Thank you. So it is 7:02 and I will call the meeting to order. First line is pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nationy and justice for all. I will consider approval of I will consider a motion for approval of the agenda. No changes. Make a motion. I'll second it. All in favor? I I opposed. Uh public comment. This would be the opportunity for the public to comment on um items not listed on the agenda. And seeing nobody present, we will move forward to announcements. Are there any announcements? No, there no one announces. All right. Um, moving on to approval of minutes. I was not here at the last meeting, so I cannot make a comment. Anybody have comments, concerns? No. I'll take a motion then to approve uh, excuse me, approve the minutes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Second. All in favor? I. So moved. Uh we have no public hearings. On to general business. All right. We'll be continuing our discussion on Dakota Acres, second edition. uh the applicants um Alyssa and Larry are in the audience tonight if we have any questions for them after the presentation. So a little bit of background a lot of this is going to be the same from the last meeting. Um just parts of the proposal have changed. So the land was acquired by the city in 2006 later sold to Global Properties in 2018 as a condition of that sale. It was reszoned R4 and then later sold to True North development in 2024. The current proposal um the northern half appears to be about the same as the last time you saw this. The southern half they removed the 35 unit apartment building and replaced it with 22 units of town homes uh for a total of 40 town home units. Now, neighborhood conditions to the north, a mix of agricultural and rural residential. Um, to the west, uh, rural residential property. To the south, multifamily apartments and commercial south of that. And to the east is, uh, similar town home development, Dakota Acres first edition. The comp plan guides it to R4. As previously mentioned, it's zone R4, which has a density range from 10 to 30 units per net acre. Uh the current proposal, it comes in at 12.54 units per net acre, which meets that density. Um apartments and town homes with more than eight attached units are permitted uses within the R4 high density residential zoning district. Uh three the property's 3.19 acres. That means it needs anywhere from 32 to 96 units and 40 are proposed. So it it meets the density requirements. The property would however require to be reszoned PUD or planned unit development due to the proposed town homes in the south of the development not achieving the minimum number of attached units which is eight or more or more than eight and minimum parking requirements which is four and a half spaces per unit. The minimum size requirements which is 25 uh feet width for the units. And additionally, the property would also be required to be reszoned PUB due to the requirements associated with the city's subdivision ordinance uh concerning private streets, which we'll touch on a little more later in depth. So, currently the submitted concept plan does not meet the criteria for PUD zoning. The applicants have not yet provided information related to incorporating design elements, for example, construction materials, landscaping, lighting, um that would exceed the city standards to offset the effect of any variations granted as part of the proposed development. Uh the proposed development appears to meet the lot size and setback requirements. Staff want to make one note here. the uh the town home units in the south eastern section of the property um are partially located within that 30-foot side setback area. Additionally, as touched on earlier, the minimum unit width is 25 ft for town home units in R4. Um the plan submitted does not provide enough information. Staff can't comment if that meets that requirements, but the southern units appear to not meet that requirement. Uh, minimum of nine attached units per building. The plan contains attached town homes of five and six units respectively in the south. The PUD approval is required for anything less than nine attached town home units. R4 maximum height is 35 ft. It's unlikely that this will exceed the maximum based on the plans provided. Um, and we get into the exterior facade finish. Uh, it needs to be class one, class two, class three, or class four materials. With the added requirement for town homes to have 25% of the front facade composed of class one materials. It's currently unknown based on the plan submitted if the exterior building finish requirements will be met, but staff will need additional information to verify that 25% class one requirement is being met. Landscaping 30% of the site shall be landscaped. Uh no landscaping plan has yet been submitted. Wetlands adelineation was previously completed but is now expired. However, it showed no indication of wetlands present on the site. Therefore, new wetland delineation will not be necessary nor required by the city. A location for a trash area has been depicted on the submitted plan, but design details regarding the enclosures have not yet been provided, but they must be uh provided and meet the minimum requirements based on city code section 114- or 11-4-3. Same goes with exterior utility uh meters. No plans have yet been submitted which indicate the location. Uh but they shall be if possible located in interior sideyards or screen from view of adjacent properties in the public rightway. Utility plans have not yet been received. Sewer and water are available at James Parkway. Uh looping with the existing town home development to the east uh would not require a private agreement. That's city infrastructure. 