Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All to order the Monday, June 23rd, 2035 planning and zoning commission meeting to order at 6 p.m. We will have the invocation by Commissioner Yokum and the pledge of allegiance with by Commissioner Please rise. Please bow your head as we pray. Wise and loving father, let me say thank you for all who are gathered here this evening. Thank you for life itself and for your many blessings. Thank you for giving us the ability to be involved in useful work and for the honor of bearing our responsibilities. Hold our service men and women safely in your hands. Bless this commission, our city staff, and all Maricopians. Pray for the I pray for the agenda set before us tonight. Please give us assurance of what would please you and what would benefit from those who live in and around our beloved city. It is in your blessed name that we pray. Amen. That'll take us to roll call, please. Commissioner Brims, here. Uh, Commissioner Robertson here. Vice Chair Hores, Chair Singleton here, Commissioner Yokum here, Commissioner Clo here, and Commissioner Thomas. Uh, we have a quorum. Thank you. Uh, that will take us to the

call to the public. If you wish, if you wish to speak, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the chairman prior to the start of the meeting. The procedures to follow if you address the commission are commission requests that you address your ideas in three minutes or less and refrain from any personal attacks or derogatory statement about any city employee, a fellow citizen or anyone else whether in the audience or not. The chairman will limit discussion whatever he deems such an action appropriate to the proper conduct of the meeting. I don't have any speaker cards. Anybody like to come talk? Seeing none, I will close the call to the public. That'll take us to agenda item 4.1, minutes. Commissioners, any questions, comments about the minutes? I have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Seconded by vice chair. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed. That motion passes. That takes us to regular agenda item 5.1 SUB 24-07, a request by CBL Consultants on behalf of Maricopa Hartman LLP, requesting approval of the sanctuary phase 1 subdivision preliminary plat to accommodate 339 single family homes on approximately 83.02 gross acres. The property is generally located at the northeast corner of West Maroba Kazagana Highway and North Hartman Road. This is for discussion and action. Take it away, Derek. Thank you, chairman. Thank you, chairman, members of the commission. Derek here with the development services department planning division here to present subdivision preliminary plan for the public. This was heard at the previous zoning commission meeting on Tuesday, June 17th, where it was discuss

previous LP 83 459 125 addressing. Sorry about previous discussion with the city engineer. Heading south.

General transportation. Thank you, Derek. Commissioner, is any questions? You have some questions. Emergency access. Chair Robertson, this was um continued last time um due to questions about the access road, the all weather emergency road, and it was um generally requested if there's a possibility for the road to be completed as part of phase one because phase one will may develop and have occupants, residents living in it before the other phases complete. complete and you don't have the secondary access. Um, so that was that was kind of the premise I think that I took away from when we tabled it that we wanted a little bit more information about the possibility of that road being part of phase one so that there uh as people start to move into that development that there is physically a second means of ingress and egress for them as residents. Uh, I think we understand that the the amount of homes that are going to be in phase

one um is probably below the, you know, the number that may require a a full-time second uh access, but we did throw that out there and that was probably the the main reason we had continued that. So, um, just throwing it out there that was the reason we continued it and we're anxious to hear if there's any changes along that way. And now, don't really have a question, just a statement. As you're aware, The prices of homes have skyrocketed in the last 5 to 10 years. So developers along with the city are trying to find ways to reduce those costs. This road for example can be for a while just road access that is for emergency only and with that amount we're talking about that the current residents will not be paying for a road that they don't actually need for a long time because we don't have enough rooftops already built there we're talking about not only building the road there's irrigation canal the And the rule of thumb is that if you touch any of that, you have to incurring cost is around $3.5 million a mile. So this will be around 1.8 million just to have any additional the road should be around $2 million divided by the something then you're going to be talking about 12 to10,000 per rooftop for that road. In addition to that, we still don't have a good understanding of how the eastwest

corridor will be in that section still in the works moving forward 60% to 90% plans in the next four to five months. Once we have that we will have a better understanding how this road will interact with the future west corridor. So the city has uh done this a couple times in STO we built a road there that is functions as a secondary access. It's pretty standard that if we don't have the rooftops that we need the collector and we have the possibility to keep it as an emergency. We do it so that homes in the end are more affordable. Okay. Um I don't really don't have a followup. Um you know the developer understands that it may be a couple million dollars to take care of the irrigation ditch problem now and it's going to be double or triple that when they get to phase two, three and four. You know, it's going to be cheaper for them to do it now. they're going to do it anyway. But I understand that's, you know, out it's getting into the weeds. I I I get that. I don't have any further comment. Thank you, Commissioner Club. Thank you. Thank Thanks for your comments on that and I understand where they're coming from. Um I think the challenge that I run into is is twofold. Um, one I had some large um last week in Washington DC, the National Association of Home Builders had their uh spring conference. A lot of builders got together talking to legislators, uh, senators, so on. Um and in the meetings that

