span a driveway over there. Um and with it being an existing condition and not being worse than staff um finds that that that has met the variance thresholds. Um and again this does grant or granting this um would align with the existing character of the locality um because it is a an existing use and it isn't changing. It's just the lot lines are changing um and would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. So at this point staff recommends that you open the public hearing and take testimony. Uh staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat and variance as outlined within the draft resolution. Um and if if the commission wants to choose between options, they could choose uh approval of the draft resolution as drafted or uh you could uh recommend denial of the draft resolution. But if you do recommend denial, uh it should uh include uh if you if you deny the variance, then you would also be denying the preliminary plat as well. Okay. Thank you, Dwight. And at this point in time, then we'll open up the public hearing related to this issue. So, if there's anybody who'd like to uh speak, we don't have any comment cards, I'm assuming. No, correct. No comment cards, but if there's anybody who would like to speak on this um second edition of preliminary plat variance, please make your way to the podium. Yep. State your name and address for the record, please. Great. Uh Chris, 6820 Rolling Hills Road. I'm My property is backs right up to the 10 acres. Just one quick question. Are they still allowed to put that road in to the lot if they do the subdivide? And what we'll do is we'll take your questions and then when the uh public hearing is closed, we'll address the questions. Thank you so much. Any other questions? My name is Kevin Schneasy. I live at 6800 Rolling Hills Road. Excuse me. Um to Chris's question, just concerned with the language that is currently in the HOA uh pertaining to that uh extension of the road uh of the private road to this particular property question. Great. Thank you so much. Is there anyone else? Okay. At this point in time, then I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? Nope. Okay. And I'd like to give staff an opportunity to address the question regarding the road whether it would be allowed to go back to this um 10acre parcel for subdivision, but if you need a few minutes, just let me know. Yeah, I madam chair, I'm looking at the preliminary plat right now and just seeing where the private drive easement ends and and I don't believe that it goes all the way to the back of of uh the existing boundary line. I can try and zoom in a little bit more here to see if I can make that out. But to my understanding, um that private drive would not extend all the way back to that 10 acres. And this is the private drive related to that um to So the the 10acre parcel uh the private drive is located on the the property that abuts Rolling Hills Road. That's the one that's in question. Correct. and and we we'll have to double check where that easement lies just to confirm. Okay, we can check that and and whether or not an additional easement is then taken for the road if it's possible for it to be all the way to the back now of this added lot. We could include that as a condition, although I believe that the uh the questions are hoping to prevent that correct extension. Yes. Right. Cuz I think the the concern is over whether or not this additional 10 acres could be subdivided. I think that's ultimately the the reason to inquire about that road making it all the way back. Am I the question is just if it's going to come through our private property through that addition or if it goes through is when they connect two lands if they run the road through your property. Gotcha. Okay. So, we'll check on that. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Okay. There. Is there anybody who has questions? So, we don't have an answer or uh we're looking it up. Okay. Are you talking about the easement on Willow for Keranimi's house that's on the 40 acre lot? Are you talking about a potential road from Rolling Hill Road? There's a private drive that exists on the property that uh touches Rolling Hills Road. And so there's just a question about whether or not that would be extended and if so where. But that may I mean there's no development rights on this other than one correct for the property on Rolling Hill Road. I don't know getting a development right and there's one development right on the 40 acres. There's a question that staff would answer in regard to the development rate. the development rights are remaining um located as they are today on on Karen Eimy's property not on the property that he's would be selling to it's it's just moving it's both owned by him so that he's not gaining any additional development rights other than what already currently exists correct I thought somebody named Brockman owns the 10 acres on Rolling Hill Road correct yep and Karen owns owns the property with the Willow address. With the Willow address was selling the 10 acres to Brockman. Correct. Rolling Hill frontage. Correct. Y yes. And there's one development rights on Karen's property. One additional besides the home he's already built there, I believe. So, but the I don't the I think what we were trying to say is the development