10 foot per wide perimeter easements and five foot wide interior easements will be required. Additional easements may be required uh based on the city engineers assessment of the utility plans. Storm water pond is located on the north side of James Parkway and it may need to be increased to handle the the additional uh proposed development. Town home requirements for parking require that there's two attached garage spaces per unit, two off streetet spaces per unit, and half a guest park spacing per unit. Um, the total required for the development would be 180 total spaces based on the 40 units. There's 129 total spaces currently proposed, 80 of which must be enclosed. Um, only 58 are proposed to be enclosed at the time. Southern units are proposed at two spaces instead of four and a half resulting in a lack of approximately 55 spaces. Um so the PL planning commission is being asked if they support um the smaller units in the southern half even though they don't meet the the minimum requirements. Access is possible off James Parkway which is a minor collector to the north. A traffic study may be required based on the projected traffic generation of the final layout. There is a snow storage area identified on the concept plan, but it is not accessible due to the parking spaces and town homes uh blocking the path. The submitted concept plan contains that unnamed private street running north and south. Uh it will be required to have a minimum width of 24 ft to accommodate two-way traffic throughout the entire site. Ownership over all the common elements of the development, but especially the private road, play area, and walking path shall be under the ownership of one association. No additional sidewalks or trails are required. There's an existing trail on the north side of James Parkway. No identified sidewalk or trail corridors are identified through the subject property parks. The city's requirement is 8% cash uh or 8% of uh the land input will be sought from the parks commission. But previously in 2016, the parks commission had recommended cash in lie of land dedication for this development. Um based that there's nearby parks that service the area including Wagner, Whispering Creek, and the Eagle View school facilities. 10% of the site shall be usable open space that can be either active or passive uses. Um developer must identify 13,896 ft within the development. Current square footage of the play area is unknown based on the plan submitted. The walking path is estimated to cover just over 3200 square feet, but uh I do want to mention that's the lowend estimate. I spoke with Larry earlier today and he said the engineer likely calculated that just based on the total length u multiplied by the width. We would probably include a little bit more on the southern half um around the path. Include that as passive open space. Um still it does not meet the requirements currently and any proposed playground equipment designs will need uh city approval. The police department has commented that there's only one entrance and exit to the proposed development. So that we'll need in adequate access and turnaround for emergency vehicles. Location of fire hydrants will need to be reviewed once a utility plan has been submitted. Fire chief will need to ensure adequate access for fire trucks and staff recommend that future submitts detail that turning radiuses for emergency vehicles within the development. The following general comments um staff have associated with the proposal. The development is generally compatible with the R4 highdensity residential zoning district surrounding land uses. Generally meets the intent of the 2040 comprehensive land use plan uh meeting the density requirements. Town homes and/or condominiums containing more than eight attached units are permitted use within the R4 zoning district. PUD zoning will be required for the town homes containing eight or less attached units. At the time of this report, no information has been submitted regarding the individual proposed lot layout uh for town home units. Further input will be sought from the city's parks commission regarding the desire for land versus cash. The building's official input has not yet been sought regarding the current concept plan. And the staff also has 19 yet 19 conditions uh for the the proposal here. The property would be required to be reszoned PUB as discussed due to the parking um the lack of parking lack of attached units for the town homes and the minimum width requirements. The submitted concept plan does not currently meet the PUD zoning criteria and the applicants have not yet submitted any information related to um offsetting the PUD demand. Uh this no structure shall be erected within the 30-foot side setback. The southeastern 12 units appear to be partially located within that side setback. Exterior of town home dwelling units shall have that 25% um class one material on the front facade. Landscaping plan shall be submitted along with a lighting plan and the trash receptacle design must be approved by the city. A tree inventory prepared by a forester or landscape architect must be submitted as