Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It's 3 o'clock. I'll call this meeting to order. Today is Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. This is a regular meeting of the Fargo Planning Commission. The first item is approving order of agenda. The only updates to the agenda today is we'll have two non-hearing items. D1, Kim's gonna update on the land development code process and where we are, so that will be an update. D2, summary of city commission, last commission meeting on the Lost Creek first addition. I'm guessing Nicole and Mark will update us on that, D2. Those are the changes. Do I have a motion? So moved.

Second.

Motion is second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Item B, minutes of the regular meeting of May 5th, 2026. Everybody had a chance to look at those. Any changes? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve the minutes. Second. Motion second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed, same sign. Motion approved. Public hearing items. The first item up is a hearing of an application requesting a plat of the cul-de-sac of Cottage First Edition. Luke to present.

Good afternoon, Commissioners. Luke Mormon with the Planning Department. Item 1 on your agenda is located at 3856 and 3870 47th Avenue South. If you follow my cursor on the screen, we get some context, which is I-29 further to the east, and then 42nd Street South a little further to the west. 47th Avenue South abuts the subject properties. We also have the Microsoft campus and Cottagewood Park nearby. The applicant is requesting a major subdivision entitled the cul-de-sac of Cottagewood First Edition, which is a replat of lots 17 and 18, block one, Cottagewood First Edition. On the site photos on the top, we are facing southeast from 47th Avenue South. There you can see the cul-de-sac. And then on the bottom, we are facing north from the southeast corner of the property. And on the right hand of the image, you can see a shared use path, which is existing. The zone is SR2 single dwelling residential and no zone changes proposed. This plat creates a two lot, one block major subdivision. There's an existing access right away and utility easement over the existing cul-de-sac. The easement will be vacated and the cul-de-sac will be dedicated as a public right away at the city's request. The overall lot sizes will be reduced with the right away dedication. However, the buildable area for the subject properties will be about the same. Staff has received and responded to three inquiries in response to the project, and noted no concern. We find all criteria to be met and are recommending approval. The project representative, Craig Galinsky, is here to answer any questions that you may have, and that concludes staff's presentation. Thank you.

Thanks, Luke. Any questions for Luke, commissioners? No? Applicant have anything to add? Do we have any questions for the applicant, commissioners? No? Okay. Let's go ahead and open a public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Anybody wish to speak? Seeing none, let's close public hearing. Commissioners?

Do we have a motion? Motion to approve based on staff recommendation.

Motion.

I'll second.

Motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, go ahead and take the roll.

Gly? Aye. Rosenberg?

Aye.

Georgie? Aye. Stoffrin?

Aye.

Nass?

Aye.

Mose?

Aye.

Tassa?

Aye. Motion carries. Thank you, Luke. Next item is hearing on an application requesting a plat of RWA third edition Donald to present.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Donald Kress of the Department of Planning and Development. Item 2 is the RWA 3rd Edition. And if you follow the cursor here, please. This is 7th Avenue North. Here's where I'll start on the large feature. This is I-29, 7th Avenue North. This is County Drain Number 10. The subject property is located here on 34th Street. There are two lots as part of the subject property. LOOKS ABOUT LIKE THIS HERE. THE WHITE BUILDING AND THE BLUE BUILDING ARE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HERE. SO YOU'RE FACING SOUTH FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC. SEVENTH AVENUE IS DOWN HERE. THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE, THE EAST SIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM SEVENTH AVENUE. County drain running here and the subject property goes about like this. So we'll come back to the drain in a moment. The zoning here is LI Limited Industrial and no zone change is proposed. Commissioners, you received a lay down item this afternoon of the subdivision plat, just slightly improved over the one that's in your packet. It just clarifies how the drain easement is going to work a little better on that. Since this property is So you have the newer one. So since this is a long county drain, we have a requirement in our land development code that the subdivision must account for that proximity to the drain setback or dedication, depending on the situation, of 175 feet from the center line of the drain. Sometimes that gets adjusted, as has been done here with a subdivision waiver for drain setback, as noted in your staff report. There's separate findings in your staff report for that. And this is done in cooperation with the Southeast Cast Water Resources District and their engineer, the city engineer, and the applicant. Those three have agreed in this case that there will be only a 100-foot setback from the center line as necessary, 46 feet of which are going to be on the subject property. So you'll see on your plat it says 46-foot drain easement. That will be on the plat. That's actually going to be recorded before this plat gets recorded and the number of that easement is going to be on the plat. So while we appreciate the cooperation of Southeast Castwater Resources District in working with us on that, we did receive one comment from a neighboring property owner across 34th there, a property owner and business owner, and that comment is noted in your staff report. It has to do with traffic leaving 7th Avenue. It's not a particular concern of the subdivision itself. And what the subdivision does here is there are two lots. The dashed lot line is the old lot line. The blue building's on this lot, the white building's on that lot. Just moving this LOT LINE OVER HERE, BASICALLY TURNING THAT LOT LINE 90 DEGREES SO THAT THIS BUILDING CAN BE CONTINUED ON UP TO THE NORTH HERE. THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE BUILDING THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH. THE EFFICANCE REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PATTENGALE OF HOUSTON ENGINEERING IS WITH US THIS AFTERNOON AND MAY WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, DONALD. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR DONALD? Do you have anything to add? Do we have questions for Mr. Pattengill? Nope? Let's go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Anybody wish to speak? Seeing none, close public hearing. Commissioners? Do I have a motion?

