Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

clock. I will call this uh meeting of the planning and zoning commission for the city of Waverly to order. First uh or second beyond that I guess is roll call. David Larson. Yeah. David Larson. Yeah. Present. John Meyer. Pete Fuller present. Stephanie Garner present. David Huer here. Kate Payne here. Kathy Olsen here. All right. Looks like we have a quorum. So, we'll go ahead and begin. So, uh item C on the agenda is the approval for the meeting minutes for tonight or the agenda for tonight's meeting. Ask for a motion on that. I so move. Second. All right. Motion's moved and seconded. All in favor say I.

I. Hearing none opposed. That passes. All right. Item D is approval of our May 1st meeting minutes as printed. Uh we have a little gap in getting this ready, but it's ready now. So ask for a motion. Okay, second. All right, that's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. Sorry. Keeps it entertained.

All right, that passes as well. All right, so uh we're on to regular business. U section E of our agenda. Item one is a plat survey for parcel JJ and parcel KK. Kate, could you uh walk us through that agenda memo?

Yeah. So, Ears Flowers and Gifts Incorporated and Cynthia and Lyman Campbell have submitted a request for a plat survey to adjust the property boundaries at 423rd Avenue Northwest and 4105th Street Northwest. Uh currently, the property line runs through the residential garage. The proposed plat will shift the boundary so the garage is fully located on the residential parcel. The required setbacks are not currently met and will remain non-conforming with the proposed plat. Uh staff has verified that each parcel is served by its own separate water and sewer connections. This plat serves to better define and separate the residential and commercial uses. In the proposed aerial image, parcel JJ outlines the residential portion while the remainder represents parcel KK.

All right. Thank you. Questions and discussion from the commission here. So, it's non-conforming to the setbacks. I also looking at the overview, I can't imagine there's any way it could become conforming. Correct. Only through demolition, right?

Yeah. New garage. I I personally don't have any issues with this. It's a a legacy kind of thing. It's been here forever. Everyone I mean it's in my opinion it just gives the neighborhood character. Um and I kind of love it. So I kind of hate to put do anything that would stop it from being what it is. I move that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the plan of survey for parcel JJ and parcel KKK to city council. I second that.

All right. I have a motion that's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. I. Hearing none opposed. That passes. So item two in our regular business is a plat survey for parcel MM at 2044th Street Southwest and 208 4th Street Southwest. Kate, could you help us with that agenda memo?

Yep. U Brian Miller has requested a plat survey to combine 204th Street Southwest and 2084th Street Southwest into one parcel, parcel mm. The Millers recently purchased 2084th Street Southwest from the Iowa DOT and would like to add on to the existing house and construct a detached garage. Okay. Thank you. Why was it ever in the hands of the Iowa DOT? I believe when the Fourth Street Southwest project was done, it was utilized as a location for a trailer for a construction project, right? Because that whole Fourth Street Southwest area was redone.

Mhm. Um and that's why the DOT had it. I believe

was a city property before that. There was a house on it and then the flood came through in 2008 and they took the house. Took the house cuz we were trying to determine if it was a FEMA buyout lot or not. M it looks like it was owned by Corbot and then Arnold were the people who owned it before then 2019 but sale to uh Iowa kind of looks like the somebody's maintaining it, right? I mean it's not like it's

Yeah, I agree. It's not like the DOT's probably taken that good a care of it. Yeah, I'm sure there won't Is there a plan for it use? Yeah, she said the garage of the house. Sorry, just phone was being annoying.

I'll move that the planning and zoning commission recommend approval of the plat survey for parcel. That's mm, right? Yeah, correct. Mm to city council. I'll second that. All right. Have a motion that's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. I.

All right. Hearing none opposed. That motion passes as well. All right. On to item F, which is our old business. And uh we've mentioned this in our last uh get together a little bit talking about uh discussions around plat requirements, subdivision plat requirements. We have a couple uh items in here. I would open that up for discussion of the commission here if there's specific things or just general Is this just are we is there a specific thing about this that you wanted us to talk about or is it on the table just in general for anything regarding the Waverly subdivision code? I think in general I'll take a stab at it first. I know just in context of the request to add it to the agenda was just to um really just knowledge level and and um be on the same u expectation for requests of change. You know, I think some of it was driven by some of our um agenda items this year so far. you know, just with some of the discussion and maybe just uh an attempt to be consistent and understanding of the requirements of the code in general. Um, and if there's any specific questions we have, I think it's the intent of this agenda item to discuss them and make sure we're interpreting it all the same. That's my

understanding of it at least. If anybody else has a different one, please speak up. I think when we have a subdivision or something that affects this, we ought to have this added to the information so we can go back and because you're not going to remember all this and it's easier when it's right there and we don't have to haul our book in or we'll

just have it uh as part of the meeting, you know, so we can go right to it if there's a question that comes up. I mean, I I don't see anything that we should be changing or anything. I think it's just something that's educational and and we should just have it included so then we don't have to try to think we know what we're talking about. We can go right to it. Mhm.

Yeah. And and I think in context, you know, there's and I'll just be I'll throw myself out there like, you know, some of it when it comes to you know, I'm just thinking back to some past conversations, right? when it comes to storm water management, when it comes to uh traffic studies, when it comes to um some of those things, right? I mean, that's not really spelled out in the code as I've read it or interpreted it, right? It kind of falls onto the city staff to kind of vet some of that for us, right? Is that how everybody else feels about it or do we feel it's our mandate to understand water management and some of those other things? I'm just asking openly, I guess.