well. Uh perimeter and drainage easements must be dedicated um and grading and utility plans will need to be submitted and approved by the city engineer and public works director. Parking shall be provided which complies with section 119 which dictates which uh dictates the minimum parking area dimensions as well as section 11910 which um that dictates the minimum number of parking spots. Guest parking spaces shall have signage indicating their intended use. The unnamed private street shall have a minimum width of 24 ft to accommodate two-way traffic. Ownership over the street shall be under the control of one association as well as all the other common elements including the play area and walking path. Any connection of the proposed private drive oral street although not proposed at the time will require a private agreement with the adjacent homeowners association. Exterior utility meters meeting the requirements of section 115-1 shall be shown on future submitts. developer must identify 13,896 square feet minimum to meet the city's 10% open space requirement. The requirements of section 11-4-5 of the city code pertaining to essential services must be met and public utilities and services including fire protection shall be adequate. Staff are asking the planning commission for feedback related to the proposed concept plan prepared uh by the applicant and submitted on 1129. Staff note that the submitted concept plan does not currently satisfy the criteria for PUB zoning and note that the 12 southeastern town home units are partially located within the 30-foot side setback and appear not to meet the minimum parking requirements and minimum unit width. Additionally, staff have concerns that the applicant may be unable to satisfy the city's 10% usable open space requirement. These issues shall be resolved prior to any approvals uh being granted for the development. All right, that about wraps it up. So, if you have any questions for the applicants, they're here tonight and we're here to help answer any questions as well. All right, so discussion only tonight, just discussion. Okay, and feedback, no action. Um, well, if you're prepared to make a recommendation, um, you could Or you could just provide feedback to the applicant if you feel that how wide is the road right now shown or think it's 20 is it 24 ft. So in the previous submitt was 24 ft. It's just too small. It does have a measurement on here. I just couldn't read it. It's I would assume it's still 24 feet. So, are all these single um garage units or just the southern ones? Oh, just the from what I can see, it'd be a single car garage and a little driveway, right? So, really and And I I know what our uh code says. Um so what's the width at the southern end for the park or driveway? Is that 24 or is that less? I think it was 19 or or for the street the drive aisle. Um I think that would still be 24, but I based on the plans I can't tell for sure. So is there a calculation of how much of that um is easement of the lot like that utility easement to the southwest? Um are you talking about the gas line easement? Yes. Um can you bring up the drawing again? Can you see? Do you want me to stop? What is it? 30 feet or 70 ft total? 70. It was 35 ft each line 35 ft from the center line each way. So if you took 70 feet by whatever that is 100 200 feet long or to. Yeah. What's that in square footage? That's 100 ft. But I don't know what that 70,000 you mean, right? 70 by 100. Yeah. Or seven. Okay. So, I'm just thinking if you took that off your square footage of your acreage because it's not really considered buildable. So, you just take that square footage off your buildable area. Then you kind of work backwards from there on how many units you would need to fulfill your requirement of of uh units. And I would I I think that the concept is okay with me, but I think the southern looks a little congested. I think you could put one to the east a long building and just have garages to the west and then that way you don't have a restrictive alleyway there. You know what I heard you say is that you think this area is too restricted. Yeah. That you would support a continuous building on the east side and what did you say? Garagees. Yeah. No, I don't like that. There you go. Now, I I'm really interested in this um housing concept. And honestly, I don't see this very often where you have the singlecar garage and then you have um two bedrooms and a you know, the living space on the main level. I I like that. That's something that we don't see a lot of, especially out here, you know, and we do have we're a bedroom community. We have folks that for all intents and purposes, they come here, they live here, and then they leave for everything else, right? Um, my concern about this is the disconnection between the neighborhood immediately to the east. I we're setting up now one neighborhood separate from another neighborhood. You know, they're just so they're they don't flow well. there's no connectivity and um and they can't they can't and they can't right because the city can't right unless there's an agreement right right and and and [Music] I'm always about partnership working together make it work because I would rather work to a yes because I do see some no I do see in the nos but that way my concept was to get it off the 30 foot off the east, right? You know, it looks like you're probably five feet over too far and then that