I move to approve with a motion in the staff report.

We have a motion, how about a second? Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Let's go ahead and take the roll.

Rosenberg?

Aye.

Haas?

Aye.

Mose?

Aye.

Glide?

Aye.

Geordry? Aye. Stauffern?

Aye.

Tassa?

Aye. Motion carries. Three, Alpha and Bravo. Selkirk Place 6th Edition. Donald to present.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So we're back in Selkirk Place here. I-29 over here, 64th Avenue South here. The subject property is here. If this looks a little familiar to you, commissioners, a couple months in April, we did Selkirk Place 5th Edition, which was across the street. Same sort of idea here, different owner, different applicant. Same sort of idea, taken a large existing lot and subdivided into smaller single-family lots. So this project has actually already been approved by the City Commission. This property was zoned SR5. The original intent was to plat townhomes there, but the applicant is now deciding when it's applied into single-family residences. So again, located along in the Selkirk Place second subdivision here. site looks like this here there's looking from the south there i believe they're loamering it out there Mr. Eunice is that what they're doing okay uh filling that in so the subject property goes up this is the house on the corner of uh of uh selkirk drive here so this this house is not part of it so that's the backyard you see the fence there the backyard of that house so it starts there and then here we're standing on the other Look in the other way. Here's the houses behind me. Look in south along the property frontage there on the subject property along Selkirk Drive south. The zoning here is SR5. The zone change will be to change to SR2, single dwelling residential, which has a larger minimum lot size. And that is the appropriate lot size for, or the appropriate zoning designation for the lots of this size. And it will also match up then across the street and with this with this existing lot here. So you want everybody to line up and have the same setbacks and have a continuous block face that matches. The subdivision divides the property into six lots. As you see here, pretty straightforward. The applicant's representative, John Yunus of Eagle Ridge Development, is with us this afternoon, may wish to address the commission. The recommended motion is stated in the staff report and shown on the screen for the zone change and plat of self-replaced sixth addition. Thank you, commissioners.

Thank you, Donald. Commissioners, any questions for Donald? Nope. Do you have anything to add? Any questions for Mr. Yunus? Yes. Seeing none, let's go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Anybody wish to speak? Go ahead. I'll just remind you to state your name for the record.

Yes, Christopher Cohen, Fargo resident. And what I advocate for is each subdivision and neighborhood having a variety of housing in it so that people have more choices depending on their price point or the size of the home they want to live in. And so this is getting rid of THE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO HAVE AN OPTION FOR A TOWNHOUSE IN THIS SECTION. BUT I THINK IT'S IDEAL TO KEEP THE VARIETY THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE THERE. THEY HAVE TWO DENSITIES OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. It would be even better if there was also some apartments somewhere close by. And, you know, sometimes, you know, when people, when they get older and they downsize, they might want to live near their children and grandchildren. And so they want to live right in this area. And their price point is at the townhouse. So if we just replace that with more single family homes, then we're getting rid of choice. So I think it's better to keep the variety whenever you can. Thanks.

Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? Seeing none, we'll close public hearing. Commissioners? Make a motion to approve staff's findings. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Motion, second. Do we have any discussion, commissioners? Nope.

Go ahead and take the roll. Gladi. Aye. Pass. Aye. Stafford. Aye. Mose.