rights aren't changing between at this point. So, um because it's not it's it's a lot line adjustment. We had to do it a plat because of the variance. Um but ultimately the there isn't a new lot being created with this. So the Rolling Hill property could build one. Yeah. They could build one today and they'd be able to build one after this and they'd have they'd be able to build. No, I'm sorry. They could build one as things are today. They can build one. Yeah. And then after this transaction, they'd still be able to build. It stays the same. They don't gain in it. Right. Right. Yeah. They have one regardless. If they if they buy the 10 acres, they still just have one for the whole property of now 20 acres. Correct. Yeah. I don't see any concern if if he were to if the new if the owner of Brockman were to develop this 20 acre property in the future, like when Musa comes in, um does that trail easement that that's the existing trail easement across the back of that Rolling Hill property, would that be a problem? Would you if you wanted to develop that according to MUSA or is that not even a question that's pertinent? They would have to develop with that in mind for the trailment is permanent. I make a motion to approve. Well, I'm sorry. Did you have Nope. Other things you wanted to I was just going to say that um pending would we be able to get these gentlemen in? Uh well, we're going to second the motion. Um and then all those in favor? I I. Anyone opposed? And then is there a process through which we can answer their question at a I can I can give them my card or we can leave contact information to just follow up with the answer to your question if that's helpful. Thank you. Okay. And so then we move on to item 6D which is Madam Chair. Yes. I'm going to head out. Okay. I've seen our plan and everything. I know her better than I want to know, but uh the plans and stuff. Love to love to hear what you're saying. I know. Welcome. Love to hear what you're going to say, but I've got the job to get to in the morning. Is there any questions for me? I know I'm usually last on the agenda, but is there anything for me from you guys? If I may ask that updates? Nope. No. I uh Great conversations tonight, guys. Okay. Anything? No. Okay. Thanks. Thank you so much. Okay. So, we will move on to the staff report for the city park remaster site plan and variance. And who gets to give the presentation me if my computer will work. This is fun. Okay. But if I may, can I just introduce myself and say hi? This is my first time actually at a planning commission meeting in my seven years here. So, thank you for having me. Um, happy birthday. Thanks. If you stick around, there's brownies afterwards. Only if we get to sing it seven years without coming to a planning commission. Well, see, they had me as the staff leaison for the parks and trails commission. So, I give my own group of fun people. But I'm very happy to join you tonight. So, thank you so much. Good group. Okay. All right. And we're going to give Natalie a little bit more time. Do I? Welcome to the fun. I need to I don't know. parks and trails. Oh, yeah. We get a lot of fun topics. Park and open up the true. This is one of them. I guess I'm But I do work very frequently with all three of the staff up here and Sure. They're all fabulous people in my opinion. Yes. Yes. We are the community development team. We're just missing three people. We're half of it. Yeah, we're half the team. Plus Kendra. Yes. Plus Kendra. You're always an added bonus. Yes. I love when Kendra comes. We don't get her all the time. That's great. No, not lately. Do you just want us? No, we need yours. I don't know why I did that. All right. Thank you. Um, okay. So, yes, this is our last item on the agenda tonight is the the city park remaster. We are looking at a site plan and two variances tonight. Go ahead and go to the next slide. So this is a city initiated project that has been going on for um there's been concentrated design efforts for over a year now. Uh but actually this has been in the talks for I believe at least seven years. My entire tenure here. Yeah. So it's been a project with a lot of blood and sweat that's gone into it so far. Um and we are looking to complete a first phase of park improvements at city park. Um, as I said, it'll this tonight in front of you is the site plan and two variants. We will need a variance for the building setback as the location is currently proposed and then looking at um some flexibility with our buffer yard requirement. And then just to clarify, we're talking about two parcels that make up city park uh 20400 and 202000 on County Road 50. The eastern parcel we obtained as part as a donated parkland and then the western parcel we obtained a few years back as a purchase from uh the Rockford school district. Uh this oh go ahead sorry the city park improvements that uh are part of the remaster at this time. We are looking to do significant upgrades to the fields um and that will allow for uh better programming for of this space. This is the park where all of our youth programming is youth recreational programming uh occurs. Uh and then we're also looking to relocate and upgrade the playground. So actually say we're going to tear down the current playground and then a new playground will be created and then the park