way you wouldn't be so restrictive for emergency vehicles coming in and out and turning around or whatever. So that's my idea, my concept. So that way you get a mixed use of sizes too. True. I have a question for Larry um and Alyssa. Um now that the development is um proposed at on this concept plan as all town homes if the if the adjacent town home development was open to a connection, would you be open to a connection? I don't know. I mean, you're still I don't think you were saying that, were you? Um, I think what I I was saying was if there was a way to allow that original uh connection between the two, um, but then still still keep your connection to James Parkway and their connection to James Parkway. Get your loop back. You get a loop back. It does help with the emergency vehicle. Yes. Yes. I like that idea. Yeah. I mean, I like the idea. I think it's a good idea. Although we can't force that adjacent town home development to allow that. Well, I think they should be I think they would consider it. I mean, we heard them what was it a year and a half ago complain about that road being blocked off. And I think that they would I think the residents themselves would want a loop through. I would. That' drive me nuts if I couldn't go loop around if you have a trailer or whatever. Yeah. back wall. You're not supposed to have a trailer. Well, I guess I don't know what they're When you move in, you might have Yeah. Right. Oh, so the city doesn't even plow that street. No, it's a private. No. So, they have to, well, your traffic's on our side. That kind of stuff comes up. That's true. How did this happen? ownership. Okay. Yeah, I get it. Ownership. You mean fourth or maybe? Uh, yeah. initially. Yeah, it was Giles and then the city and then global properties and then True North. Yeah, right. No, just the apartments, the big big building. Well, I mean, I don't know how that would work out, but I do know that if their option was to put apartments there that the residents of that community will be more than willing to work with a partnership for that road somehow because I heard them loud and clear when the other apartments got approved that they were not happy. They were not happy. Yeah. And putting a big apartment or going back to concept one, they're not going to like. I know for I mean that was a That was a pretty intense meeting. So, and I I felt more. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, I I like the concept that you that's proposed even in the cities around us. I'm sure that's the case too, but there's not very common salailable items. Right. So, um just to answer the the one question, um you know, Jake Po identified three or four, uh PUB elements that that will require um approval. So, a single stall attached garage and a single driveway space. Do you support that on at least a portion of the town homes? Yes, I would. I do. Okay. Yeah. So, that answers that question. the half of um the half of uh guest parking space per unit. Uh I don't think they they haven't met the guest parking requirements on this plan. Is that correct? Uh so the 40 units would proposed at 129 and needs 180. Uh so the southern town homes if you minus just the two required units that be like take away the total and we just the guest parking in a in guest parking lots requires a half a space per unit. So that'd be a total of 20 and they're showing I think it was they still were short on guest parking. Yeah, but it wasn't by much. Could the parking on the south west side, could you make that double deep provided that because that might be able to eliminate some of that easement stuff that we've been talking about as well. Are you talking about the far southern over the angled area? That's where their snow storage is proposed. Um, so it's already those parking spaces are already kind of blocking that. out of the year. So, um why not utilize it? Maybe one month. What's that? Maybe one month. Yeah, exactly. So, one, two, I hate to say what was your concepts on the the southern side to move the five feet, you know, to make it work. What are your concepts, ideas? Well, I'm struggling with we're really designing this for cars rather than the people, number one. And um again, my lens is always going to be biased on this. And um yeah, I I my proposal would have to mirror yours to move it off to but again um because look to the south that the rower garage is right there. That's what it would mirror is my thought. So why would you want to buy a town home with a detached garage? It has attached too. Oh, yeah. A secondary stall if you needed it. You know what I'm saying? Right. Or rental stall or whatever you call it. I don't know. Because we had a requirement for two garage spaces per unit. If you had like 12 or nine 10 units, whatever it is there, you just have a 10 car garage or whatever across the street from it. I don't know if that could be a rental, but No, I mean rental for the or no, whatever. Are these rental town houses or are they purchased town houses? Could be either. I I don't know. I don't think we are dictating that. Yeah, I don't think so either. So, um Well, can we back up? I guess I just heard uh I thought I heard a consensus that everybody was okay with the single stall, a single attached stall attached, and now I feel like we're reversing the conversation. Oh, no. I think it was just going to He was clarifying what what his proposal was. My concept originally was