Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Well, I guess everyone's here. So, this is the regular meeting of the Garden City Planning Commission. It's Thursday, July 10th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. I'd like to call a meeting to order. And our first order of business is pledge allegiance to the flag. If everyone would stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Would the secretary take roll call, please? Chair Burme, here. Mr. Steberg, here. Commissioner Walls

here. Mr. Mr. King here. Mr. Williams here. Mr. Bosy here. Mr. Daniels here. Full core. Next we need approval of the agenda. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. Support. Motion's made and supported. Uh any comments on the motion? Hearing none. Take the role, please. Mr. Williams. Hi. Mr. King. Hi. Mr. Daniels. Hi. Mr. Bosy. Hi. Mr. Walls. I Mr. Steberg I chair person I motion passes okay approval of minutes of the regular meeting of June 12th 2025

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of June 12th 2025 support motion's made and supported any corrections or comments on the motion hearing none take the role Mr. King I Mr. Williams Mr. Daniels I Mr. Bosy I Mr. Walls I Mr. Steberg I chairperson may I motion carries.

Next item is public comment on non-aggenda items only. If someone in the audience wishes to comment on an item that's not on the agenda tonight, it's your opportunity to come forward. Okay, seeing no one, we'll move on to our first business item. It's uh PPL25-000017 request to establish phase two of the Fulkar Commons mixeduse project on a vacant lot on the south side of Partardau east of Middle Belt Road and resone the site from CBD Central Business District to PUD Planned Unit Development. Uh Mr. Ortega, would you like to start us off? Yes. Uh good evening, commissioners. Uh as just summarized, we are here tonight to consider the phase two of the proposed uh Fulker Commons uh plan development. Um this particular site in question is a on Partardo Road uh east of Mbelt. So it is a 1.14 acre uh vacant lot. So it it currently has no improvements on the site. Um and as as you recall uh the applicant is um proposing a plan development at the corner of south uh southeast corner of a Ford road and middle belt to demolish the buildings at the site and construct a four-story mixeduse building which would have commercial on the first floor and three stories of uh residential above. Uh so as during the course of the review the planning commission did for the initial uh project the mixeduse building uh you made the determination that the that the 93 parking spaces on the on the site uh directly adjacent to the building uh would not provide

sufficient uh parking requirements for both for the mix of uses both the residents and that commercial site. Uh and so a condition of their approval for phase one was that they submit a revised uh a revised phase two that would allow for an additional parking spaces uh on property they own which is this. So that's the reason for this tonight. And so a key aspect of this entire review this evening is the fact that this is um as dee as uh discussed it's it's a component of the mixeduse project that would is going to be necessary for it to function in the in the uh in the immediate term for for vehicle oriented uses. making sure that all residents have a place to park their vehicles and making sure that the visitors to the site predominantly in the beginning will definitely be uh vehicle oriented. So um so they but in order to go through the uh this phase we must begin with this this process tonight of looking at the uh plot plan and the and the plan development concept. Um so uh it's the same process going through as phase one which this will be the initial review. U we'll hold a public hearing with regards to uh whether they're for for the reasoning from central business district to plan development and then uh would make a recommendation to planning to the city council. City council would then adopt uh would then consider that phase two. Uh for your information uh the phase one uh pro uh PD plan development resoning has gone to the planning commission and they did grant approval to that. So

and the council council council excuse me. Yeah. Uh yes. Got to keep them straight. Hard to remember which night it is.

Exactly. Right. Yeah. So that night city council did actually approve uh the phase one plan development resoning. Uh so with regards to phase one now the applicant is working on site plan and construction drawings that will be coming towards to you the planning commission for your because that's the next aspect of this because once again these are concept plans. Now they must submit uh detailed site plans to you for that construction. uh but to keep things moving along uh this is the phase two prelim uh plan development concept review and so uh we do have to use the same criteria but the the issue here is that like uh all of these um for example when we first you have my letter I'm going to briefly try and briefly summarize this basically the eligibility criteria for a plan development um starting at the top of page three whether there's a recognizable and sustainable benefit it uh whether it meets the uh has the ability to have um the availability of public services and meeting the proximity to the site whether this is compatible with the master plan. Uh we do find all these things are valid because and and true because this phase two is supporting that phase one and that phase one is definitely uh in compliance with the master plan. It's it's the vision for the downtown to have a mixeduse district. So this phase two will supplement that phase one and so we believe that's why it meets the eligibility criteria. Similarly moving on to design standards for a plan development um in terms of the location within the city uh the permitted uses um and and also the political based standards and also regulatory flexibility. Um this particular aspect of this of phase 2 they are not requesting any modifications of existing standards. is they're proposing right now that the plan the parking lot would be developed in complete compliance with our with our current parking

requirements. So therefore there's no need for regulatory flexibility of phase two and so there's nothing um with regards to the design of this at a plan at a at a concept level that will necessitate um granting any type of uh modification to our standards. they they're complete agreement of designing this in compliance with our current standards and then once again just reiterate this is supplementing and being supportive of that phase one. So therefore that's why that we believe that meets that uh design standards and then finally the standards of approval standards of approval for plan development including conformance with the plan development concepts uh compatibility with adjacent uses and things like impact on traffic. uh those are summarized on page five of my review letter. And we do believe that the this phase 2 uh aspect of the site um will especially as presented now uh will does meet the standards of approval because once again it's intended to reinforce and ensure that the phase one will function adequately. uh the parking will make sure that uh those residents and those customers will f have an act have the ability to visit the site, park on the site and then uh conduct their business. So we do believe that that because this is supplementing that phase one and that that phase one meets all standards of approval that this does meet the standards of approval as well. So in the end uh we do believe uh that this phase 2 uh rec uh is in compliance with the master plan goals and objectives compliance with the plan development uh zoning ordinance requirements. We would advise planning commission to recommend to city council granting the plan development review and approval contingent upon

this phase 2 receiving site plan review and approval as well. I can take any questions at the appropriate time. Any questions for Mr. Ortega? Myself. Uh we were looking at what uh 56 spots uh offsite across Yeah, I think we we 73. Yeah, it went up to 73 and so they are proposing uh that number and as I recall it was a oneacre plot and they were looking to use about half of that.