happened, you know, as early as last week, a lot of builders are pushing back with fears of the recession of a recession coming. Our community knows better than most what happens, what can happen in a recession. So my concern with this is number one is a safety issue, but number two is we're closer now than we probably have been in 15 years to another recession and maybe even more so than CO with some of the things that happened and with the builder or an arbitrary LLC that's in charge of this this temporary road that you know if if we do go into recession they walk away becomes a zombie development like so many occurred you know in 2008 9 and 10. Um now these people these 339 homes have no access. The city has no way to force the issue to create a safety access for it because it's owned and maintained and operated by the builder. It's not maintained by the city. We lose any control that we have. Um and then theoretically it come back to the city as an expense to to provide this access. Um you know you and I have on other projects have gone around regarding you know traffic safety and want to be prudent with the safety. I look at some of the challenges just when we built the bridge on Porter and some of the challenges that occurred you know Santa Rosa Springs with you know their single access the train would come they couldn't go south to because the bridge was being built they couldn't go north because the train was there and these people were just stuck

we have an accident we have a main waterline break on on Hartman Road how do these people get to work how do Hey, how do you know? Yes, it's only 339 homes, but there's no way around it. And I think that's a question that the builder needs to, you know, whether maybe it doesn't have to come all the way out to Cas Grand Highway. Maybe there's a way to create a secondary access point, you know, through the mixeduse development that they can, you know, you know, but there there is a second point in here somewhere that they can create now that wouldn't be so, you know, uh, expensive. But it also wouldn't landlock these people should you know something happen on that one intersection. What are your thoughts? Concerns. Um one example of community that is fully developed is north. So far they didn't have many problems like I cannot go to my house because there's an accident road. We measure risks and we learn our lessons. And one of the things that we're doing with this road is that we're not putting it on build which is the homeowners association that will have to maintain that not like you said can walk away to look for greener pastures but this one is going to be on the so that's one of our ways to make sure that road is going to be maintained. Um if the doesn't do it then we have mechanism to step in and give maintenance to the road and of course charge the for that

amount quicker on the on the HOA comment. So, is the builder going to turn it over to the HOA immediately upon development? Because usually they don't turn it over until it's built out. And oftentimes it's the entire sub, you know, master plan is built out before they turn it over. the builder is part of the when the builder turns to the HU then that's reserve but on this one the is not just the builder it's also the owners of each of the homes Commissioner Yok, I I share the same concern that Commissioners Robertson and Club have brought up, and that is that we have the one way in and out. We have the emergency situation, and we have what over $2 million to do something or another. Um, I I think there's got to be a better way, and I'd like to see it presented. And you can see um just like towards the north we have access from north and we have access to farmer road. We have the secondary access and um if we need to use it then we'll use it one day but um is it going to happen every month? Likely no. We might use that road once every two or three years. We have secondary access all around the city that we have never used in five years.

We're not going to have perfection. However, wait for vice chair. Eduardo, thank you very much for your presentation. Uh, for myself, I think your presentation makes everything relative. Um, they do have a primary access and they do have a secondary emergency access and I think that's fine for right now and as you mentioned, we have used that type of strategy in other projects and if it works in other projects, I don't see any reason why it cannot work here. And then we're talking about ownership with the HOA. The way I understand it is initially the builder is the HOA till it gets built out and then they transfer ownership of that HOA to the uh the number of people that are in that neighborhood. So whoever is going to end up with it is going to be responsible for any maintenance and or anything else that comes along. So I think in this at this point I don't think we have to keep putting things off because of fear of something that may happen. We have to deal with the reality of what we have today and hope for the best of what comes based on our plans of for tomorrow. And so I think what you said is very clear and I don't have any problem. Thank you. Thank you. Um yeah, my my main concerns were or questions that I had um was what are the number of homes that has to be in a certain phase before that gets uh fully built out? And then the second one was what happens if a builder does walk away? Um, and so you've kind of answered the second one where it goes onto the HOA and if the HOA doesn't maintain it, there are mechanisms in place for the city to step in. Um, unfortunately to

