okay i'd like to call this uh meeting to order the city oak park heights planning commission meeting thursday october 14th um right now it's 603 i'd like to start with the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all okay very good um next item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda does anybody have anything that they want to add or talk about or if not do i have a motion i make a motion we approve the agenda motion to approve is there a second i second okay all those in favor say aye aye motion passes next we have to approve the uh minutes of the thursday september 9th meeting um i looked these over pretty carefully i didn't see anything else does anybody else have anything to motion approve the minutes okay motion to approve and a second all those in favor say aye aye motion passes okay um department commission liaison other reports because um do you have anything to i no i don't have anything other than it's it's great to be here i forgot about you know some nights you have candy we have to thank julie for that i think i think she's the one for that thank you um eric have you got anything okay okay we'll move on to uh visitors and public comment this is the opportunity for the public to address the planning commission with questions or concerns not on the agenda is there anybody here that wants to hop onto the darn i thought he was going to too okay um seeing none we'll move on next we have public hearings first one is drf storage dental scott yes so thank you mr chair members of the commission russ hedlund has made application to remove the existing buildings and construct a new dental clinic and office building at uh 1396160 street north application is for design standards review and site plan review as well as a preliminary and final plat um there's three lots out there uh our ordinance would require anything over two uh to be planted as a preliminary and final plot so uh they have uh submitted that uh that information to us you're looking at constructing a building in two phases the first being six thousand square feet for a park dental a saint croix valley and the second phase of three thousand square feet uh to include a complementary type use the project narrative kind of goes through a little bit more detail of what they're proposing no issues with the comprehensive plan i would say this designated commercial uh zoning it's the zone b for a limited business district and uh the uses that they're proposing are all uh permitted uses um again preliminary final flat they submitted that and uh you know that's just uh do not see issues with it but uh uh subject to final review by the city attorney and city engineer um site plan um also the three buildings that are on the site would be removed uh construction of the one building um the existing dental building will remain during construction and then once the new building opens and they're able to occupy that the old building will go down um one thing um they have not given us a timeline for um construction the second phase but representatives of the uh and ross is here tonight you can probably give a little bit more detail because that might be a question that that we have uh no issues with the setbacks um the chair had mentioned um that uh the requirements minimum requirement for um uh the driveway is is only five feet and they've got uh more than five feet again there's some flexibility there in that driveway if you want to push that closer uh to that east property line but you know that's certainly uh certainly optional the um traffic circulation curb cuts they're going down to just the one curb cut that's on the east side of the uh property one note we always send plans like this for new construction over to the fire chief um the fire chief had indicated that uh there may be some issues with their ladder truck and uh again i don't have an update on that so ross if you have anything more uh on that uh that would be uh that'd be good snow storage um you know i assume they're going to push snow to that back uh back area of the lot but we typically do require a snow removal plan parking we're more than more than fine with the 40 uh with the 66 stalls that they have uh proposed uh the required uh for this uh site for the entire building would be uh both phases would be 44. uh landscaping the city airbus had a few comments that are attached nothing major to the to the to the project lighting all parking lot lighting nothing that was shown at least for building lighting um but anything they proposed would be subject to uh to final uh review and approval and would be done at building permit grass storage there is a trash storage uh container mechanical screening they have a screening on part of the architectural feature of the building is the the screening feature on the roof and the city engineer has provided a separate report on on the dra grading drainage erosion control etc uh signage uh the plans that were submitted and since you did not include a freestanding sign just a couple days ago we did hear from the applicants that they may be proposing a a freestanding sign that's certainly allowable with this proposal there was a julie had made a copy that's on your desk that shows up in that upper left-hand corner of the site potentially a sign in that in that location just conforming to city signage we do have a condition already in the report that all the signage needs to comply so as part of building community they come in with a a pylon sign there that meets all the requirements that certainly uh certain certainly could be allowed the wall signage is all