That's correct. So th this phase two does show uh the southern portion of the the particular lot. So the part the fronts on John Hawk would be vacant uh right now unimproved. So there's the potential for that to be a a future phase three and most likely it could be possibly a type another type of residential development like maybe town houses or something to that effect. And obviously behind that parking to the south

south correct. So, you know, once again, as a P planned development, they would have the ability to they would have to come back for the phase three and they could talk about different types of development on that that vacant portion in the future. Uh and it's just speculation at this point, but if uh the residential that increase of density um is uh serves the needs of the market and and provides new residents, the potential there to put in some townhouse development probably would be the most appropriate at this time because it's uh provides that transition too from the higher density on Ford trans town homes and then the single family homes on the other side of John Hawk. But that's just speculation at this point though. they would eventually submit that in the future.

Okay. Any other questions? I was just going to make a comment that I I was looking at our May 8th, excuse me, meeting notes and this is exactly what we asked them to do prior to bringing back the site plan. So, it's consistent with our request. Yes. Is there a representative of the applicant here that wishes to speak?

Hand mentioned Okay, then uh we can move on and open the public hearing at uh 6:41. Does anyone wish to come forward and uh make comments concerning this uh project? Okay, seeing no one interested in coming forward, then we'll move on. Uh, do we have any written communications concerning this?

No, we do not. All right. Then at uh 6:42, I'll close the public hearing and open it up to discussion uh from the planning commission, comments or questions. So on the third page, section three, when it says availability and capacity of public services, what does that entail? when it says does not require any public services.

Uh that would require uh about utilities any kind of utilities. So based so if this was when we had our discussion about the phase one we look at uh the density of the use and whether there's access to water manes sewer mains storm water management uh and then other facilities such as electricity and and and you know uh gas. But at this point, because this is this this phase of the development is only for parking, really the only thing they're going to be needing is uh electricity for for lighting for the parking lot. So there's no extensive demand on our utility system.

Uh one thing that I see a lot of cities do in parking lots like this is they'll do a police blue light. Is that something that we could put a recommendation in for? Would that be now or would that be more appropriate later? That would be appropriate during site plan review. It's always interesting to make sure that um we include the latest uh aspects of public safety. So to be something we could speak to the police chief about to see if that's something they'd be they think beneficial to the neighborhood.

Anyone else? We need a motion for recommendation. And in that motion, I would like to see us uh mention that uh the site should have a minimum of 73 parking spaces and also along with uh getting final approval from the planning commission. Someone cares to make a motion. I'll make a motion. Make a motion to approve and with the We need to make a re make a motion to recommend

recommend. Okay. Uh with the inclusion that it be a minimum of 73 parking spaces for off- streetet parking with a a total uh not to be less than uh let's see what does it work out to be 165 I think that's our total 167 167 okay with a total not to be less than 167 spots combined

and contingent on-site plan approval. And contingent of on-site plan approval, of course. Any comments on the the motion? Comments from the public. Okay. Hearing none, would take the role, please. Mr. Steberg, I. Mr. King. Hi. Mr. Daniels. Hi. Mr. Bosy. Hi. Commissioner Williams. Hi. Mr. Walls. Hi. Chairperson May. I. Motion passes 70.

Okay. Next item. PP D25-00006 request for special land use and site plan approval to establish a carry out restaurant at 1847/1859 Inkster Road in the C1 local business district. Okay, Mr. Ortega.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Um, for those of you that may recall, this is a newly constructed multi-tenant building. Uh, the lot address for the entire property is 1847 Ingster. The applicant is proposing to go into one of the units, the further northernmost unit, which actually has the address of 1859 Ingster, uh, to establish a carry out restaurant. Um the site is zone C1 local business and within our local business district we do require carry out restaurants to obtain uh um special land use review and approval which is the reason they're here this evening. Um this is mainly due to the fact that our local business is intended to be more of a uh slightly less um um intense commercial development. uh while principal uses uh that are permitted by right and C1 are office uses, service uses and and retail uses uh restaurants can sometimes be a little bit more intense. Uh so that's why they're while they're permitted by right and C2 and C3 typically along Ford road and Inkingster we we take the uh extra step of requiring special land use approval. So um just summarizing my review letter looking at the special land use criteria uh the number the first thing we take a look at is uh compatibility with adjacent uses uh to the uh directly adjacent to the site it is uh residential uh single family to the uh to the um west uh to the to the south and then to the east across on the other side of road um and then to the north uh there's a duplex on the north side of John of uh of John Hawk right there. Um however, Inkingster Road corridor does have a a wide variety and mix of uh commercial uses uh in in the area and

directly um past these individual single family these uh single family residential structures on Ingster are other commercial businesses. They are more of a nineto-five nature. They're more one's a dentist office, one used to be a veterary office. Um so one aspect of this is uh as I mentioned when it comes to carry out restaurants sometimes aspects that might increase density excuse me intensity meaning the level of activity on the site is the amount of customers coming in and out and then also hours of operation. They tend to operate later in the evening and that level of activity is more prolonged than than a normal 9 to5 situation but it's still a restaurant. So the ability to serve provide dinner options for people is is uh an important aspect of the of the proposed use. So um one other key aspect we think of this proposed site it's a four-unit building. Uh right now there's a barber shop, there's a pharmacy and then a vacant unit. So this would be the third of four units occupied. So this would be the only carry out restaurant on the site. Um so one aspect if you wanted some a lot of the multi-tenant buildings along Ingster do have one or two uh restaurant uses. However, sometimes they can get pretty busy from time during those meal times. So, one aspect you might want to consider uh when ensuring compatibility is possibly limiting the number of carry out restaurants on this particular site because there is another vacant unit in the building. Uh so maybe if it was limited to one or two that would ensure uh compatibility and less intense use and also you may want to have a discussion with the applicant with regards to the proposed hours of operation. uh if you limited the hours of operation, that would be another aspect you can control to ensure compatibility because really that's the most uh um uh what the most standout issue to consider with regards to this