taxpayers expense, but it is what it is as long as it's still getting taken care of, right? Um, but yeah, my first question is I was kind of curious on what is the typical number or is it a percentage before There's a requirement for a fully paved two points of entrance and exit. You don't need a fully paid for emergency access. The far just allows you to use granite compacted road that can withstand 75,000 pounds and that's what the codes. So clearly they can do it. How many homes? There's no magic number. However, um the rule of thumb is you have to have at least one side of the parcels next to the collect road to that doesn't make it cost prohibit to be able to collect road. Uh Commissioner Robertson, I think that I think it's doable. I think there's some answers here. Um, typically emergency access around town, it says fire access. This can't be designated only by fire and they can't have the only key. Um, the examples that Commissioner Clobe gave us that, you know, a water main break, a gas leak or something out there on Hartman, somebody needs to be in charge to be able to open that gate for that purpose. It may not be a fire in the community. it may not be for the fire department to get in, but for the people to get to work. So, I think through policy with the city and a good understanding, um um it would be be acceptable to me that we make sure that we have some clear policy that gets that gate open, whoever the key holders are,

and that it be more than just the fire department, you know, the police commander or whatever, whatever policy uh might be looked at. I think it uh I think that could be worked out. Commissioners, any other comments on this side? Uh, seeing none, uh, I will take a motion for 5.1. Motion to approve. I have a motion to approve by Vice Chair. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second by Commissioner Robertson. All in favor say I. I. I. All opposed? I opposed. Roll call, please. Can I have a roll call on that? Uh, Commissioner Bren against Commissioner Robertson. Yes. Uh, Commissioner Wares. Hi. Uh, uh, Chair Singleton. Hi. Uh, Commissioner Yokum. No. And, uh, Commissioner Clobe. No. Uh we have qu uh Mr. Chair the vote was 33. So that motion didn't pass. You can have further discussion. Um entertain another motion. Um I would like to just point out that the applicant has met the the technical requirements of the code with two points

of access. Um, but if you would like to discuss further, if you want to entertain another motion, commissioners, any comments or I will entertain another motion if there is one. Um, can we discuss a potential stipulation of a secondary access as part of this phase one onto Hartman Road in lie of the all weather emergency access? Uh uh chair uh Chair Singleton, Commissioner Clobe, if you would like to discuss that type of stipulation, um I'd request that we did that in executive session. Um if you'd like to motion, second, and a vote for that as well. All right, I have a motion to go into e session. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All in favor? I I All opposed. All right, we will adjourn for you session.

Got to tweak some stuff. All right. Uh the first order of business, I will entertain a motion to exit e session. I'm so Okay, I have a I have a motion to have a second. I have a second. All in favor say I. I. All right. I will now call this meeting back to order on SUB 24-07. Um commissioners, any questions, comments before I entertain a motion? No motion to approve. Okay. I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Robertson. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second by Vice Chair. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. That motion passes. Um and before Derek, before we move on to 5.2, uh Rick, if I may, um I would like to uh ask staff to kind of look into what other cities do in regards to secondary access um and kind of report back on that. What's a good time frame for you? August, September? I don't know what your agenda looks like. Chairman, let me u pull up a calendar here real quick. So, chairman, we're going to have two meetings in August. Uh the 11th um actually only be one meeting in August. Uh which would be August 11th. I think that's plenty of time uh for me to get back with a little research uh for the commission. Be happy to do that. Awesome. Thank you.

All right. That will take us to item 5.2, GPA 24-3. This is a public hearing. The planning and zoning commission shall discuss and take action on a request for a minor general plan amendment on approximately nine acres effectively changing the future land use designation from commercial to master plan community. The site is generally located at the southeast corner of West Road and North Anderson Road. This is for discussion and action. Take it away Derek. Thank you Chairman Singleton. Members of the commission division present amendment development amendment GPA number 237. This is an application by consult for property located as you see on the site. The project area is approximately 193 acres and that's where the minor major will be applied and approximately 93 acres for acres. As we can see here on the left hand corner of the symbol, you'll see that on the left hand side is red for commercial future land use for for the zoning map. A little bit of

history. Uh this was originally entitled back. This is legacy from county. The way it was done before you had a base resistance and development standards. This is moving to P3 is closely going to follow our RS5 single family res. This is not this is my conceptual land north two where it says nanchanch being retained by the family that's still under legacy in the ranch

development standards for this narrative district with lots 455 in width and lots from 4,000 to 4,800 to 5500 to 6,000 ft. We also have alternative single family housing designed whe autoond community is consistent with proposed open zoning resiseneral. objectives. I have two listed in the applicative different objectives and goals that are met by the proposed zed for May 28th notification