building is on this site plan and that will include some space that will be available for community meetings, available to the public for rent as community space as well. And then we're also incorporating the Three Rivers Regional Trail as a part of this update. So here is um the pretty site plan that has been prepared. Uh so get my Where's your mouse? There it is. So as stated so the park building where did it go laser pointer is not working. Okay. Well then the basically the improvements are primarily occurring on the west phase at this point. So the playground would be the existing location on the playground is on the eastern parcel. So that improvement would be there. But as far as the improvements, um, we're now pretty much consolidated on the western parcel at this time. Oh, perfect. So then we have the park building is located right about here and it is right on the property line between the the two park parcels. And then we have the playground located right here. We have some baseball fields, um, some soccer fields which can also be used for cricket. Uh, and then I think we've also uh have some carveouts for some future uh pick pickle ball fields as well too. I think we we also have a space carved out potentially for a future SL splash pad. That is not a part of the current proposals. It's just more of an earmark to allow that with a future phase as funding potentially allows. As a part of this, we will be paving at least a portion of the um parking lot to coincide with the building improvements. We have um right right now a a phased approach planned with the parking lot as funding allows. There's still the potential that this gets just paved all at once. We're looking at how the bidding comes back for it, but as funding allows, we would be paving the entire parking lot no later than the second phase of improvements would that be entirely paved. Uh, and then the regional trail, it's hard to see on this one, but it kind of just follows the western boundary of the site and then kind of crosses over around the fields before going up into Rush Creek. So, it gives kind of a meandering overview of the entire park uh on the western side. Oh, next slide. So, this is just this is the technical diagram that we're also going off. So, this is what shows the zero foot setback for the building. um and is is the technical site plan. This is the proposed building. Uh the materials do comply with city code. Uh there is a little bit of information that needs to be confirmed as a condition of approval and our architect will be able to confirm that, but overall they have been designing this with our city code in mind and this does uh staff's confident that it will be able to comply. And then just for fun reference, it's not really in our purview, but these are some shots of the new proposed playground. Uh there's going to be two areas. The 5 to 12 year um CB here will be able to speak to these a lot more than me. Um but we're very excited about the slide in the tower. Uh it's the slide's going to be taller than the slide at French Park, the main one here that's on the silo. Um, we have a swing set and then we have a two to five year old section as well where they have a kind of play place made out of a trailer. So the the play on our agrarian history was definitely something we wanted to highlight with the playground. So we're incorporating that as part of the design. So for the site plan overall um the site plan is because they have been um parks has been collaborating with planning uh and engineering the site plan has very few conditions of approval. It's it's but there are a couple that we just need to clean up. Uh some public safety comments we received is they just wanted to confirm the Rogers fire chief. This is in his district and so he would like to confirm hydrant locations. A 150 foot hose pole is required because the park building will not be sprinklered. A public safety outdoor warning point must be designated with the park on the site plan. Uh location of the garbage container that will serve the building. Uh it needs to be located on the plans with the screening details. Uh screening of all rooftop and ground mounted equipment is required. I believe I saw one transformer that we would have to add some screening to. And then uh which is ground mounted and then screening on the western side of the parking lot to a height of at least 3 ft needs to be added and um but I we've already talked about where that could potentially go and we think that that would be very doable. And then again we talked about the phased approach for the the western parking lot. Overall we have plenty of parking on the site. Uh we but we just added we are adding some parking with this and then there's going to be 50 pay plots to serve the added use of the building and I think it's actually just a little over 50 um parking spaces. Not 50 paid plot. Yeah, I was going to be correct. I got what you meant. Parking spaces be a lot of parking. Um so again, so we have two variances. The first one we'll go over is the zero foot offset of the internal property line that's zoomed in right here. Uh overall the the reason why we we want to keep the property line is because we did obtain these two properties uh in different means. The donated park land we cannot use it for anything other than park. the