uh these these uses when it comes to compatibility with the master plan. The master plan does envision Ingster becoming more commercial over time and we're seeing that as as these as this site has been developed and others are being developed at least certain portions of Instster because this is closer to Ford Road corridor. Uh the idea of having some commercial in close proximity makes sense. Um but then looking at other aspects also impact on traffic. um the site uh while they would while a carry out restaurant would increase some traffic, it's not going to be anything substantial that Inster Road corridor couldn't handle. It's a high volume corridor. It's designed to accommodate high volume and and having a carry out an additional carry out restaurant on the corridor uh shouldn't suddenly negatively impact the uh the traffic volumes on site given the current conditions of Inkingster Road Corridor. Um so in the end we do believe uh that uh the site does uh meet the criteria for special land use review uh excuse me and approval. And so we would um advise the planning commission that if you do make that the same determination uh that any recommendation you provide to the city council uh include a conditions uh regarding uh having discussion about and the number of carry out restaurants and the number of hours of operation of them but also substantiating your uh findings with the fact that it is compatible with the master plan will not be having an impact on traffic and is adequately serviced by by public utilities as as well. Um, and if you like, I can briefly go over site plan issues because it's very, very minimal. Um, because we do have to do a site plan tonight. Uh, as I mentioned, it's a brand new construction. Uh, the entire site is in full compliance with our current standards uh, for a commercial development. Uh but taking a look at parking and the aspect of

parking with regards to this uh site. The site was developed with a mixed um a uh what we call a shopping center criteria for for applying for the um for the parking. Uh the site currently has 20 parking spaces. However, with a with um carry out restaurants, we have to consider the number of tables, number of employees, and the uh size of the waiting area with the potential number of customers in the building. So, based on the waiting area, they're proposing uh um proposing three employees and then we have proposed uh two tables for seating. So, this particular use would require seven parking spaces. That leaves 13 available for the other uh tenant spaces for the other three parking uh unit tenant units. Um I know the the pharmacy has a very minimal amount of customer area so their their parking requirements aren't any more intense than a standard retail operation and the barber shop doesn't have extensive number of uh of chairs. It's pretty pretty standard. I want to say two possibly. So I do believe that um with 13 spaces remaining available, if the other unit was once again a retail use or past be an office use like a real estate office, then definitely the site would be capable of meeting the the parking criteria of the zoning ordinance. um if it were to become another carry out restaurant, those certain aspects, how many employees they propose, how many parking, how many um excuse me, tables they propose, and then how big of a waiting area they propose could heavily impact the parking demand of a second carry out restaurant. Um but that's something that is kind of tied up with the site plan, the special land use review. Um and one other aspect function

functionally for the um for this proposed restaurant when it comes to restaurants they especially if uh if it's more of a fast food nature they have um they would need a grease container or grease trap uh storage system for uh any kind of uh frying that goes on those those if stored outside those we do require them to be within an enclosure. So, if they're proposing an an out outdoor grease container and you know there these these garbage can looking roller uh structures that are about 3 foot 4t tall. Um but the uh the current uh enclosure is not actually sized to accommodate a new one. So they'd either have to try and find a way to resize that the existing enclosure. There is space behind the building for it if it was adequately screened for an outdoor one or there are systems to have them stored inside in in a in a disposal truck and actually connect to them from the uh ex through a spot basically through the through the wall. It could be done during renovation. So we would just ask the applicant to indicate how they if they're going to have uh used grease how they intend to dispose of it. That's an aspect of site plan review. Um, and with that, I'll take any questions.

Yes, Frank. Just a question on the site plan. Obviously, the building is there today. It has lighting. It has landscaping. What is incremental? I I know about the dumpster and that uh based upon it being food service, but what is incremental in the site plan based or or is this just showing us what's already there? It's just to show what's already there. Okay. All right. Yeah. It's one of the quirks of the zoning ordinance is that it always requires spite site plan review even if if the structure is already constructed. So any other questions? Yes, speaking of the site plan, uh so is that bathroom already installed there then?

To the best of my knowledge, they have not done any kind of uh that that kind of construction just yet. That the unit itself has not been finished. Okay. So looking at the the to that bathroom for the ADA accessibility. I would probably recommend putting the door of the wall here so that it's a straight shot.

But that that's something that um I will definitely make note of and that um invol that kind that level of review is typically done by the building department when they're where they're doing the building permit. But it's definitely something you could note during site plan and they will take note of during their review. Any other questions for the M? Yes, Kelly. I guess I have a question. I know generally we've done dumpster and I understand this from here, but haven't we requested that dumpster enclosures are in the back of the building generally or to the rear of the property and and now we're proposing a carry out restaurant with a dumpster in the front?

That is true. We do normally want all them to be to the rear or to the side of of a of a of a structure. Um, this particular site took an extensive amount of time going through site plan review. The applica the property owner had a couple different engineers trying to find and architects trying to find way to orient the site to fit it appropriately. Um, we don't have I can only think of at least there's only one other that I know of that has a dumpster in this particular kind of front yard configuration that's on Middle Belt down at Cherry Hill, that one U south of Rose's site. But beyond that, you are correct. They normally are required to be in in the rear of the side. in this particular um situation because of the tight the size and scale of the building that the adjacent single family residence. Uh it was and plus the making sure that the dumpster could actually be adequately accessed by a trash removal. That's the one that's one of the reasons this was and and to get the amount of parking on site. That's the reason why it was placed in that location. It's definitely not ideal, but at least it's

so a curb cut on the John Hawk to a little bit ideal and putting the dumpster behind the building. We' have grabbed like four or more spots.

The the issue there I think was going to be the number of parking spaces then because the the back then I think we were limited. We're trying he was trying to get as many parking spaces as he could to fit the the building. Um because that's that's one key aspect of our ordinance is that we don't have any specific lot coverage requirements or maximums for floor plan but they are intend they are required to make sure that uh the building footprint and the number of parking spaces are both I mean the number of parking spaces are can adequately service the size of building they're proposing. So in order to try and get it this size this is what was eventually determined would work. I guess my only concern is restaurant trash going in the front of the property, right?

We all see how it looks behind fast food restaurants and carry outs and and now this is going to be right at the front of the property. That is a very good point. It is true. Yeah, I drove by there today um take a look at it and there was some trash in the parking lot and on the sidewalk. So, it might be like a recommendation to put maybe trash bin out in the front. Um it looks like there might be some room to place it alongside the water.

But so that's definitely another aspect that could help because a lot if you notice a lot of our commercial sites for some reason have been removing those those trash bins that that customers can devel you know put in themselves. Uh but also Kelly another issue with the um trash enclosure there is making sure the doors are always closed. If you notice, a lot of the um issues we're having with compliance is making sure that those doors are closed. So, the intent of an enclosure with a gate is to make sure that a nobody can illegally dump into it, but b that any trash in there stays in there and doesn't get blown around. So, and then c with fast food is I with restaurants, you're right, more more trash is is generated.