from a neighboring property owner included a memo and copy of the commission before this meeting started the applicant and the owner talking issues. We have the address that you may have details of the application with that staff recommends the zoning commission amendment 24-03 and then vote for approval map 23. Thank you. Um, yeah, let's see the applicant's presentation and then we'll go to public hearing. Thank you. All right. Good evening, chair, vice chair, members of the commission. My name is Julie with the applicant consultants located at 4550 North Street in Phoenix. With me this evening is Mr. Scott, the property owner who will also be available to questions you might have. Thank you for hearing our case this

evening and thank you to Derek for that thorough presentation. I really appreciate it. So he was very thorough. So I'll just give you a few key points here. So here you can see our site within the context of the currents in the area. You can see adjacent to us directly to the west is the Hartman trails development that was recently updated and we have made some design to work with their development. You can also see in the past to the norththeast of our site and the direct south that's the existing ranch. So this will be a portion of that existing ranch. This is just a quick overview of the city of Maricopa development process which we all know but I just wanted to point out that we are in zoning process. Next will be preliminary plan review. So this is our first stop. So all of our plans are conceptual and subject to preliminary and final engineering. We'll be refing that I'm showing you this evening as we move through the process. So here's that existing general plan that shower does not approve that error plan G itself. Our belief says it does not exist

and we're just proposing to create an overall cohesive design that exist and we're proposing to modify this blue area which is the this case and we will be maintaining the original intent for single family resial use. So we will be maintaining that single family resial across the site. So this is a quick look at our site plan that Der was approved with the original P and we did add to trails to the west to make sure that the original ranch parcels you can see those arrows there will on the circulation plan in this presentation. We also have that centrally located area and open space that we utilize for pedestrian. And here's that circulation plan with those access points highlighted in orange. So you can see we're maintaining access to the surrounding parcels as well. Here's a copy of the wall elevation. You can

stone accent columns. They will be a cohesive theme acry won't be fencing along the perimeter or creating around the privacy. And I just wanted to touch on a few benefits of this proposal. We'll be having centrally located space with amenities to be determined with the preliminary landscape plans during the next stage of development along with new infrastructure. So we believe that this update is much needed for the PA that was approved in the early 2000s to modernize it to reflect the current development pattern and market demand for certain housing products in the area and it will provide a variety of options that will support this area. So, I'm available for any questions that you might have as well as the property. Thank you. Um, this is a public hearing, so I will open up the public hearing. I do not have a speaker card on this particular item. Um, so if there but there if there's anybody in the audience that would like to come forward and

speak on this item, uh, feel free to come forward. Hi, I'm Mary Hartman daughter. We had a few things that we wanted to bring concerns and requests. One of them is the eastern border access properting. Another domestic protection they have been there for years or something and I don't know long time domestic well protection the homestead is currently supplied by a domestic welll that neither the current owner nor any future buyer will interfere with access

to the home. It is essential that this infrastructure intact and undisturbed. We als from the west and access remain private until agreement is reached. And the last thing they wanted to bring up this respectfully request that no twotory homes constructed directly in addition to privacy. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to come forward and speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, questions, comments, concerns? Commissioner Robertson, why do I always have to start? Um, this is probably a question for staff or maybe legal. um the the letter and the items that uh Miss Hartman

presented. It's not really a letter of opposition. It's a letter of of considerations that they would like. Is this appropriate to be considered at this point in the process? Before Before we Derek had mentioned that there may be some consensus. Julie, I don't know if you want to weigh in on anything first. I first became aware to It's relatively new to me. So then before the meeting family and seeing how we get through this several of the things are things we've years ago together 600 acres and I bought a portion of it. There's a lot of history there. So, I could go through thems

this perhaps some stipulations like you have before you the list I'm certainly willing to work in good faith to resolve the things some of them are already things we've talked about for 17 years a couple of them are new and I'd like to keep the train moving assuming that you all would otherwise approve the I believe they're desiring might not be in their letter and I'm not obviously speaking for them but I think they'd rather have a continuous to get this resolved in my perfect world forward from what you think of the plan. Obviously, I want to resolve all these issues both talked about before and some of them were reasonable, some of them headaches for me, but we can work that out. This is kind of new to me. Never really had opposition commission. So, um, if we could move forward and get your thoughts and get a preliminary approval subject to