also compatible with the requirements of the ordinance uh gone through uh there's some comments even made before the meeting that appears to be a very attractive building it is a nice use of materials um some different different roof heights it's just not a flat roofed um uh building uh it again will be a nice improvement to that area so you know i don't know if you have any questions on any of the um the design review but overall i think everything looked uh look good on that but we would require a bike rack i know that's why you came mr craig um so the conditions are listed in the report and one thing we may want to talk a little bit about is that second phase again with timing i don't see a need i think the plans are complete enough that they don't need to come back in for the second phase but we may want to put a time limit on that or a condition that says if there's any changes to that second phase in appearance or whatever that they would have to come through again so that makes sense that's something that i think maybe we should add to that list as uh as i've looked at it that's a little further maybe after the bike rack or before so any questions of the planning commission um i i have some questions for the applicant i think they're gonna um i'll just wait and ask them okay does anybody else have a questions for the staff i was just uh trying to understand the the image here i'm just is that going to be facing 36 or is that facing inward or that's actually facing south so that you drive it it looks just as nice on the other side if you look i was just curious architects thing but um people will go around the back and park there and then that'll be the main entrance from behind so and then my only other question was the limited uh business district in which medical clinics offices and retail space so is it is are they going to try to maintain a like a clinic and things like that or any retail can move in there you know i think it's it's b4 and b4 is part of that um the business you're talking about is in the comp plan okay and um yeah b4 limited business district does allow for retail office uh medical always permitted uses okay i mean they could do let's say a medical service retail type of operation or something like that too that would certainly and i think that we can have that applicant talk about potential uses for that second building it sounded like from what they what they've uh turned in with the application that they're looking for some compatible kind of a use so um i mean that makes that makes sense it still has to meet it either has to meet the permitted uses in the b4 or it has to come here for a conditional permit if they if they pick something that's outside of that um the permitted uses so we're not really giving anything up by that i mean um and i think like scott said i think we we could probably you know go forward and just put something in there that says if as long as they don't change anything for that second building they don't have to come back but um because it i mean it looks pretty straightforward the way it is so anyways so for the phase two signage part though if we don't know who's gonna be in there and there's we have to put a stipulation about all right you got two signs 48 square feet each that's the parameter do we need to add that you know i believe how do i have that worded so all signs should be designed to comply with the zoning orange requirements for size number and illumination again just a general statement so whenever they come in uh build that building uh they uh put together the sign package you'll just have to meet the meet the requirements if they want to do something different they're gonna have to come through another you know another community otherwise staff is still looking at it when they when they get their permits absolutely yeah julia is an eagle eye one yeah the eagle right that doesn't surprise you i'm sure okay any other questions for staff i just always have the question of you know is there going to be a big jump in traffic or i'm assuming it'll probably stay about the same if they already have that dental business in there yeah there's a dental clinic there now i don't know uh i think the other well we can ask the applicant about um about those issues a little bit i guess for what they might know if they don't have a tenant identify it's gonna be hard to know about the second building but sure so okay thank you okay um we'd like to invite the applicant to come up and make a statement before we open the public hearing thank you my name is ross headland i'm with fraunchu with a address of 7101 west 78th street in bloomington um thank you for having us here tonight we're really excited about the project and thanks to scott and julie and eric for for all the work to help us get us here um our long-term partner park dental is is definitely very excited too they're they're in a very old building out there currently um and so i know that they acquired the building or we acquired the building with them um a few years ago um and and it's been a dream to be able to get a redevelopment completed and so now we're we're excited to bring that through to fruition um i know the question came up um on the ladder trucks um we are working with that our our civil engineer laux is uh addressing that with the fire chief i believe it's it's been uh resolved um and uh i know they're i think working through that a little bit more but we definitely want to make sure that that's safe as well and i know we do have some kind of backup plans just in case the fire chief doesn't believe that it'd work