Aye.

Geordry. Aye. Rosenberg.

Aye.

Tassa.

Aye. Motion carries.

Thank you, commissioners.

Thank you, Donald.

item number four alpha for bravo veterans square edition chelsea to present good afternoon commissioners chelsea leverson with the planning department item 4a is a conditional use permit to allow household living in the gc general commercial zoning district and item 4b is a conditional use permit for an alternative access plan for reduced parking The property is located at 5600 38th Avenue South. It is tucked behind some commercial development right on the corner of 40th Avenue South and Veterans Boulevard. The top photo is facing southwest from the corner of 38th Avenue and 46th Street. And the bottom photo is facing northeast from the private drive in the southwest corner of the property. The property is zoned GC, general commercial, with a conditional overlay. There are two existing conditional use permits, both approved by this commission in December, one for household living within the GC zoning district and the other for a parking reduction. On your screen is the site plan provided at the December Planning Commission. At the time, the applicant was proposing a 69-unit apartment building with 124 off-street parking spaces, approximately 1.8 spaces per unit. The applicant is requesting a new conditional use permit to accommodate changes made to their design. The updated site plan is shown on your screen. Changes include the addition of one apartment unit for a total of 70 units, the addition of three parking spaces, increasing the parking ratio from 1.8 to 1.81 spaces per unit, and relocating the dumpster from interior to the exterior of the building. Here are some revised renderings of what the development may look like. On your screen is the previously approved CUP for household living. The proposed changes are highlighted in yellow. Maximum density open space and additional design requirements will stay the same The only change is to remove the requirement that the dumpster be located internal to the building But the conditional overlay on the property will still require the dumpster to be screened from view with permanent walls. I Do want to point out that condition number nine references are rendering provided at the December Planning Commission and That is this is the rendering showing how the added amenities along the street facing facade may look we just didn't receive an updated rendering And the proposed changes to the CUP for an alternative access plan for reduced parking include re re re wording the parking requirement from the number of required parking spaces to a required parking ratio and and omitting condition number three since the maximum number of units permitted by the density has been reached. On your screen is information about the appeal process. Should this item be approved today? We have not received any inquiries on this project. The applicant Ian Bullis of Eagle Ridge is here today if you have any questions for him. Staff's recommendation is for approval with the following conditions. And commissioners, there was a typo in your packet, so if you do wish to approve this today, please refer to the motion on your screen. Thank you. That concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you, Chelsea. Commissioners, any questions for Chelsea?

Yeah, quick question for you. The new place for the garbage, is that on the right side of the building from that one picture? Is that that location?

Yes, it is on this top image right here.

And was it city's request to add those additional three parking spaces, or was that the developer's?

The developer.

Okay.

Any other questions for Chelsea? Okay, I'll invite the applicant up. Do you have anything to add? Okay, do we have any questions for the applicant? Nope? Okay, let's go ahead and open up public hearing. Anybody wish to speak on this item? Anybody wish to speak? Seeing none, let's close public hearing. Commissioners, what are your wishes? Do we have a motion?

I move to approve with the motion that is up on the screen.

Thank you, I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on said motion? Go ahead and take the roll, please. Drudery?

Aye. Stoffrin?

Aye.

Mose?

Aye.

Rosenberg? Aye. Gley? Aye. Haas? Aye. Passa?

Aye. Motion carries. Moving on to D1, update on land development code.