land that we purchased as from the city that it gives us a little bit more flexibility for something other than park space and we're not ready to remove that flexibility at this point. So, uh that that's kind of the unique situation. It's an overall it is a campus at this time that in the today as it exists it operates as one campus one site uh and so it is an internal setback and we can never the city can never uh get away get away can never change the use yes can never sell the property to the east so there's no danger of that property all of a sudden not being used for park uh so we do feel that the standards for variance have been met a condition of approval that I included in the variance is that when the city does look to either change the lot lines or subdivide um that at that time that the lot lines be drawn in such a way that the building complies with all setbacks. Uh the next um the next variance has to do with our buffer yard and where the three rivers regional trail alignment was decided upon in collaboration with Three Rivers and our parks and trails commission. So they um would like the park or sorry the trail to follow the southwest boundary of the site before kind of cutting over to the uh fields. the because of the zoning district which is technically PI for the city park parcel and the properties to the west are urban reserve. We are supposed to have a fairly significant buffer width uh that is placed into a conservation easement and is planted with trees. For the most part, that west boundary is entirely like it has so many trees that we are meeting if not exceeding the buffer yard requirements. However, because of where we are locating the required storm water and the elevations that come with that and then also having to need to remove some trees for the trail. And you don't want trees too close to the trail. No matter how much root barrier there is, it there will eventually cause a problem. there can be a conflict with the and it affects the integrity of the trail. Um there is a portion of the trail path that does cut into what should be that buffer yard. Additionally, um so it's just this little area that kind of cut this area is my best guess is what we're talking about. So it's a fairly small area. The property to the west is heavily treed. Um and then there are the rest of the um boundary is heavily treated as well. And so that is requesting relief from that as well as having to put place it into a conservation easement. I don't believe that when that code was created, it contemplated it for uh land that was in city park. It doesn't make sense for the city to grant a conservation easement to itself for property it already owns. So, um, those are the requirements that we're asking to be deviated from. I didn't propose any conditions of approval for that second variance. Again, I'm not seeing how adding trees would be doable with that trail location. However, I'm open to suggestions from the planning commission of what we could do to maybe mitigate granting that variance. Um, overall staff recommends approval of the site plan with the conditions proposed and approving the two variances. Right. Thank you, Natalie. And at this time, we will open the public hearing related to the city park remaster site plan and varian. So, if there's anyone here who would like to make public testimony regarding this um agenda item, please step up to the podium and state your name and address. I didn't see any um mention about lights. Could you just start with your name and address? No, it's okay. It just helps. This is Jody Taber and I'm at 7790 Cork and Trail East. Great. Thank you so much. I didn't say any mention about lights, but we're, you know, in a place where, you know, it's fairly dark in the back of our house, so we are always, you know, whenever we hear about planning like this, we want to know about the lights. We love the sound of people playing in the back, so that's not a problem. But the we're just wondering if they're going to be adding more lights. like for instance um baseball parks a lot of times will add lights and things like that. Perfect. Thank you so much. I will make sure that as soon as we close the public hearing which will okay that we will address the question. Is there anyone else who had any question or comment they wanted to make regarding the city park remaster. So then at this time I would make a motion to uh close the public hearing. I'll second that. And all those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed. And then if we could just address any lighting plan, that would be great. Yes. Uh I I did not go over that. I do apologize. But yes, the uh zoning ordinance provides that um the lights cannot exceed one foot candle at measured from the property line. Uh we do have some lights being added to the parking lot, the trail and around the playground. And then the building will also have some lights as well, but the lighting plan that was submitted is showing that the well before the property line we're at zero candles. So I there will be lights added, but and then as far as the baseball fields, was there any new lighting proposed for that? No. So, at this time, the only lighting within the park for the fields themselves would be at Lion's Field, which truthfully, I don't think has ever been turned on in the