we do have a little bit more parking than required and i think we could move some parking stalls and get that to work as well heard some comments about the bike rack of course we're definitely open to a bike rack um so no no no issues there um and we do have our architect uh uh jonah with sra here tonight as well um they've done a lot of great buildings for park dental and for us over the years and they can answer any questions about any of the design or other items but i think they've put together a very good building we're definitely very concerned about the image both from 36 and then also with the entry on the backs we did do four-sided architecture to try to make sure that the building looks good from all angles um part of the goal was to bring the building up to the road um so that way there's not kind of a sea of parking you know facing 36 and create a good kind of welcoming environment there so that's what kind of drove a little bit of that architecture and then uh the question on on phase two um so we do need park or park dental desires to be open continuously um so that's the part of the phasing for the project um so the earliest we would uh conceivably do phase two would be in the spring of 2023 um which would be after the new building's been opened they would move over the new building and then we'd be able to demolish the existing building that being said we do not have a use set for the new building yet so ideally it'd be something complementary like a dermatology or pediatric clinic or other uses like that we did just start marketing um you know phase two to see if we can find some uses and certainly if you guys uh hear of anything in in the community that's needed or anybody that's that's looking i would love to love to hear and entertain any of that but we don't have anything for timing and so if we do not find you know somebody that that would be a good fit for that uh you know may not may not be for several years um or other things as well but hopefully we find something now i think i think one of the things that we were thinking about was making sure that there are permitted uses in that b4 district as long as you get something that's on the list of permitted uses you won't need to come back here the way we have it drafted right now but if if there was a business that was allowed as a conditional use then you might have to come back and conditionally use permit but thank you and that that would be fantastic from our perspective so and and we're here to answer any other questions that the commissioners may have okay i um the question that i have um the existing building when i went out there i didn't i didn't see any of the planned sheets that had an overlay that showed where the existing building is as it relates to the edge of the the new building and it looks like they're right on top of each other i mean i just kind of laid them together and i thought well how's that gonna work there's like a three foot overhang on that building and it's um it looks really close yeah it does so they're very tight it's just something that we've worked through okay okay it was one of those silly questions i mean um i mean i know that you obviously have to look at that but i i'm just looking at scratching my head going how's that gonna work i i believe the distance is six feet commissioner i'd have to double check that with our team but we did look at that and have that concern as well construction limits for phase one thing if you pull up exhibit 18 on the screen there it shows kind of a really good overview of where the new building will be and where the existing buildings are yeah but they look like they're they're they're very close to each other i would say one in the same so um and i thought maybe there's something in the back of that building that you don't need right now we are planning to keep it 100 open so it's going to be okay it is going to be very close commissioner and i think with the final construction documents i believe it was six feet uh but it's going to take a lot of care i know that the building inspector will look at that carefully when yeah when you come in with the you know the building plans so absolutely yeah um okay well does anybody else have any questions for the applicant okay thank you thank you very much julie oh yes okay is it something we can pass around or the glass thing or whatever maybe just walk by with it and so we can get a better look at it but yeah the question i have is the glass but what is this high performance glass okay is it is it one that you can't see in but you can see out is it that sort of a thing or not um there would be some reflectivity to it but you there would be some visibility in oh okay does that i know that the you know that when the um the stewarder clinic or the medical clinic yeah um you can't tell but you can't see in from the outside they look like clear windows but you can't see in from the outside and i thought wow but i i suppose they're doing more physical examinations of people so it's okay that was so it'll have you know it'll have the high performance coatings on it so that does give it some actual activity yeah i have to say personally i think that the it's really nice the renderings of the building look fabulous i mean that'll be a really nice improvement to that yeah yeah yeah and i think that there are some parts of the city that could stand to be upgraded a little bit and that's that's one of them so i think that i think this is going to be a good thing for the city from my own personal opinion i think those were uh at one point uh were built in the