Thank you, Commission. Yes, so we didn't have a scheduled update presentation for you. It's more just since we are closed with immediate business items so quickly, we thought it would be a good opportunity just to open it up for Q&A. And maybe we can give you a little update on what we know so far on our schedule as it continues to get updated as we get into more details on the next phase of the Land Development Code. Since we've met last, we did, Kim and I, Kim Citrowski and I did do a presentation with the home builders, the BIA. There's a small roundtable with them as we talked about updates. And up until, and it's still ongoing. informal, but formal comments were received up until May 1st as part of that staff review, staff review version of the Land Development Code. And we did get a handful of comments Those are primarily being sent directly to the consultant and there was like an instant email that went straight to the consultant. So we haven't reviewed all of those in totality yet and the consultant is reviewing those and we'll be starting at the staff level to review those with the consultant. We are expecting a staff updated document of the entire land development code along with the other articles that would include the sign code and other administrative processes. We should be getting that shortly. And then we'll have another round of review with that as through that. We're starting to set schedule for July, August and September. And we expect a visit from CZB in July. We haven't set those dates yet, but as soon as we have those dates, we'll let you know. And then the next scheduled thing would be the break the code or the test the code series of events that we are talking through about that. And then we'll have Finally, discussion with, then we'll start looking at the maps, and then we'll also start to bring in the incentive discussion as it comes to that. So we have still four big topics, if you will, to proceed over the next three to four, five months. And as predicted, we'll probably be looking at a schedule adjustment to the contract that we'll take to the city commission over the next few weeks. So you might see that on the city commission agenda as we proceed forward we're predicting the consultants think we can get done by september at the staff level we think it's probably more like november and which is about on schedule with what we predicted to date so we're on schedule just the next steps are going to be a bit iterative as we get feedback comments and work with the community at large So I just wanted to see if you had any questions or things you might be hearing in the community now that the draft review is out in the world. And we've been getting bits and pieces, if you will, from general public members, and I think some members of you submitted comments directly, so thank you for that. But just be glad to open any questions. Do you have any surprises today? I don't think so. Kim's saying no. Do you want to speak to the mic, Kim, or come up?

I don't know if we have too many comments. I feel like as we've gone through the process, we know that sometimes we have different stakeholders that have differing opinions on certain topics, and so we just need to work through reconciling that consensus building right now.

When they're here in July, would there be like a brown bag held with planning and commission? Do you see something? Something to that degree, yes. Okay.

Yeah.

And then I think it would be helpful when we talk at that time or maybe sooner, just better for myself, I can't speak for everyone else, but maybe just better understanding our role in terms of planning reading through the draft and providing comments and just really maybe more of a deep dive on our role, I guess, in terms of review and moving forward.

Great point. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Well, thank you so much for your engagement so far. More to come. And we'll just keep clicking away on it.

Sounds good. Thank you very much. Appreciate all your work.

Yeah. And then the next time I wanted to bring up is the Lost Creek item. And so that was the subdivision you had last month that went to City Commission last Tuesday. And that was continued. Staff presented three motions. We presented your motion, your recommendation for approval. There was staff recommendation for denial. And then we also kind of cued up a recommendation for continuation. And you'll see sometimes we do that when there's policy discussions on top of the actual application. And obviously there's some policy discussions related to the infrastructure proposals and the financial needs and the 27 budget, 28 budget timing of pace of development, much of the conversation that we had at the Planning Commission. We may or may not have an informational meeting with the City Commission. We're still kind of working through those details with City Administration and the City Commission. Obviously we are up for an election as well next week. And so how we proceed on through June is yet to be determined, but we will let you know as soon as we know. It will be back at June 22nd at some manner, and often it's not uncommon for us to present to city commission. Whenever we have a complex topic, we either will have a two-step process where everybody At City Commission, we introduce it. They have time to process it, and then they come back and vote. And that's kind of what we queued up for June 22nd. And or if they need an informational meeting to talk through broader like 20 30 40 minute discussion items we might have that informational meeting so we're still kind of vetting that process so more to come I don't know if you watch the meeting it was pretty pretty short in front of the city commission but if you have any questions to date or I just wanted to make sure to bring up since it is kind of a unique case and we're testing a lot of new policies as it relates to the growth plan So appreciate your engagement in that. Any questions on any of that?

What was the, can you tell me what the, to me it sounded like they wanted a meeting, so you're just trying to figure out if it's needed?

Yeah, so the, I think each of the five commissioners might, HAVE A DIFFERENT PLAN OF ACTION ON WHAT THEY THINK THEY NEED. THERE'S ONLY ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION AGENDA, SO TRYING TO GET MUCH NOTICE AND ADVERTISEMENT AND POSTING AND CALENDAR MANAGEMENT. SO IT'S REALLY, IN MY MIND, A it's starting to become a little bit more clear of, and I don't want to put Tom on the spot, but as we look to immediate infrastructure investment needs and how that impacts in debt management, it's kind of related to more financial big picture discussions and, um, and its relationship to, so the city commission has deliberated about this in the past. When we look at commerce at a hundredth Avenue, uh, development way down south or the Davies high school area, OR EVEN THE OZGOOD AREA. ANY TIME WE'RE EMBARKING IN NEW GREENFIELD AREA AND LOOKING AT THAT INVESTMENT, IT'S ABOUT CONNECTING THAT IN TIMING WITH THE CIP AND CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN AND EVERYTHING LONG TERM. SO SOME OF THAT IS THERE'S NOT THAT INFORMATION YET TO SHARE AND SOME OF IT IS JUST GIVING THEM TIME TO PROCESS THOSE QUESTIONS.