seven years I've been here. Um, and beyond that, we don't have intention for this phase of the park to include field lights. And then just a question because you mentioned it, there's going to be lights along the trail. Yeah, just um um here, let me see if I can find a photo. Sorry. They're just they're really they're cute. Um in my professional opinion from and I guess I guess the thinking is to like the hours where it gets dark early in the winter time is why we're thinking light the trail we're not necessarily trying to encourage cuz are there park hours and then it's the sidewalk around the playground gotcha right near the playground the space around the playground just so that you can navigate back. We had also talked about um potential lighting down into the pin wheel of fields just for safety purposes, you know. Um but the main focus is going to be those parking lot lights and then some lighting within the sidewalk area. Okay. And on the building, I'm sorry, the exterior. Yes. The trail lights are just little pedestrian lights. I take them. Yeah. No, that's why I said they were cute, but I can't find them now. Um I can Do you have them, Sie? Give me just a second. They're not they're not tall lights. They're definitely more pedestrian scale. I had a question on um if we are ready to move on or if not. Well, they can look for the lights while ask uh um Sorry. Did you have something you want? No. No. Go ahead. Okay. the the public the the proposed building I'm not a breast of this the plan there on is that like a rentable use weddings birthdays reunions yes whatnot okay so intention for that building was going to be internal programming um that could be parks and recreation that could be elections um as I'm sure you guys aware we're really short on space internally here um it could be firearm safety with the police department. So really engaging with all of the different departments in the city and then beyond that it would be a rentable use for community members. We heard when we lost the community room back in 2019 or so. Uh I still received some phone calls and emails asking for it. So it's definitely a needed space. Um so really trying to focus on that. Okay, great. Uh and I assume that that distance from that building to the ballpark is fine. I was just it looked close to me, but I was my depth perception is not great. So, fair enough. Uh, so to the east is going to be Lionsfield to the southeast, and it's pointed in a different direction, so that wouldn't be an impacted area. The other one would be field one, which does point towards the playground. However, as part of that, we are shortening that field, and then we're going to put some landscaping to help with that. Um, also, we handle the reservations for that. So, we would keep it to youth only. We're not having adults out there cranking homers into the playground. So, Right. Yeah. And I was thinking about, you know, you have a birthday party and you have toddlers running around and they're on the back side of that building and you've got home runs coming directly at the building. I'm like, no, no, no, no. That's not the intention. Also, just a fun fact about the playground, it is embedded into the hillside. So, we have made it so that it's really user friendly and parent friendly. So they can look over the area, really watch their kids closely, and then they do have some space near the building to kind of hang out if they don't want to stand right there. Oh, and you know what? Okay, so I'm looking at the gravel circle straight east of the proposed building like at that corner. T-ball and I'm thinking I'm not looking at it right cuz that's not I think those are T- ball. Oh, yes, those are T-ball fields. Yeah. No, we don't put anyone older than seven on those. Okay. And they're pointed in the opposite direction. Um, other comments just quick, totally agree with the zero variance. Uh, fine, good, makes sense. Totally agree without doing a conservation easement with that, too. So, otherwise, don't see any any other concerns. Um, quick question, because the uh current existing playground will be torn down, will that pavilion be lost as a potential rental space? So, you're leaving the pavilion. You're just taking down the playground. The playground and the tennis courts are going to get taken out as part of this. The tennis courts have seen better days. And the playground is 25 years old and could be replaced. Yeah. But the pavilion will stay and will be a rentable option. So, you now have the two potentially the community room and the pavilion. Correct. Okay. And then on the map, it almost looks like a curved like amphitheater is future phase. That's a future phrase. Okay. So just being put in that as a potential like it was part of the plan placeholder. It doesn't have a number. We're trying to show that it's a future phase and we're planning for it, but we're not including it here. It's kind of a tough way to show it. Yeah. No, and it's on the alternate items map. So um I I understand that like uh the non-numbered map. I uh also agree with the zero um foot setback as long as what you said is if there were to be a red drawing of the lot lines that it be done so that um that it is brought into compliance. Um the the buffer zone um if I'm understanding it correctly, we are just not we own the pro the city