township so we're eventually getting rid of some of those old township buildings and replaced with more modern business yeah the broaster chicken building i mean that's the i don't know if there's any remnants of the broasted chicken in there anymore but the smell baby all right the smell is always there is it's always there okay let's uh um open the public hearing at 6 22. um is there anybody in the audience that would like to talk about this public hearing the only guy who's not an applicant is shaking his head no um okay so hearing none do we have a motion to close the public hearing make a motion and a second any discussion about the motion hearing none all those in favor say aye aye aye aye okay so that closes the public hearing um now back to the planning commission is there any that the only other comment i wanted to make and this is maybe my not understanding the city code i don't understand why when you take multiple parcels and combine them that you have to plat it i mean it doesn't make any sense unless i could understand if there were drainage utilities along the interior property lines but in this case that's not the case it's just an old provision of the code um you know we probably should look at that i mean if we're going to do some amendments we could do administrative approval of a lock combination more than two lots right now it says two lots otherwise you have to do a plunger yeah it just it seems um it seems like a a big burden on the on the apple and there's additional experience as a land surveyor i i can tell you that there's no difference in their title whether they have those parcels put together um they can even go as far as to go to the the county assessor and have them there's a single page document that you fill out and you sign your name and they combine it all into one tax parcel so that they can't further separate it in the future but i mean i understand not wanting somebody to sell off a little piece because it's already in an approved lot but that wouldn't happen if you combined it at the county so it seems to me like that's something that the staff should be able to handle and and um i mean not for now i mean it is what it is when you applied but or when they applied but i um i just don't i just don't get it why so anyways that was my little box statement does anybody else have anything they want to talk about questions comments so the pylon and the front is going to go away right was that mentioned no it's the other way around they didn't have it shown they didn't have shown so they're proposing now they're going to assign potentially add one right have you made a decision you're going to add one or is it um yes commissioners we would like to have one there right now there's two pylons out there um and with the uh storm water and drainage that we're still working through with the watershed district we weren't sure on um if either those could stay or how that was going to work and so we didn't have it on the original plans somewhat by mistake okay um and so that's why we added one in as a placeholder am i am i correct in my assumption when i looked at the grading plan there's going to be some sort of a retaining wall function of the front wall of the north wall of the building there may be um and this this is going to go way over my technical knowledge maybe maybe the architect knows okay yeah i know that there's an issue with um you know not being able to infiltrate in this area because of the and and right now our understanding from the watershed is that they don't know whether we can infiltrate or not infiltrate so we have ordered a separate study that's going to be completed this friday that will determine that um and then and then we will know whether we're doing a retaining wall or with the pond as shown or if we need to do underground tanks that'll bring in a whole new wrath for me so ross if you do um have some plan changes without the retaining wall we can have that for the city council just and update them on that that would be helpful absolutely i can definitely do that and i don't see any difference from our standpoint whether you use the foundation part of the building i mean it's not like there's going to be anything on the other side of it it's just a you know it's hard on a small site like this to get an area large enough to pond the water you know so um you know long skinny ponds don't give you much volume and triangular ponds everybody wants to do a triangular pond those don't give you hardly any storage so it's difficult i get that so i just know that that infiltrating is something that's near and dear to eric's heart over here so he's gonna be if you decide that you need to infiltrate you're gonna you're gonna you're gonna hear some noise down the end of the table here it was about i was trying to think of the word i couldn't think of it okay sorry there's probably an inside joke morning inning isn't it yeah so i think maybe so except that i just let the cat out of it otherwise um so as far as the planning commission do we have anything else we want to talk about or is there a is there a motion fourth coming i would move that we recommend approval to the city council um subject to all the amendments presented with the addition of the 12th one describing any changes to the addition that would be um that would also come back before us if it's substantive to the second phase of the building correct okay yeah um we're going to leave the bike rack in there i'm fine with the bike rack as everyone else does huh you have to ask he's the only one that knows jim is heavy jim is the only one that