IF THERE IS A MEETING, COULD YOU JUST LET US KNOW?

ABSOLUTELY.

So this continuance is just, it's for a month or?

No, just till June 22nd. So just two meetings. Yeah, so not, we didn't want to have a June 8th, but to June 22nd.

I think the thought process was that this commission, no, that was, never mind.

Yeah, there was some discussion. There was some discussion. Is it this sitting commission that votes on it, or is it the future city commission? I think from a staff perspective, we would like to see this sitting commission act on it.

And just to clarify, Madam Chair, you asked if we will be informed about the informational meeting.

If they have one. And it would be recorded and in this location. Just so we can just have knowledge of it if we want to listen.

That was going to be my question, is I didn't know if that's something planning would be invited to, or if our suggested motion of approval is kind of the end of it, especially if it's a new commission. I didn't know if we're allowed, I guess, to be there, just thinking of the work we've done with Growth Plan and LDC and talking through some of that. Yeah.

def sorry i didn't mean to cut you off oh no no that's all i had yeah definitely a courtesy update and notification um and uh but really it's larger policy discussions with the city commission in relationship to conversations with our finance director city engineer public works director and it's really about the city operations at that point but certainly your viewpoint and feedback and guidance to this point is is well received and and considered further and i think for future discussion so obviously we're not done with the land development code yet and we're just in the beginning baby stages of implementing the growth plan and so all of this is you know feeding into further discussion. So it's not anything that's going to get resolved by June 22nd. Obviously, hopefully action happens by June 22nd. But those bigger picture policy elements will be conversation that will be more of with the Planning Commission over the next year, I'm guessing.

When I think through, I mean, we really struggled, right, at that decision. And so We kind of felt this was a City Commission decision because of the policy. Is there anything we can do as Planning Commission to kind of look at that before it comes to Planning Commission? Or, you know, how do we, if it's policy-wise?

I think it's, let me just back up a little bit. So, and thank you for that. That's a great conversation. So, One of the ways, and I guess just for fairness, John Yunus and I did have a conversation after the City Commission meeting last week, and from a policy perspective, I can see where this could be really confusing. We just have been looking at Covey Ranch, we've been looking at other applications, and from There's a couple different distinctions here. One is the timing of a new application in relationship to the new growth plan. And so another aspect of it is this is greenfield development that hasn't been quite master planned to the level that Covey Ranch has been. So east of 45th Street versus west of 45th Street are in two different master planning stages when it comes to city development. CITY STAFF LEVEL WORK. THERE'S A WHOLE HECK OF A LOT OF WORK THAT HAPPENS BEHIND THE SCENES WITH CROSS DEPARTMENTALLY WHEN WE MASTER PLAN AREAS IN TERMS OF TIMING AND SCHEDULING OF INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THERE'S KIND OF TWO DIFFERENT PHASES, KIND OF PRE-GROWTH PLAN AND POST-GROWTH PLAN. AND SO THAT'S ONE DISTINGUISHING COMPONENT TO THIS APPLICATION. And I lost my train of thought. But that's one distinction. Oh, another distinction was when we normally, when I think the informational, if we have an informational meeting with city commission, at the staff level, it's really about unpacking the decisions that go. So a subdivision gets approved, then what? What is that chain of effects before a house starts building at that lot? You, the planning commission, don't usually see those transactions afterwards. There's a lot of transactions after that step. And so it's from the developer asking for infrastructure, engineering reviewing plans. So it's a lot of interaction between the engineering department, the finance department, the finance committee, and the city commission in those steps. So as you unpack those actions, for the last 30 years, those steps are somewhat automated. and up until the last maybe year and a half, those automated steps that have been built into a system are starting to get stretched out to have more interaction with the city commission along the way. So here we sit, you know, BASICALLY A COMPACTED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HAS BEEN KIND OF EXPANDED TO SHOW THE CITY COMMISSION WHERE THEIR DECISION-MAKING STEPS HAPPEN ALONG THE WAY. SO FOR INSTANCE, AS TOM, WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, STARTS TO DESIGN INFRASTRUCTURE, THERE'S COST IMPLICATIONS BETWEEN THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, THINGS LIKE THAT, BONDING, SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS, ALL THE THINGS THAT GO TO FINANCING THE MASTER PLAN, IF YOU WILL. SO A LOT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T SEE A LOT OF THOSE STEPS. THEY'RE LOGISTICALLY USUALLY and honestly the planning department doesn't either it's really you know more into than the other departments as part of that so that's where we're at as it's really kind of just heads up to the city commission by approving this plat or permitting this plat there's more decisions coming your way along the way that are going to impact some of your policy discussions as a city commission, they may or may not want to deal with those policies, um, as part of this plat or not. And so it's more just a heads up than anything else.