Not just more trash, it's different trash, right? True. That's you know what I'm saying? You're not just you're getting wet stuff going out there. You're getting grease and they're going to have certain things in bags that's going to drip all over the place. Yep. And the problem with the dumpsters not getting closed, that's priority waste. That is our garbage company that's picking up that doesn't like to open them, doesn't like to close them. That that's needs to get handled on a whole another level. That is true. Uh although I will say that we do have some property owners who definitely make that effort to go out and just close the doors after the thing is in service. It's not it's not that it's not there. Well, it kind of is, but you know,

I can tell you on ours if we don't keep the the gates propped open, they don't dump it, right? And and so that's what I meant by that by the u it's it's a it kind of it kind of is the responsibility of the property owner that the day of they're being serviced in the morning go out open the doors leave them open during the when they're against service but as soon as they're serviced close the doors that's how and I I understand I think part of the problem is some property owners would have to leave them open all night some of these trash cans get dumped at 6:00 in the morning. That is correct. Yeah, you're right. Now that that's definitely a problem with priority then those concern I had the trash at the front.

Is there anything else? Is there any signage being proposed in this? They haven't proposed it at this time. Um they will have if they do any signage always has to get uh their own special their own permit through the building department for signage because there was a a sign ready that was installed but it had no display on the street on along inster for the property. So I don't know if that was part of this or part of something else for the main building itself.

Yeah. I'm not sure. I didn't drive by it today. Last week last week it was there but Um, actually, was that there before?

Multi-tenant sign. I don't know if it's going to be static sign back. I can't recall if they've if they have an active site uh signed permit. That's something I can note to the building department to see if they are have an active one. If not, we have code enforcement go out and talk to them.

Is there anything else? One more thing. Sorry.

Oh, okay. Go ahead. I don't know if it's a a building department uh one, but there was a mention on A3 uh for a roof vent exhaust fan on roof extend 36 inches above air intake. Um I would probably just say since there is residential behind probably not have the vent pointing towards residential. I would I would um make sure if you get to the point that you're making a recommendation of approval probably note that as part of your approval because that's a characteristic particular to this use that might that needs to be made aware of by the building department. So I would con if you get to that point tonight I would definitely include that as a condition of approval.

Any other questions or comments? Okay. Then uh next we'll move on to a presentation by the applicant. Is there a representative of the applicant here? How are you guys? Good evening. Good. Uh I was actually wondering if I can call the also the property owner who wants to help with the questions that you guys may have. We went over with Mario. Okay. Did you have anything specific you wanted to say about the application first? I don't know. Any any questions you guys have, you guys want to know, I'll answer them. Okay. So, you're just open for questions at this point?

Yeah. There any questions from the commission? We heard some concerns with the trash out in front. Do you know what kind of food service this would be? Uh, just a Middle Eastern restaurant, a sit down restaurant. No, karaoke. We're going to have Okay. So, we wouldn't expect to have any trash on site other than what the restaurant itself generates. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? You have an an idea of what your hours of operation would be?

Yes. So, we're looking to do uh 7 days a week, uh 11 to 9:00 p.m. 11:00 a.m. to 9:00. Anything else? Okay. I guess we don't have anything else for you at this time. If we do, we'll get back with you. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Uh, we'll open the public hearing at 7:06. Does anyone wish to come forward and make comment? I'll ask again. Does anyone wish to come forward about the application? Seeing no one, we'll move on. Is there any uh written communications? No. Fair enough.

Okay. Then we'll uh close the public hearing at 7:07 and open it up for planning commission discussion. Gentlemen, any uh comments or questions? I have one question for Mr. Ortega. So, I noticed in your recommendation you you reference carry out if we were to take this forward. Is would that be would they be boxed into a carry out or would they Okay. So, it could not become a sit down restaurant. No, that's correct. So, their their space is kind of limited too. Right. Right.

Yeah. Based on the building and the setup and the concerns that we have, can we propose to do this but limit this site to one carry out restaurant?

Yes, you can. As as a special land use, the planning commission can control aspects of the site. Um there because uh as a special land use when you if this if you recommend approval and if city council does grant the approval, uh the the approval runs with the land. Uh so that could mean in theory that the entire site could be occupied by restaurants if it meets all the other uh requirements. So obviously they were run into parking requirement issues in this but um as because this is special land use you have the perview to limit things like hours of operation the number the quantity on the site um because um because once again it's about making sure the reason we have special land use is so you guys have these tools so you can ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and making sure that it functions uh correctly. Any other comments?

I'm sorry, one more. So, you in your recommendation, you'd referenced a um a grease container. Can we ask the applicant whether that would be relevant for your restaurant? A grease container oil? Yes. Required. The required. Required. Okay. Whether it's inside or outside, it's required. All right. Thank you. Right. But the the question would be like if it's going to be outside or if they're going to have an interior grease trap, right? Like if they have the interior, the question would be would you have one of those systems um where the used grease would be stored inside and then a and a trash hauler would come and and connect to it or that sits outside.

So if you were to have one of those, you have to have it screened. meaning that it would have to be behind you would either have to expand the existing enclosure. One other aspect is you could put it behind the building, but you'll have to put screening in front of the uh in front of the location. So that way it's not visible from John Hawk either. So you'd have to put up a fence. So but you're you're but you are proposing that it would be you would be utilizing one of those outdoor ones. Oh, okay. The good thing is they do have a door on the rear of the building and so they would wouldn't be actually the benefit is they wouldn't be taking the used oil across the parking lot.

Yeah. To the other location. So it actually probably would be best that way. So one aspect of that might I recommend is that if you specify that the tra the grease trap be adequately screened and and the best location, meaning the the rear of the building. Okay. And so we could expect expect you to uh approve that administratively if we approve it contingent with these things. Yes. Because then that would be part of the minutes and the far as the location and the screening. Yes. Okay. Yes. So if we were to make a motion where we would limit the carry out food service to building 1859. Mhm.

Because that one's the mo that's the proximity to the dumpster and it's also if you look at the back of the building really the only place you could put a grease, right? Anything else? Nothing here. [Applause] Okay. Uh, do we have a u a motion for the u special land use recommendation? Do you want two separate motions?