knows whether there's bike racks in town there is a long-term joke with fight cracks the former planning commission chair had a particular issue with that all the time that was the joke at the end of every public hearing is there going to be a bike rack or not so i second the motion okay so we have a motion and a second any discussion about the motion okay hearing none all those in favor say aye aye aye motion carries thank you thank you and good luck we're uh we're looking forward to the new building i think it'll be uh that'll be excellent yes and this will go to the october 26 city council meeting and julie will you know send you the information in advance once you leave that here so the council can no sense and all in a back and forth unless you need it for some odd reason okay thank you thank you they'll guard it with their lives [Laughter] okay um moving on 2018 oak park heights comprehensive plan amendment this amendment requires a public hearing so um is this eric is this one you or scott scott you gonna enlighten us absolutely didn't make me a copy so i have to oh my gosh sure take mine i got actually i got two of them here oh do you have two no okay this one this one has the wrong date oh my god oh so she printed me a second one i'm not sure why but i probably could do this without the report but um the comprehensive plan in 2018 uh within the land use and transportation plans uh reference references of potential road um extension from memorial avenue 58th street uh to the west um additionally uh within the land use plan the city had identified an annexation potential annexation area to the west of the business warehouse area known as current center i use current center as an older term because that's what it was referred to for a number of years but it is that area where will zintel and and stillwater motors that entire area was always referred to as currency and that's the name of the plaque this is the name of the plant in that area some of them had been replated but yeah that's yeah that's that's the name of it so uh then due to uh recent changes in land area ownership um since the 2018 plan was adopted the city staff and city council identified possible amendments uh for consideration that are outlined generally [Music] such amendments are necessary as more than one half of these lands have now been added to stillwater so when the plan was done that area was uh it's gone back and forth a few times that was in not being downtown that was like it was in lake and so the uh the transportation plan map and and uh you can see it that's the first attachment shows to the left of that map possible extension of 58th street um i don't know maybe eric wants to go in more details of the politics of this but um on which i'll let you pick up on that but the second piece of the concern that is is regardless of the comp plan piece about future annexations the city only considered that antique that road or that possible annexation in a context that the city did the annexation not that it would be subdued any other any other party including the county the state whoever to interpret the way they may desire to interpret it whereas the city's very clear position on it was if the annexation occurs the city would consider an extension and that is was essentially being crafted to say the city supports the county's potential potential road or potentially a state road or something well we've clarified that with the county on a couple occasions and not three times in in writing still seems to be not heard um so another piece of this if you simply clean up that language remove that arrow it will hopefully sink in that that is the city's comprehensive plan change yeah so we would change the map and then eric had mentioned there's a couple of text changes on page 60 and 108 uh taking out again some of this is is no longer valid just because of uh what has happened with uh with the annexation out there by another entity so um that's you know we're proposing what's shown as as lined out and highlighted just to remove from the plan one last point it doesn't mean the city could never do those things it just simply says it's not what everybody might want it to be interpreted right um can i ask a question are you done with your presentation or okay i um i'm wondering why that whole paragraph isn't struck i understand the first paragraph so the policy toward annexation is consistent uh not aggressively pursuing areas annexation from townships or from one of the adjoining cities but the whole next part that whole paragraph is about that particular piece of property but there are certain pieces that were not annexed by um by the city of stillwater so there still is some potential annexation area out there so we just had to leave it because i i went on i went on the county website and looked at it and the city of stillwater owns every one of those parcels let's see if i can zoom in here this piece right here where the hand is it the county says the city owns it oh no that's in the township i'm sorry you're right right you have no idea what that would include that was the piece that was uh the um recycling yard the big recycling pit yeah who knows what happened you're right you're right i thought certainly the full more than half of the land is now in cities yeah all the way down to 58 there's two parcels that are in lake elmo that are down on um what would be uh 55th street which has been discontinued between manning and and the well just passed memorial you know the city is is tasked by the met council to kind of give some thought to future annexations just you