Thank you. Anybody else have any questions?

No, it just seems that, you know, when we're looking at a plot, a plot like that or in a development, um, And we know the city, you guys have done a great job about explaining all the financial implications that go along with that and the limitations of existing services. That it's good for us to have that understanding, but it's probably going to be something where the commission or land development code, you're going to see a lot of in the future as we're trying to make logistical or logical DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS NOT EXTENDING AND BECAUSE THE CITY MIGHT BE CONSTRAINED IN WHATEVER FASHION, THEY'VE GOT TO, IF I'M GOING TO GET THAT APPROVAL, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO SAY, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THAT STREET. I'M NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY AS DEVELOPER UNTIL I KNOW EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN PLACE. I MAY GET THE APPROVAL BUT THAT DOESN'T DO ME ANY GOOD UNTIL I KNOW I CAN SELL A LOT AT SOME POINT.

And I don't know our, would it be possible, we haven't had many recommendations for denial, if we can do, I mean, I don't know how much we can talk about an application before, you know, before that date on the agenda and the hearing, but to kind of prepare us in a way, I don't know if we could do a brown bag before a denial or how that works.

YEAH, I THINK IT'S A GOOD WAY TO UNPACK THE PROCESS AS A WHOLE. SO MUCH OF THE PROCESS IS SET BY CENTURY CODE AND THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROCESS. SO TO ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR THE CITY COMMISSION LAST MEETING WAS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE COULD HAVE SOME OF THE EX PARTET COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING WITHOUT BURDENING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. AND THEN I THINK, YOU KNOW, I can think of maybe four times in my career that we've recommended denial. It's not a normal process. And I think that's what I was going to mention before. In our process, we route the application, right? So we receive an application. We route it to some 20 organizations, including our internal organizations. And very rarely do we get review comments that cause us concern or cause us to question our process. I'M NOT SAYING EVERYTHING IS JUST A RUBBER STAMP, IT'S JUST THINGS FALL WITHIN A PARAMETER OF THOSE LIMITATIONS THAT WE REVIEW AND GENERALLY OUR REVIEW COMMENTS ARE SOMEWHAT TECHNICAL IN NATURE. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF IN MY ROLE THAT WE'VE ROUTED A PLAT IN AN APPLICATION AND RECEIVED REVIEW COMMENTS FROM other agencies and other organizations and departments that said, wait a minute, I have some concerns. And so that's what caused the review. And so we're under a very short 22-day from application to when we're scheduled for hearing. And normally an applicant, and I'm not trying to disparage the applicant at all, normally when we have technical review comments, our applicants work in partnership with us to work through those details. So you might see the continuation or the extension, et cetera. You know, from the applicant's perspective on Lost Creek, they met the technical components of the plat and they recognized a delay, a continuation, et cetera, isn't going to get solved. The type of review comments we had weren't going to get solved within a month, right? We know we needed to get that conversation at the policy level decision makers sooner than later. So that's why kind of that push. So we recognize it's been a very fast two-month process, three-month process that normally would have more time for the brown bag, et cetera. And when we were in front of you in February with the introduction of the concept, we hadn't even received those review comments yet. We we were none the wiser on that as well So it's a tricky. Yeah, it's been a tricky plat for sure. I

And I think better, maybe a better understanding of, you know, as planning commission, our purview is, you know, our role of continuing the growth plan and planning and, you know, being proactive. And then where's the disconnect with the denial? What's that gray area of it meets this, but then is there other considerations that, just kind of defining a little bit more to your point of, you know, better understanding maybe a denial or just a better understanding enhance our knowledge of what else is going on behind the scenes. So appreciate that explanation.

Thank you. Appreciate it. With that, meeting adjourned. Thank you.