Yeah. So, I'll try I'll make a motion for to approve uh special land use limited to uh one carry out at 1859 uh contingent upon site plan approval and the grease trap. Well, do you want that now or would that be part of the site plan approval? Oh, maybe part of the site plan. Yeah. Yeah, because I would the notes I had taken, we were going to reference the hours and the grease trap, but that would be part of site plan.

That would be fine. So, my my motion would be to um approve recommendation to city council for special land use for one carry out restaurant uh specifically building 1859 um at 1847 Inkingster Road. Support. Motions made and supported. Any comments or questions on the motion? Hearing none. Would you take the role, please? Uh, Commissioner King. Hi. Commissioner Williams. Hi. Commissioner Daniels. Hi. Commissioner Bosy. Hi. Commissioner Walls. Hi. Mr. Steamberg. Hi. Chairperson May. I.

Motion passes. Okay. Now the site plan review. [Applause] We kind of went over all of this. So, yes. At this point, are we just looking for another motion?

Yeah. I'll motion uh to approve the site plan for uh 1859 road with recommendation for waist bins in a waist bin in the front. The grease trap being placed at the rear with appropriate screening. And I just had that note for the ADA accessibility for the city to look at. Um, and are we going to approve the hours of operation? As the applicant u mentioned,

yeah, we didn't have any comments. So, and then approve the hours of operation, the seven days 11 to 9:00 p.m. Okay. Unless anybody had any issue with that. Is that everything? Second. Support. Support. Any questions or comments on the motion.

Did we catch everything? I think so. Okay. Would you take the role, please? Mr. Daniels. Hi. Mr. Walls. Hi. Mr. Bosy. Hi. Mr. Williams. Hi. Mr. Tig. Hi. Mr. Steberg. I chair person I motion passes. Okay, we just have to go before the city council to get the uh special land use approved. Then you're all set. [Applause]

Okay, next item is a zoning ordinance amendment. Okay, this is uh Okay, we have to have a public hearing on this too. Uh proposed amendment regarding adult use marijuana facilities hours of operation. Uh Mr. Ortega.

Yes. Um based on your direction uh from previous meeting and based on uh items that have been uh I believe it was me mentioned at council and we have received communication or had discussions with the operator. Um, currently the zoning ordinance limits the hours of operation for marijuana facilities to Monday through Saturday. Uh, right now Sunday is not a not permitted. Uh, and before you, uh, as directed is a proposal to amend the zoning ordinance to allow marijuana facilities to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. the the the text in front of you would just strike out the um the fact that no sales are permitted and allow for uh for them for the facilities to operate between 10:00 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday. I

think we have a report from the police department, but it just list calls that doesn't really make any recommendation. I don't believe that is correct. The the police chief just wanted to make you aware and give you the data, let you know that um these are the number of uh incidents and calls that have have occurred up to this point with the operation.

They're all false alarms anyways. Yeah, a lot of them are false alarms. I don't know whether uh the intent, you know, I don't have any other further details. I don't know if it's just a highly sensitive system or if they're just tweaking needs to be that or if they're represent, you know, solid attempts of someone trying to do something. But but it according to their report in the end, they've all been false alarms. Okay, these aren't with vehicles on site. This is the building itself with these alarms. Is that correct? I believe so. Yes. When did this store open? Question. Uh

what was the question? When did this uh the marijuana shop open? Yeah, it's been open about three months. Yeah. March, April. Did you have anything else? Nope. Okay.

Well, let's uh move on. Do we have Oh, we don't have anything here from the applicant. Is the applicant present?

Would you care to make a statement? Good evening. My name is Douglas Stewart. I represent the the businesses at this location. The false alarms uh are basically it is a very sensitive system uh that we've explained before the city council and and to the planet. Uh so what happens anytime it drives after hours on site, especially around the grow area, it automatically alerts the police and alerts us. And if we're not quick enough to answer our phones, you know, and cancel the alarm, that's what ends up happening. Or if we see it on our phone, see, and we don't identify who the car is or something like that. So, if there's anybody lording in the parking lot or after hours or kids out there, it'll alert. And so, it just that's what it is. But we haven't had any instance of breakins. We've had no police problems or no call outs.

Um it's been basically all false alarms. and uh the police department has done an excellent job responding and communicating with us and that's where we're at with that. Okay. As far as that and as far as the hours of operation, again, we're asking for the Sunday to be open. Our competition, which is 2.7 miles down the street down for road, their hours are from, I think, 10 to 900 p.m. uh 7 days a week, including Sundays. So, it just the com competition in the area is still open on Sundays. and it's a big profit margin not to be open on Sundays, you know. So, that's where we're at. Uh the landlord and the owner, uh Kathy Riiffken is also here to represent the building and the landlord itself.

Hi, thank you everyone. Um, I wanted to say originally when we were licensed and all set for medical, we were approved on Sundays. We had that from 10 to 9. And I'm not sure somehow two things got dropped. That got dropped and um that's the most important thing to us because we lose 18% of our revenue on Sundays. We have uh our cameras there. So, we see people not, you know, trying to get in on Sundays. So, we constantly see people there. and they did a survey and most people's complaint was why aren't you open on Sundays but um so I'm not sure what happened when it went over to the city going wreck but it was just dropped so that's why we said you know we really need that back it would help us a lot we have been open 3 months the police have me on speed dial and I have them on speed dial whenever there's anything like we got someone complained about grass clippings in the road and so the police called me and I said and then I just got to someone right away They went out and took care of the, you know, it's been very minor. There's been nothing else. It's a it's a wonderful environment. My son and I invested over $10 million in a dilapidated building and that was in 2018. And also what is tough is in 2018 you could buy the there was the black market came in after that. But you could get a pound of cannabis for 4500 to 5,000 a pound. Now, today 400 to 600 if you're lucky. We're It's in a rut. There's going to be 50 to 60 businesses closing, they said, because they can't keep up. Black market has saturated, but they're they're gone, which is wonderful. But now the people are left picking, you know, legitimate people trying to pick up the pieces. So, right now, we are really just breaking even at most. So, that Sunday would be very helpful to get that back. Again, not sure why it was dropped. So, just Oh, yeah.

Um, that was You don't have any immediate residential right on your doorstep there. Would it be more beneficial to go from 10 to 9 at night? Oh. To to be on a par with your competition in another city?