owns the property to the west. No, I'm sorry. So the the east and west parcels are the park site. Yep. The properties to the west says that are urban reserve. Yep. Okay. So the only reason I asked that is that potentially right if if something redevelops there at at some point in the future, it's possible that that small section of trail not have a buffer, but that could be addressed with future development to to buffer out that the trail. Uh so yeah, the I believe that is all here. Let me pull up the staff report. the long-term land use guidance, I believe it's mostly low density residential. Um, and they would likely need to do some kind of buffer on the perimeter. They might not. We might not as they buffer. Yeah. Okay. They might not need to because of the PI. I'm sorry. I'm trying to think that through. Um, because of PI is technically the more intense use because I So, they would be the one who would have to buffer, not the other way. Well, technically we are the ones that would have to buffer. Yeah. So, but if we were to buffer, then basically the trail design changes. It would change drastically and it would be on basically a straight shot on the east parcel. So, you wouldn't have the meandering effect just because there's really no other way to make get the trail corridor that Three Rivers requires and the trail. They also require specific radiuses as well. Um there's really no way to get it to work on the west side. Um I don't get but the worst case scenario would just be that there's a smi segment of the trail that is just not buffered like it is more open. Okay. And then the last question I have regarding that trail is is it biker and pedestrian. Yeah. I just wanted to verify um because of but that's some of the reason for the radius that's required by three rivers. Okay. So, there's going to be one way in and one way out and one parking lot. Three or no? Three parking lots. Two ways in, two ways out. Technically, because we still have the two parking lots on the parcel. Right. Right. That's not going away. Yeah. For the building, there's one parking lot with one way in and one way out. And then with the trail, I guess that was the um um last question is it will go right up to County Road 10 and the car access off of County Road 10 is closed gravel with the city park remaster or you can still drive in. Are you talking during construction or post construction? Post construction. You would still be able to access those lots from county road. Yep. Um and then is there anything in terms of a crosswalk across County Road 10? I know that's a county thing, but Okay. Yes. So, that is something that we did focus on as part of the Diamond Lake Regional Trail, getting that access to Rush Creek Reserve. Okay. Because we have heard that's something that the community wants. So, removing part of the fencing along County Road 10 would be included in that for the crosswalk. Okay. All right. So, that little parking lot by the pavilion is staying. Yes. Okay. Cool. And they'll stick gravel, too. Keeping that rural feel. Oh, I mean, um for now, but also saving. Yeah. Well, the a comment I wanted to make while Dean was here is that but he's gone, but I'll make it is just that I do love the nod to the rural and I hope that as much much uh effort is being made into just, you know, continuing rural to be a use even as we develop. You know, that's my thing. I I always say it. I was going to make that exact same comment. As much as effort as being thoughtful design is going into the playground, I hope um that that's also being done. But otherwise at this point in time um I would make a motion to approve um city file 25-015. I'll second. All those in favor? I. Anyone opposed? No. Okay. And then we are uh through our new business items and we're ready to move on to um other reports. I we talked about it last time, the resources for the proposed bills. I don't know if anybody wants to say anything else in regards to that. Um, otherwise we would just have any questions for the planning project update, which maybe I left it at home. Did you guys give a planning project update? No. So, there was no planning project update. Madam Chair, I apologize. This is intended to be provided ahead of tonight's meeting and with the workload was left off unfortunately. So, I'm happy to answer any questions that that you guys may have on uh any of the projects going on throughout the city. Um, does anyone have an all question? I'll just kind of mush out this. If we have any questions outside of the meeting, we uh can certainly email Dwight um or Natalie and uh otherwise we can look for an update. Does anyone have an idea? I guess this would be a question on what uh how heavy or light the agenda for June is looking at this point in time. We have two items in June. One is an open space and preservation plat and then the other is a zoning ordinance amendment for um aggra business as a potential use and and the requirements and standards for that. Okay. Different than cooperative farming agra business. Yes. These are like agriculture adjacent like tourism a winery. Perfect. All right. Thank you. Does anybody else have any additional questions? No. Okay. All right. Then I will um make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. I'll second. All those in favor say I. I. Anyone opposed? No.