Okay. So, we're okay with the lesser parking requirements per unit, but what about the guest parking? Do we still want half a guest parking space per those units or I guess the parking doesn't necessarily bother me much? I mean, well, having lived in a town home association too many years ago, we had issues with the guest parking, but I don't you don't or you not anymore? No, I did. I never did. I I probably had more parking in my driveway than this whole Yeah. a deeper driveway. Your situation was a little different. Yeah. No. Yeah, we had Yeah, we're good. You had on street parking long. I would say though, if I were to compare this to like a a friend of mine that lives in Dundis, that town home association over there struggles with parking and it's really annoying. Okay. So, yeah, right now it would require 20 guest parking spaces and I think it's shown as 13 or 14 maybe. So, they're a little short. Not a ton, right? Not a ton. And some of those will have to go away too to access the snow storage area. Right. I mean, yeah, I think if you there's a conversation with the neighboring development and there was maybe a agreement. I think that might be able to solve some of their parking issues as well. Maybe. Likely. What's that? Well, I mean, if you put a road through there and it circles around, you could have Yeah, but you don't want them using their guest parking. We have another uh private development where we have fights between the two associations that but up to each other and uh they literally put concrete barricades between the two developments because of this that is we made the news. You don't remember that for the golf course. So um okay so try to achieve the half a g half a space per unit. Um then there was a building set back um on the southeast corner of the show. And the plan isn't totally detailed enough for us to tell. Um, looks like maybe 25 ft from the property line rather than 30. Yeah, that's my guess. Yeah, they're showing a red line of the 30 foot back here. Um, these lower units are encroaching. So, that's another thing we would have to identify as a permitted encroachment. And then the patios I think the other ones are about 8 by8. to meet setbacks under our code. It's just the building itself if if the patio is accurate concrete. I don't mind the setback at all. Doesn't bother me. Me neither. Really doesn't bother me. Okay, Brad. Um, no. I was just trying to figure out a way to make it work, but obviously my idea didn't go far, but uh that's fine. So what about the concept of taking out that square footage of the calculation? Did that go anywhere? Um out of the density calculation it makes sense. I guess I didn't think of using you know it's really a net acre using the net acreage um because that area is encumbered. Yeah. And you can't do anything with it. You can't do anything with it. you said it was act of Congress and beyond to do anything. So that's green space. I guess you're coming as a positive for that. But you know, well, it wouldn't change the number of units, but it might affect something like landscaping, open space. Yeah. Well, we'd want to use that area for that open space. Wondering about the impacts of deducting the easement area from your overall for I think it would affect the number of units, don't you? We couldn't get more. No, less less density number. you're reporting and we already do meet that the effect on the ground is the same. But if you Yeah, I don't know. I was just saying if you didn't have to put them all in, but I'm sure you're saying there's a benefit in value to put them all in. Yeah, that's what I'm guessing. So, it would also affect maybe the park dedication if we chose to deduct that from the calculation. parkation based on value. So, okay. So I heard for sure for two from two that you're okay with the set back to the east and you go. Okay. Do we know how far the other ones are off the property? There were five feet or something. Ones that are already built on the other side. Yeah. I sent those as belts over to Rich, but I Yeah, can't be more than five. And what are the other ones in the other part of development? I mean, are they 15 ft between or 25 ft between? That's what I I just don't know what it would look like in their backyard compared to the other ones that are existing. Would it be like, you know, too close or peeking in the window? Yeah. The other units that are already existing where there there's um units back to back with green space in the middle. They're [Music] over 30 feet apart. They're probably hard to believe that's 30 ft between that single one. You guys are talking about different things. You're wondering how far off the shared property line the existing units are versus 25. I'm saying, you know, remember that single family one, the ADA one? Oh, yeah, that one. And then the backyard of that one to the neighbor's backyard or house. How close is that? Yeah. Is that 30 ft you're saying? It's more. Well, it doesn't look like it, but I have it up by Are you looking here, Renee? 