know what are the big picture items here and that's probably all we talked about it has i certainly did not decide not bench in a way that it's going to be this good to be that but rather big theories right yeah we we felt that you know let's keep that annexation map in let's keep that language in okay just as kind of whatever all right well that answers my question so i don't you know this to me seems more like a housekeeping kind of a issue than it is a change in anything really i mean it's but we're still required to do a public hearing no no i i know i get that and i understand why that you know why the city desires to amend the comp plan um but to me it seems like we're not there isn't any new policy being made here there's more about cleaning up the language and the comp plan the way it is um yeah um so okay are there any other questions for staff or there any comments we want to make the amounts ourselves or so the city's primary objection to this it stems from the funding arrangement is that my understanding or is that the correct understanding right i think there's a lot of concerns with the road but i think the fundamental issue is okay i know if you speak to some of our retailers they might give you a different reason why it's a good or bad idea um however it is being actively interpreted that the city supports the road but their road who's there doesn't mean the city can't do it or at some point but they are using this language for their for their arguments you know it seems to me that that the nature of that neighborhood if you will where the quiktrip is and stillwater motors and some of those businesses there that traffic will change immensely if that road is connected up to manning and i'm not saying that that's a bad thing but i don't think the businesses are there that are there are thinking that's going to be such a great deal for them um there's sensory power there's the back side is still auto motors and there's all that retail back there yeah the the quick trip and then the um and then i guess the bank on the corner there maybe it could be i i don't know if we know those answers but what's being said is that this road is in your complaint city and thus you de facto support and i don't think that was ever the intent and the language you notice the map and the text says possible you know it's like we're just doing trying to do some long-range planning was it the de facto acceptance of this the entire arrow or just to the boundary line it's a good question the way you're explaining it sounds like there's expectations that it would be from the city all the way to manning yes that's correct that was mine i like it strike it hard that was my thought is like because it doesn't extend all the way down no i don't think so that's a stern expectation well and it and then and then the real kicker in the end is to say well you're going to have to pay for that too yeah it's like hold on a minute so this is going to be not something that the businesses necessarily like in oak park heights which i mean they can't control everything i mean if if there's a traffic reason for doing it then there's a traffic reason for doing it but making the the community that's going to be harmed by it pay for it seems that's part of the struggle too is but paid for by the developers like that's that's a nice protection clause but right yeah all right and i think that the the upgrade to the road to something that's a you know a major collector uh actually an arterial is what it would turn into is where the county gets involved and then they want to share funding with the communities so it's not all driven by the it's not all paid for by the developers there's a potential development that's been talked about for a long time in that area with the hyvee and whatnot i think people have heard that um but the park they have part that they have to pay for but the upgrading of the road to a major traffic wave is not something that they typically would be paying for and that's where the county steps in and the county's saying well the city's going to help us and that may be the city of stillwater helping them but i don't know that the city of park heights wants to help for something that might not be advantageous to the city of park heights so i think that's the issue yeah i want to just clarify that's the second issue is that the county's trying to force the city to put in this road at the city's expense as part of that well i read that uh thinly veiled threat that the commission made about the l s king plant funding [Music] under which the how does the city object how could the city object to this so we're familiar with that process and cities offered them the county and mou on the front end that says you want this road well okay so to speak um but you are responsible 100 of the cause to which we do not receive a meritorious response who knows but if this if other lands weren't already out of the township maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation but from a practice standpoint this annexation is really never going to happen i mean all the way certainly not all the way to vanna because it's in stillwater right right so would it be a two lane highway like it currently is if we if it was put in there there are portions of it that are three portions that are proposing 12 000 cars a day at a price of 18.1 million last summer they asked the city for 1.4 million i you know i don't want to make it sound like we're not happy with our partners at the county because we've done a lot of work the city of oak park heights has done a lot of projects and