It would be. Yeah. Because like I said, that's where we were originally. But, you know, we'll take what we can get because we're trying, my son and I are trying to make up for the money we put in and we know it was well worth it because I hope you all feel I think I worked really hard. I was that designed everything and made a nice building there instead of what it was. And um we work with our neighbors like because they asked us sometimes to use the cameras because they had a mishap or something going on. So, we can help with that because and the police have asked us for help because we have a license plate recognition and night vision and everything. I mean, we're as safe as you can get and that's a primary issue I feel for for any good business. But, and you know, we're and I'm always welcome to hear from people. If there's any questions, please, you know, you can get my number through the city because we care about the city. We have from the beginning. We've donated to the city, the high school, and some other things. But we we need your help right now to help get us back.

I see you had a nuisance um smell issue earlier in the year and I see no other nothing else. And you know what's funny? The policeman again, he called me. It was a woman and she lives on the very outskirts of Garden City, not even close to that area. And he and so I told him, I said, "Recommend they check with the neighbors cuz you have the home growers now, you know, the caretakers and someone could be doing that might be what she's smelling." Because I was out there today a lot and I walked around the building. Certain there's no smell at a certain point. In fact, we're having trouble with

uh there's a local guy that's been tearing up our entry that we built a whole new entry and he's parking a huge truck in the back there and we and we've and he's back there now and we've left notes to stop please and everything and he keeps doing it and we're not sure what to do but we're going to work ask but anyways that's our problem but so you know we have issues too but um we'll work with the city anyway we can no parking on private property No parking, you would think, but and then it's a we left, like I said, we left things on his windshield and everything and he's there right now. I mean, he's not there. He lives here. He just parks that huge truck there. But start charging him rent. Yeah, I know, right?

Make some money off of it. Right. Right. And and we are going to have a grand opening on August 9th with a ribbon cutting. So, yeah. I have a question. I know when we passed this and we approved it to go to council for recommendation, there was a screening wall that was supposed to be installed. Do you plan on maybe would you get some revenue back to install that? Yes, that's another thing too because the way our property is there's not a lot of grass right there and it kind of tilts and so it's hard but we are willing to now probably isn't the time. We'd be better off doing it next spring, but we plan on planting like a whole hedge and doing that, but it's a lot more money.

I I believe the ordinance is it's got to be brick. I thought we went over that and I asked for them to be able to put hedges in and Yeah, because the brick doesn't go with our building at all. Brick on a marijuana facility, right? Um and and we have been I have been in communication with Mriken about this and we're looking at different uh cross-sections for that. So, one thing could be a brick. Well, it could be a brick pillister. So, like like every what 15 to 20 feet a brick piler with a with a stone cap and then in between have like a rod iron fence or or another type of screening with land supplemented by landscaping that's a little bit more and you know the rod iron but it's aluminum. Right. So, right. And we have the black but it's just the brick doesn't go at all.

I I agree the building's beautiful. I don't want to see just a brick wall there. Right. Yeah. So, yeah. and and it and and this screening would be at max 36 inches in height. So, it's not going to be anything that's going to be because the intent is to soften the edge um as as as we tend to do with our parking lots with the new new construction parking lot. Yeah. We're looking at ways that also make sure that it it's viable in terms of the amount of area that's available for construction. Yes, Frank. So,

I'm kind of the instigator on this one um because I heard you come to city council and so I brought it to the agenda so that we could talk about it and we did talk about it in the last meeting and that's how we got to the 10 to six. Um so for Commissioner Steamberg, personally I I would like to keep it the 10 to 6. Um I believe this would still have to go to city council, would it not, Mr. Ortega? I'm sorry. This would still have to go to city council.

Yes. Yes. So this is a zoning ordinance amendment will go to them. So, I guess my recommendation would be that we keep the language as if we go forward with this and not try to go to nine just because it's going to have to go in front of another body. And I would say, you know, let's give you the opportunity to open on Sunday and then see where it goes. You have only been in business for three months and what I wouldn't want to do is, you know, we kind of ask for too much too quick. Okay. Well, like I said, we really would appreciate getting Sunday again to help us get back to where we are. And yes, we we would definitely come back for the longer because of the competition, but grateful for, you know, just to get it back.

And just for information, in Westland, it does appear they're open from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. In Inkingster, uh the two facilities in Ingster are right on near adjacent or close to Cherry Hill are open uh 9 to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. So, those other things just Yeah, like I said, we had I just don't know how it got dropped. So, well, I wouldn't want to change it to nine tonight anyhow. I was just asking that for reference. Yeah, because we've already got this in the works and this can we can settle this today. Okay. Well, thank you. Uh, okay. You'll have we'll open the public hearing and

Okay. You have any more questions? We'll call. Uh, next I'll open the public hearing. at uh 7:28 if anyone wishes to come forward and speak on this item. How's your opportunity? Uh seeing no one, uh do we have any uh written communications outside of the uh attachment from uh police chief? No.

Okay. Well, then we'll uh close the public hearing at 7:29 and open it up to the planning commission discussion. You have any comments or questions from the commission? None. Does anyone care anyone care to make a motion for recommendation? I'll make a motion. I'll second. I

make a motion to amend the the ordinance to let House of Dank located at 323304 Road in the industrial district to be open on Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Okay. That's our recommendation to council. It is. Yeah. U if I may, Mr. Mr. Commissioner, just to make you aware, this is a zoning ordinance amendment. So any uh it's a it's amending the language so that any marijuana facility would be would be capable of abiding by these hours. So it wouldn't be specific just to them. It would because it's these are rules that are applicable to all marijuana facilities. We have other facilities open in the if others do come they would be allowed as well.

That would be fine. Just clear making sure. That's fine. Okay. Right. And we had support. Support. Yes. Okay. Any comments on the motion? Seeing none, would you take the role, please? Commissioner Daniels, hi. Commissioner Bosy, abstain. Um, should call this early. Commissioner Williams. Hi. Commissioner Steamberg. Hi. Commissioner Walls. Hi. Uh, Commissioner King. Hi. Chair Person. I. Your motion does carry. Okay. Well, our recommendation is to approve to the console. Now it's up to them. Thank you very much. Thank you so much.

Thank you. [Applause] Okay. Next item of business is schedule a public hearing. It's a request to schedule a public hearing for the following. A public hearing to consider special land use for an agricultural garden in the R1 district. uh one family residential on the east side of Garden south of Henipin. Can you explain exactly what they want to do there?