working out concerns. Uh that be the best thing from my perspective keep the train on schedule but I think but I think they prefer continuous kind of where we are and so I both want to get the issues resolved but also to keep moving. So I guess I would ask that we could figure out a way if you if you prove it just based on that there's some stipulation that we would work this out before council preference is to have a continuous So that's where we are. So I guess I would I would ask can we can we go through the hearing and determine whether you're in favor of the plan or not? And if so, I'd be stipul [Music] Um the current status of the land includes

some commercial breakout. Is that correct as it stands today? Yes. Okay. But if we go to the P A designation, commercial is then only allowed, not mandated. Is that correct? Sorry. I here here's where I want to go. I I don't want to lose I don't want to lose commercial aspect to this regional area. I know some of it's not even in this plan, but it looks like some of it spills over into this property. And does that spill over commercial go away if we approve this plan? No, it does not. Okay. That is what section may have as a minor amendment to change that resolution so that it absolutely commission master. Okay. My concern was that P A has so much flexibility that we say, yeah, there's commercial in

it now, but it has so much flexibility that they come back and they later and they say, ah, we're weeding out that commercial piece. That is something staff discussed. This application came with different come back. Okay. Yeah. Okay. You know, we're not talking Walmart where but neighborhood commercial as these areas grow becomes pretty important to have some neighborhood commercial. Thank you. Thank you chair or commissioner did it again. Um yeah so one one thing to just keep in mind for 5.2 it is a minor minor uh general plan amendment. Um so we're not necessarily talking about the PA just yet. Um it's just that little piece of commercial that got in there that we're looking to uh designate to master plan community. Um commissioners, any other comments? So I do have a question for legal. um the idea of continuing was brought up, but I think that's more about the PA the next item versus uh GPA 24-03. Uh I just want to confirm this item could go forward and then we can revisit or then we go to next item that could potentially be continued if the applicant is so willing. Yeah, Chair Singleton, that's correct. These items don't have to go together. You can approve one, continue one, approve both. You can do uh you can treat them separately. They'll require

separate just like the uh public hearing, separate motion, se uh second vote. U but yeah, right now we're just considering the GPA uh amendment. Thank you. Um with that being said, any final questions, comments on GPA 24-3 from the commission? If not, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. I have a motion to approve by the vice chair. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second by Commissioner Club. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. That motion passes. That'll take us to item 5.3, P A24-07. This is a public hearing. The planning and zoning commission shall discuss and take action on a request for a zoning map amendment on approximately 193 acres effectively reszoning the site from the Hartman planned or Hartman Ranch planned area development CR-3 single family residential to the Hartman Ranch planned area development. The site is generally located at the southeast corner of Westine Road and North Anderson Road. This is for discussion and action. Derek I same presentation as before I'm guessing. Yes. Okay, perfect. Don't think that's necessary at this moment. Um, this is a public hearing. I did have one speaker card for this, but I think she talked before. Perfect. Um, Commissioner Club, quick question for staff Derek. as it relates to because we've already talked about the uh the comments that were in the letter regarding some easements and and wells and so on. Do we have a document that shows any of that that we can see?

Not that I'm aware of. Okay. will be on the map with developments development that's fine if there's houses that's really on it issues here but A lot of the other stuff perspective of its private parties with those agreements except for the oneerson that was created back in the 1920s by the supervisor section. So it is not Okay. And then I had some questions regarding the the the lot design that's shown and I realize that it's kind of fluid. Um is my first question is how how much has that changed from the original P A um as far as lot sizes and product It has not changed very much. The sign has always been roughly in this shape in this location. the change from RS RS3 to RS520s

but generally this amendment is really Okay. Now, under this P A, we have a a uh a max of 826 lots. With that in mind, if if they were to go to Zlots, you zero lot lines, things like that. Would they be able to increase that number or that does that does that stay the max? Commissioner say we analyze that change as it came in. So maybe it won't do the 826 lots for this section of the new. So if they and I understand we have a essentially a 10% rule that they can modify things by 10%. Is that is that correct? Yes. without coming back through a public hearing process. Compare them to plan

at the administrative level. Yeah, because my my concern with these creative lot design, you know, as we get into zlots and and the motor courts and and zero lot lines and so on is most communities we typically see them in the commercial zones, you know, nearby, you know, getting higher density, high higher higher uh lot count mix near employment centers and and so on. This is the foreseeable future of Maricopa. I mean, this is still relatively rural and and to be bringing in, you know, some of those uh higher density designs, you know, kind of so far out, I think for me it's a little bit problematic. Um again, it's not being proposed today. So, it's but changing that that that lot mix is uh I think could be a challenge there. Um that's all I had. Okay. Thank you. Thank commissioners. Any other questions before I open it up for public hearing? All right, this is a public hearing. So, if there is anybody in the crowd that would like to come up and speak on this item, uh please come forward. Y