a lot of things with the county and they're not the bad guy you know um but in this particular case to use that little bit of an item that's in the comp plan is you know saying that the city already supports this even though they've been told no that we don't really support it that's the difficult part so so mr chair there's a public hearing i don't know if we've opened the public oh you know um we have not yet active purchases do you think that there's someone in the audience that might wanna okay so right now it is six let's say 43. like to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak there's a wrestling about jim cramer 54 75 oak green place north i have two points first your meetings seem to have gotten much longer since i left and number two with a jab number two i was part of the planning commission when these issues first came up and nothing in the position of either the planning commission or the city council has changed um and i think the the county is is has always been told the same thing the developers that came before i can remember when they came in and basically said wouldn't it be nice if oak park heights built a road for us and i i can remember the meetings that we were everyone said in the count and both the commissioners here as well as the city council said no it wouldn't be nice if you want to build there you take care of the road and there was the utility changes and and things of that nature so nothing in the view of or the city's position i don't think has changed at all it's just that i think when we did the comprehensive plan and some of you were around for the end of that but when we did the comprehensive plan i think it was uh it was just kind of an oversight we just uh took what had probably been there for the last 10 years and we just kind of left it in or whatever and so what what you're being asked to change or to uh to document again is no change at all and i would suggest that you that you go along with what eric is suggesting thank you thank you um yeah i think i think that's also what i was kind of getting at is that this seems to me like it's more housekeeping thing than it is a policy change it's really not a policy change it's just a housekeeping of some of the language that's in the comp plan that need to be updated because the people that are reading it are reading it wrong or getting the wrong impression from what they're reading i guess is what it is so um so first you want a motion to close the public area yes so um seeing that there's no one else likely to speak um i move we close the public hearing yeah we've got a motion and a second to close the public hearing all those in favor say aye aye motion passes now we have the um the issue at hand is there any um questions or further discussion that needs to take place before we have do i have a motion then i move we recommend uh making the two recommend the uh two amendments on the comp plan to the city council as presented okay so we have a motion in a second to um approve as presented um the two items yeah it's actually three items so it's mapping to two separate pages okay all right yep so the three items but three anyways as proposed um do we have any questions about them about the motion or any comments or questions hearing none all those in favor say aye aye aye motion passes yeah so it's page 60 page 102 and page 108 so yeah so one on page 108 is another map right now 102 page 108 is text or the text okay okay yeah so it's just on the transportation sheet as far as the map goes exactly transportation plan yeah okay then that's exactly what i thought it was okay um that ends the public hearing portion of the meeting new business we have nothing old business we have nothing and under informational we have the list of upcoming meetings that uh i'm sure everybody's poured over and um does anybody have any questions or comments about that we also have the uh council representative commissioner van dyke for october 26 and vandenberg uh for november 23rd okay i noticed we had the uh new red editions for the new types of meetings was there a particular reason or why they're red or just that um i just noted the audition i was just wondering now i don't i don't know maybe maybe they're just not the regularly scheduled meetings official city council meetings per se but council members you might see a quorum there and so no we're going to get together hash law [Music] and i don't know if we've had anybody from the uh council at the king plan advisory panel meeting well i guess i guess we've always had a representative there just like the planning commission does so actually probably not yeah we're not allowed to go no i think eric won't let me wasn't wasn't there um was mike was mike on one of the zoo meetings or no maybe they're allowed to watch they're open to the public oh okay one of the zoom meetings but um yeah i didn't yeah but are the ones in red are those um those are not normally scheduled meetings is that the idea no more social events in nature okay when you said there might be a core and it's like ah now get it yeah open meeting laws yes yep okay um one last item of business my favorite i make emotionally adjourned we have a motion to adjourn is there a second we have a second all those in favor say aye aye and jim you're absolutely right this is the longest meeting we've had over a year at least a year because i you wanted to see you were getting your money's worth with the planning commission that the all that money would get paid for their foreign commission for some reason the next planning commissioner or council i went you