Yes, we received an application from the property owner uh for this site. Currently, it's vacant. Uh they have attempted in the past to uh utilize the site for growing of some uh I believe garlic and other plantings. Now they they want to have but they've the operation has grown over time. Uh they want to be have the ability to have storage a storage shed and possibly storage some materials. So the only viable way to to do this through the ordinance is to obtain special land use approval so that way they could have a viable permitted use on the site because we do uh allow it as an agricultural garden uh in the R1 after special use. But they can't build a shed if there's not a primary residence there. Is that

Well, that that that's accessory structures aren't allowed if there is not a primary structure. Um I believe the zoning does say if there's a if there's a principal use permitted that would allow for the for some type of structure related because there's an approved use on the site. Um but I can clarify that and we can I can have that answer for you when we consider this if you schedule the public hearing. Okay. And do they plan on selling anything there? Um, to best my knowledge, no. We can change zoning.

Right. Yeah. like if they intended to uh establish a there's that if they do intend to establish some type of farm stand or some uh within the zoning ordinance it would we would classify it as a commercial operation. However, uh as I recall now, uh the right to farm act uh does allow certain asp certain types of agricultural enterprises to have commercial related uses uh commercial related facilities on on those properties. It's usually intended for, you know, 80 100 acre farms that have an orchard or or or any type of growing of agriculture to or produce to allow them to have some type of commercial thing. I unfortunately have have experienced times in which this gets carried to the extreme in some communities, but that's usually in more rural communities in which they bypass the zoning requirements for commercial operations and allow themselves to that. Well, if we approve this change, could they later on establish a a sales operation there? I will have to do research into that because um it will depend on our specific I believe it will depend on this particular type of use that we would be permitting with the special land use if they do receive it versus what the the state law um defines as an agricultural operation and whether what we're approving would fall under that and then suddenly grant them those rights under the Right to Farm Act. I'll have to do more rese parking and

well you would think but uh unfortunately some of these facilities tend to once again um utilize the Right to Farm Act in a way that in my professional opinion is not appropriate and not adequate because they use it to circumvent the zoning requirements when the intent of the Right to Farm Act is to have agricultural enterprises with some aspect of commercial, but the agricult the right to farm act is intended to defend their operations in a court of law. It's not intended to grant them permission to do uses. So, I'm going to have to do a little bit more research. I was intending to do this. We'd be better off just letting them build a shed. You think I know,

Mike? Um, it seems to me we ran into this same thing some 20 years ago and it's I believe the state law is dependent upon the size of the property. Do you know that this is under one acre or does it exceed definitely under one acre? I am too. I don't think I don't think the state law will apply to That's what I couldn't recall off the top of my head. I'm going to that's my one of my research

from what vaguely I can remember and also um what would be the maximum permitted size of an accessory building? Could it be like a two and a half threecar garage on this property which could be a processing center for what they're growing? Given the fact that this would be special use review, you would have the ability to to uh reg to propose and limit the amount of the size of a structure on the site because that would that would fall under the purview of making sure it's compatible with the adjacent properties. So, you could pro you could possibly limit that. I forgive me I don't have the application in front of me so I don't know if he's proposing a structure at this time but I do know that actually was one of the issues the the neighbors were complaining and they about the amount of items stored so the idea was let him have a some type of structure too so that he can store things neatly in a structure so I

Well yeah but they've got trailers and old tractors or boats right I'm thinking that if we limited it to a two 2 and a half car garage, which would look perfectly normal in a residential area. That would give them the opportunity to put a lot of that stuff inside. And you could also specify that there shall be no out outdoor storage of materials. And so therefore, if they ever violated that, they would violate their conditions of special use. Yes. Can I just ask I guess I my big problem with this is there's no address. So I don't know what you hold what we're holding a public hearing on if we don't even know what property we're talking about. Right. So the issue here

general vicinity which is to me unhelpful. Yeah. I can provide you with a well you definitely will be receiving an aerial photo with the property lines of the tax parcel. The issue here is that unfortunately uh I have been an advocate for trying to get addresses even on vacant lots but we typically don't give addresses we only give addresses to structures rather than vacant lots. I prefer like part. Yeah. Yeah, I prefer to give addresses to any site in the city, but it's sort of kind of over here. So, I'm just guessing that an adjacent property owner doesn't own this property. That's correct. So, I think if we allow any accessory structure on this, we're opening a can of worms. Really?

Yeah. Because right now, the ordinance is you can't put an accessory structure on somebody as a main residence. Unless we want this to go throughout the city, this is just going to set precedence unless we specify. I'm not sure what the downside of that. It would set a precedence, but I'm not sure what the downside would be because a two and a half car garage,

I can I can uh site at least two different properties in my walking around to get my steps in to where there are two different residential properties side by side with one owner. And they have a big house on this side. And on this side they have a two and a half car garage sitting all by itself with its own driveway. And uh the property I'm thinking of looks like a boarding house because the big house that's on one residential property generally has anywhere from 8 to 12 cars parked on it. And I'm trying to think of which street I was on. I live on Bach. It was either on Bach or I I don't recall. It was right on that neighborhood though close to Middle.

Yes, Frank. I I guess maybe I'm really struggling with this one because I don't even know what they want to do. What is a What is an AR um agricultural? They basically want to be able to farm some some garlic and some other I don't understand. I mean, I could do that in my backyard. Now what did the issue is that um and he actually they have they like like I mentioned they they actually have been farming and they have been able to do that but then the issue has become they started bringing items to the to the site and they started leaving their trailers and leaving their things. So that's why code enforcement started writing them tickets. I think they had the things there before they started gardening. They might have done that as well. Yes. Actually they actually I think you are correct. You absolutely actually are correct. What's the real objective? I guess some of those

is it so that they can leave equipment there? Yes. So the the objective is that because they they they want to utilize the site but they're not ready to construct any kind of structure house I should say residence. Um and so they have been the subject of code enforcement and tickets to to deal with the um the the storage of materials without the outdoor storage of material of items when they're not allowed to because there's no structure. There's no use. Yeah. The site looks kind of trashy because of all the stuff they've got.