40T. It's really rough. It says 35. So there'll be probably 30 then you're thinking in the new in the proposed and it's about that's building to building right? Yes. Okay. Yeah. They look almost to be right on the property line actually on the Did you see? Yeah. Well, I thought the patios were on the almost off the property. They are. Oh, wow. How did that happen? Ownership of the property hotlines. Yeah, I know. You have a minimum distance you'd like to see between No, I'm just trying to get a scale if it's going to look out of place or they're going to be like I looking at two feet from my neighbor's window or you know I know my neighbors also certainly closer to being your backyard. Okay. Right. But to Brad's point, you're kind of trying to figure out how much space would be between, you know, patios, patio to patio or something along that line. Might as well just use each other's patios. Yeah. Be friends. Partnership connection. I think it's exciting. And like I said, this is that I don't see a lot and it'd be awesome if something like this could work for Elco. So, overall, I'm hearing we're supportive of the concept. Um, we just are asking them to take it back and refine it. Increase the uh guest parking. Identify the clearly identify the green space. Clearly identify a truck turning movement. How a fire truck could maneuver in and out. Is there anything else? I'd have to get rid of a building to make that or PUD. Oh, yeah. And then just the overall trade-offs for the PUD. So, typically the subdivision ordinance requires public streets and developments. Private streets are allowed through PUD and then we're looking for P some kind of increased amenity in the development or tradeoff for that and that just hasn't been identified and we're not going to the only two things that we came up with as examples are additional green space over and above the minimum requirement or sometimes increased exterior building material requirements. you know, uh, this zoning, um, this type of housing does allow like vinyl sighting, you know, so maybe it's, um, LP, no vinyl or something. What? Yeah, it it's just one suggestion or I'm it's only suggestion. It's up to you to come up with something. could be more trees, uh, you know, enhanced landscaping plan. Um, you know, additional open spaces. There's not a ton you can do here. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There trees or I mean do you Oh, I see you have a tree one here. Can you put trees in that easement or that between them? Between the two. No, I mean I'm not talking. I'm talking that pipeline ement in the gas line ement. and Alyssa are probably more familiar with what that easement allows. The gas line ement. Yeah. Yeah. And that could be something you accessorize with trees in the that area or something. You know what I'm saying? Yeah, if they allowed it. But that could be an option. Yeah, this really matches best, I guess, with the intent uh PUB zoning under D, promoting a more creative and efficient approach to land use. Obviously, this is a more creative needed housing style that we haven't seen. Um while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the city. So that would be what we're looking for at some kind of tradeoff protecting and promoting health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the city. A lot can come out of that, I suppose. Cool. Is there anything else? You guys have any questions for the commission? Well, thank you for coming. Thank you for coming. Um, this is really exciting to see. The bar few bars. Yes. Parking. You might have to rent one. I wouldn't rent one. I'd buy it. The neighbors aren't the problem. They'll help you. All right. Anything else? Any other discussion on this or guess that's Yeah. Yep. Jake will review the meeting. Um a on video and type up the meeting minutes and then follow up with you with conclusions recommendations. Yep. Yeah. Then if you do have to remove any of those spaces next to that snow storage, those would have to be accounted for in that as well. Those can't be separate. The concern is that in the winter if cars are parked there, there wouldn't be a place for the snow to go. Um, and vice versa. So, like they said, it's only like three months out of the year, but we have to meet the minimum. or turn the parking and make a driveway back there. You know, I mean, you can pave on it, you said, right? Yeah, you can pave on it, but you can't build on it. And I think we did see that in the um apartments to the south, they have the same easement. They were able to put their parking on the whole area. Yeah. Yeah, I think you're under. I think Oh, we just don't have the details. Yeah, based on the plans we don't have. But if you calculate that other deal out, maybe that helps that portion, you know. I don't know. Can't use it to discount. Yeah. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Okay. Well, I'll send the minutes out as soon as they're ready and then we'll go from there. We kind of go back and forth and get ready for the next meeting. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on to miscellaneous. Um we was going to bring back uh the discussion. There was three members here at the last meeting and I had we had just noted uh we set set our schedules and uh for the next year the city council adopts them, we publish them. Um just wanted to bring up the meeting start time. Um the other board work completely fine either way. Whatever the commission decides to do, the other boards and commissions typically start at six. Um, and if you wanted to start at six or you want to leave it at seven, there's no preference. You don't have a preference? I have no preference. Okay. Same here. Okay. Okay. Well, like I said, six is hard for me. So, Okay. Even though I work from home. So, Okay. Seven is hard for you. Yeah, I know. That's what I'm saying. Okay. Tonight, you see why we're doing this. Had to run the Domino's just to get something to eat. Okay. I prefer six, but I guess seven. I mean, there's been plenty of Tuesdays where I'm not getting home till 6:30. So, okay. Um, sounds like maybe we'll leave it at seven. Can Can we start early if we know it's going to be um a big topic of conversation? That'd be my only that my only I don't want to get out of here at 11 o'clock. Yeah. But if it have to be a special meeting, I Yeah, we'd have to post it as a special meeting. Well, it probably would be a big topic is what you're saying then. Yeah. I'm not going to mention any, but they're all posted to start at six. Yeah. It's a matter of just how we post it at the end of the year. So yeah, if we know we're going to have a agenda that is going to be a controversial or a really big agenda, we can post it as a special meeting, but we have to know far in advance because if we, you know, send notices to residents, send notices to the newspaper. Yeah. We have to post it through. Yeah. How far? Well, we'd have at least two weeks. two two and a half weeks. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But at the start of the year, we have to generically put it out approve a whole calendar with the times and dates. Question for you. Are there set um end times to meetings where No. Okay. We just go until the agenda ends. Yeah. Just wondering. Um yeah, I've never personally been on a meeting that was called just because it was getting too late. My latest meeting was 2:15, 2:30 in the morning. I don't want to do that late night meeting. Yeah, that's a very um very unusual, but if it gets into busy times, it could, you know, 10 11 o'clock could not be uncommon. Excellent. Okay. That was the old days. That was pretty regular. Okay. And then I just have a few updates. um for the commission. Moving on to community development updates. Um this week we anticipate that Niagara Bottling will receive a temporary certificate of occupancy to occupy the warehouse portion of the facility. Um followed within the next two to four weeks uh a tempo on the office space. Um but that tempo for the warehouse should be by the end of the week. fire and police chiefs will be walking through that portion of the facility tomorrow. Um and then the uh city council did recommend approval of the Victory Fields um concept plan that you had reviewed two months ago. Um the development out by the school uh is basically the same as the planning commission had recommended except they did want some smaller park facilities within the development. So there was a concept plan that removed uh approximately three lots. Um, they'll probably manipulate that area a little bit, but in enough to uh include enough area for a playground, potentially a shelter and a sport court. And that was just high level. It's not park planning. It's just at least there would be something there if nothing else around it uh developed for a number of years. Um, so they recommended approval of the concept plan. There's still another issue that the city council is working through uh related to that development that will be continued to January. So, we don't know if that will be going forward. The one on the north side. Yeah. Yeah. So, isn't that for sale right now? Uh it's under uh option agreement. It's under contract pending. It's not onsite or or whatever anymore. No, it's a development developer called uh Tamarak. Okay. and can't remember exactly the num the number of lots. Um 150ish sounds right. I don't remember off the top of my head. Uh I think it it's right about 150. I think the concept plan had 152 or 53 and then they were going to lose three. Um and uh the Boulder Heights development, if you haven't been down there, there is the fourth and fifth phase did get paved. Um we haven't released it for building permits yet, but it's close. Um so if you haven't taken a drive down there, those last phases are complete or almost complete. And then there's 30 acres immediately south of Boulder Heights. Um we just learned yesterday that uh came under contract. It was put on it was on put on the market uh within the last week. And KJ Walk, who is the developer of Boulder Heights, um has that under contract. So we're may see uh a concept plan. Um they called and indicated they would be uh drafting a concept plan for potential review by the city in the spring. They which roads can they go out on on that? Yeah, beard. You can't go out beard. We heard that many times. Well, yeah. Okay. Okay. Assuming Oxford would go all the way down to because does it currently dead end there? Yeah, this main road in Okay. I wasn't I couldn't recall the layout. Yeah. Um, and I'm sure everybody is aware that the Mexican restaurant opened over the weekend and had smashing ratings on social media. Um, and then the there's a new men's hair salon next door, Top Cuts, and that opened within the last couple of weeks as well. Excellent. It's exciting. Anything else? Jake Township. All right. Since we're done, I don't even think we need a motion because we finished everything, right? I can just adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Really? Oh, see I I hear it both ways. Yeah. I'm sure Robert's rules at the end. Do they care? No, I'm just kidding. Okay, I'll take a motion. I'll make a motion. I'll second. Any all in favor? I oppose. Think we passed. Closing. Ajourned. Sorry.