and then please state your name. To the heart. Thank you for hearing us tonight. We do have some concerns about what is being proposed. We have not come to an agreement. Um all family members are not present tonight and so this was kind of get together and try to figure this out. So we do uh would like to request a continuance so that we can get together with There has been quite a bit of history from what I understand with Mr. Cole and the Hartman. Um, and so there is going to be some back and forth that we're going to need to have. We're going to need to have some legal representation to make sure that the Hartman's wishes are, you know, worked through and and honored and we can all come to an amicable agreement on that. so that as a family we are asking that we go ahead and continue and to give us that time to be able to find an attorney to represent the family's wishes. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the crowd that would like to come forward and speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Back to you, commissioners. Any questions or final comments on this item? Vice Chair, my question is for Rick. Um, being that we received this letter right before the meeting and then it appears there are still some issues that both parties want to work out here. Um, can we move this to a continuence? Uh, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chairman Wararez, yeah, there's you have every right to uh make a motion to continue. second. And if it's approved, you can continue to the next meeting. Nothing stopping that. Thank you, Commissioner Robertson. I think I heard from Mr. Cole and and

the and the Hartman's that there is a willingness to consider um their request in their letter. Like I said, it doesn't sound like an opposition letter. It sounds like, you know, some conditions and things they'd like to make sure are um protect their investment in their property. Um, with that said, I'd be in favor of a continuence. Any other comments, questions, comments, concerns from commissioners? If not, I will entertain a motion. Motion to continue. I have a motion to continue by Commissioner Robertson. Do I have a second? I have a Mr. Mr. Chair, if I might. Um, is it being continued to a a certain meeting, for example, the first meeting in July the second that you have your schedule? I'll make my motion to continue to the first meeting in September. Okay. I have a motion to continue this until the first uh meeting in September. Do I have a second on that motion? Comment first before we go. Yes. Okay. If there's a possibility that all the issues get resolved prior to that September date, can we amend this motion or can someone bring it to our attention? We have discussion on this end. You could also uh it's a great question. Um it could be amended. You could just do motion and continue until you know staff is feel that sufficient you know, negotiations have gone through so staff can put it back on the agenda. Okay. I will amend my motion again. Uh motion to reflect that uh we continue this until staff uh informs us that the parties are ready to address the issue

or something like that. I have a motion to continue. A second. I have a second by vice chair. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. That will continue. Uh that takes us to item item six reports from commission andor staff. Take away Rick. Chairman. Thank you very much. Uh commissioners. Um next meeting will be held on uh July 14th. Um, we don't have anything going until then. Uh, what I would say is, um, have a safe and happy Fourth of July. Uh, try and get out of the heat, get home safely, and we'll see you on the, uh, 14th of July. That concludes. Thank you, Rick. Um, I was informed that there is a comment from the commission, Commissioner Robertson. We don't talk during this session very often, but I I do have a question for staff about our policy and procedure. Um, sometimes we get out of our lane into the weeds a little bit and we did that at the last meeting and uh um staff attorney brought us back. But after I thought about it, the the items that I raised that might have been out of the weeds were a direct result of testimony by the applicant. So once an applicant brings up a topic, if it's a little bit out of our line, what do we do? Are we allowed to comment on that particular

subject that they brought up or topic, or do we have to get back in our lane? Uh yeah, I've been volunteering. Uh Mr. Chair, Commissioner Robertson, I don't want to go too far just because this type of is not agendaized for this. I think we can put a an agenda item in the future to talk about the roles, responsibilities, discussion topics for the commission at various stages of uh planning and zoning. Um but happy to discuss with you after the meeting. I did um Okay. Um one one way or the other we need clarification whether it's in an executive session or in a public meeting. Um it it was profound to me last time last meeting that we were stifled from commenting on an element of the presentation that was brought to us. So whether we want to put that on agenda or however we want to work it I don't care but we need clarification. I would agree with that. I'll work with Rick to get an agenda item, whether it's executive session or uh a work session, maybe some type of uh so where we can discuss it. Appreciate that. Thank you. Any other comments from commissioners? All right. Um I do not see a reason for e session. Uh so that'll take us to adjournment. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. We are adjourned.