Exactly. So the so giving so in my discussions with the applicant previously when he's talked about his violations I said you need to have a viable use on the site and he talks about farming I was like so I have to let them know what's available to them and so I said technically you could apply for this and then you could get a use and then the benefit I in theory would be uh and Kelly address some of your concerns um By by going through this process, once again, special land use gives you guys a lot of uh leeway to determine what is appropriate on the site and limiting the size of the structure, limiting if he does or does not have a structure and limiting and and restricting it to no outdoor storage explicitly as part of the approval, I think, is one way to one way to go if you feel that like having this enterprise on this site is compatible with the adjacent residences. You know, it's it's one of those it's one of those things where um you could see how it could function this way and how someone might need this, but whether they operate in compliance is it's up to the characteristic of the person and whether they want to fully comply and maintain it or whether they or whether you're giving them something that's going to create a make a

poor situation worse. Technically, we could approve this approve the storage structure or accessory building at a two-car garage. Let's just say, but he doesn't even have the application that they want. But I'm just No, they they've submitted it's it's I just don't have it in front of me. I'm just saying. But then they could just choose not to farm no more. And then we have an accessory building that's just going to be used as a storage yard. One of the one of So, hearing this explanation, it sounds like maybe they're looking for an excuse to create a storage yard here. Yeah. And they're growing a couple of flowers and some garlic over in the corner. Because to me, if they were just farming, they would have just done that. The neighbors wouldn't care. I mean, there wouldn't be any boats or they've been doing that for the last couple of years. The problem seems to be

all the stuff being stored there. Yes, that you're absolutely correct. I think maybe we deny this one because this sounds like a storage issue more than a gardening issue. Well, they the property owner has been made aware options. We still have to schedule a public hearing for this. Yes. Uh because he has the option to ask um Okay. Whether you would approve or not is will based on information we'll provide you. So we get more information if there's still some questions a lot of uncertainty and maybe that would give us an opportunity to speak to the applicant. Yes.

Um to get some clarification and ask them these questions that we have because we're not approving the site approval. We're just approving the public. Correct. Okay. Well, someone care to make a motion to schedule a hearing. Question. If so, if I was to make a motion for a public hearing, could we also require that it includes the the address and a statement from the applicant on the intended use?

So, the applicant his application. It does have a brief narrative letter and then it does have a site plan such as it is that I just identifies the um the where where the location of where the crops are going to be. Uh as I mentioned right now the site doesn't have an actual um physical address but I can definitely point out prov you will be provided with an aerial photo indicating the exact thing and it's by and the address it's right. Yeah. Right. Yeah. How do we get a tax bill without an address? It has a tax property ID. It's a parcel identification number. There's technically it's two lots. So, you'd have to combine them to do this. That would be probably one of my recommendations. Yes.

Technically two lots. So, this could be over be able to have you recommend um us, but it's just the back half of prevent misuse. Yeah. Of the property in this probably about a half an acre. You're in a whole bunch of variables here that don't sum Yeah. Yeah, I mean I'll make a motion. Let the guy Whatever. I'll make a motion for public hearing to consider special land use for an agricultural garden um uh at the east side of Garden Avenue and south of Henipin. Interesting. [Applause] Can I put a friendly amendment on that?

Sure. I'd like to see an address for of both of these properties and the total amount of square footage as it relates to an acre. Mhm. I support that. Any questions or comments on the motion? I don't think I got support. Oh, was there no support amendment? Okay, I'll support Take the role, please. Do this correctly. Commissioner King. I. Mr. Steamberg. I. Mr. Daniels. Hi. Mr. Bosy. Hi. Mr. Williams. Hi. Mr. Walls. Hi.

Jefferson. Hi. Passes. Okay. Comments uh from commissioners regarding planning and zoning matters. Mr. Commissioner Daniels. Almost. Yeah. No comment. Okay. Mr. Waltz. Nothing. How's Frankie coming? We'll call it Frankie on road 153. Oh. Oh. Bar 153. The empty lot. The empty lot with the broken. Not the not the burnt out building.

I have not heard lately um from the building department if if the applicant has been making again. Uh I do know that they were uh employing a engineer to determine what kind of footing and and and necessary support structure they needed because of something's going on with the condition of the soil and so that's the reason why they haven't done any additional activity. Yeah. Quick to tear it down and right yeah nothing uh no this is uh the old bar 153. It's on the north side of Ford Road just east of Marramman. So you got rallies on the south side. You got the auto repair at the north and right next to the vacant structure or vacant lot now. It's got the black

um garden to the west of the liquor garden on the north side of Ford Road. Liquor Gardens is probably the most prominent. It was a building that um caught fire now what 16 years ago and um and so various owners over the years kept saying they're going to repair it, repair it, repair it. And it's gone through various steps of demolition uh going through the process. The city got very close going through all the the motions to get it to have the city tear it down, but they shell games moved around and different property owners obtain ownership. Now there is a property owner that has moved forward. They have a site plan. They have a they had a site plan. That's another thing.

So my question was about that and also do you know the name of the new owners for the former Kmart property? I do not know their official name. I've met with them. I've met with someone who last time I met with the owner of the property, it was a several months ago. Uh is it a big corporation or private individual? It's a local uh individual that has uh several uh um businesses in the area. So, they're local. That's all you can say right now? Yeah. in about five minutes. I can

I know he's been in touch with some other officials in the city. Yeah. Okay, Mr. K. I'm outside. I would like to know what it would take to get the offer parking back on the agenda. That that's definitely on the that's definitely on the list just with the number of items. I I can put it on the next agenda if that's what you want. Absolutely. Okay. to see it. Absolutely. Hopefully, we can get it past council this time. Yep. What was the offer of argument?

Uh we there were complaints that we were blocking sidewalks and stuff and snow emergencies. Nobody had nowhere to park. So, we kind of gave we had a discussion on letting people park in front of like the porch on their house. So, the the ordinance right now is you cannot park in front of your dwelling. I think we were given up to like 20% in front of the dwelling that you could actually basically fill in the service walk between your driveway or the grass in between your driveway and your service walk. You said up to 20% if I remember. Yeah, it was it was up to 20%. Not to exceed

people people have a lot of cars. A house down couple from me has seven cars parked in front of their house every day. There's one down by me uh from probably the 30s that block top their whole front yard and they have one car really. So they have a big parking lot in front of their house all black top. Uh Commissioner Bosy almost. Okay. Uh Mr. Ortega, none of this. Nothing else. No. Hey, you got anything for us? Thanks for putting up with me.

Our pleasure. That's fun. Okay. Uh, next regular meeting is Thursday, August 14th, 2025. I'll hear a motion for adjournment. Motion to adjourn. All in favor? I I motion's carried. Meetings adjourned.