I would like to know what the city's stance is on it. I mean, I I know how I I feel about it. Mhm. My biggest issue about the Well, we're going back on on this. It's just the water issue. It's not a matter of him building there. It's just a matter of what to do with that water. Mhm. There's a lot of it. Uh when I lived out there, I'd get 15 ft by 8 in of water in my backyard because they built houses south of me.

Well, down the hill from me. They end up putting a storm drain in in the middle of the backyard, one of the houses, and I still had to put a dry run in my backyard. It's just a lot of water mismanagement from the very beginning when they built that thing of of how it was supposed to drain. So, we got to be very anybody builds out there needs to be very careful how they address that and take care of it. When you say builds out there, what do you mean? Because this is a general Yeah. Are you talking about document? I'm just talking about We're talking about changing plats and doing and and everything. I'm just talking about when when uh on this when Brett came in and wanted to build on that lot and we had water issues.

That may be the the plan development zoning requirements is that was is the ordinance that would affect that, right? That's how that parcel was zone. And I'm speaking just generally, right? Like regardless of where it is around the city, right? If there's a a water concern, is it our role as the commission to analyze that or do we default to Right. And that's city staff. That's what I was trying I was actually just using that as an example point at it

because that's one we had in here. Um, yeah. I think I think the city needs to come up and say, "Yeah, I mean, there need to be a study done on it and somebody come up and give us some direction because I don't think any of us are fully qualified to give him an answer, right? Well, the engineer that that meeting was very ill repair. He was he ill um prepared.

Prepared. Yeah. And so, you know, that is that was going to be have to be taken care of one way or the other. I mean, you can't do that without having that retention basin and not let any more water. I mean, that isn't, you know, that's he he just wasn't prepared, you know, to and and again, I didn't mean to point at that. No, but that's what we talked what I talked about last meeting and I I think we needed to discuss this because

the reasoning is that everything that was talked about whether uh members of the golf course didn't like that being changed that's nothing that can do that's they don't have any say so I mean Brett has a say so and you know and the and the uh engineer did a poor job because that would have to all that water that they were talking about has to be taken care of you know before they can even get a, you know, approval on it. And he just didn't do a very good job of uh telling the everybody what was going to happen. And and that's why I brought that up last meeting that the the discussion needs to be around things that you know if they if they meet the water retention and just because it's going to be a par three instead of a par4 that's none of our business you know and and and so you know that that went flying through and the everybody out there was talking about all these things that you can't use there there's no way that you can use that as a reason to uh disqualify that But just to be clear, I just want to make sure that I'm thinking about this, right? Because there's two documents that you put in front of us to talk about tonight.

Doesn't the PD zoning requirements document apply to the golf course conversation? It was a planned development. Yeah, it's because it's a planned development, but does the Waverly subdivision code have anything to do with any sort of retroactive changes to a planned development site? I just want to make sure that if we're using the golf course as an example with the first one that it actually is trigger triggers this or it triggers the PD zoning requirements document.

Well, both of them come along the same lines because they both deal with same thing. the PD plan development uh is is looking at the whole picture and so you have all the different commercial uh uh residential and whatever other parts of the plan development but they still have to fill in with the same thing as a sub um as a subdivision because that all right but all all of these things have been met in the Waverly subdivision code when the thing was built

when the thing was built It was built under a PD zoning requirement and there are spec there is specific language in the PD zoning requirement that talks about changes to planned development because planned development has some flexibility built in when it was originally implemented and therefore isn't as stringent then as the standard residential code rules. Right? There were some give and take. What do you mean give and take? In a plan development design,

you have some choices that everyone agrees to that may be different than our one area. Correct. So, and so when you you know when he came here to request this was a change to the PD um that you're referring to and but still under that change he still has to make you know that everything the water retention and everything has to be uh dealt with and but he owns the property and everybody was all talking about what was the changes it was going to do to the golf course you know and that's where I've got, you know,

I mean, for me, in the context of the golf course, the PD zoning requirements document had more things that seemed like triggers for conversation about that project because it talked about what when change happens and therefore you have to talk about it in the context of when change happens. I don't see that much in the Waverly subdivision code other than yeah, you have to meet all the standard kind of expectations for water and sewer and safety and all those things. That's I would expect that that's all normal and required. It's those tweak things

that were agreed to in the PD plan. And you know the other question I there was a there was the note that came with the email about from John about um members having a say and I don't is that part of the covenant of that property? Was he referring specifically to that property? Yeah, because it's that's some of those he has coffee with some of those people out there. So I see I he told me that but you know I don't think there's any covenants that I know of and then then besides that they're over 20 years.

Yeah, there wasn't any when we were Is there a time limit on covenants? What is there a time limit on? I think it's 20 years. I think it's 21. 21 or 29? I mean, but they've expired. Yeah. Because they needed to be renewed. Mhm. I don't even think there was any covenants. You know, a lot of the original covenants, number one, fences uh where trees in the backyard and growing, you know, like you couldn't hang your clothes up to dry.

That's broke. There's one of the duplexes down there. They're hanging out when you golf. There's a lot of those little things like that dirty underwear. Yeah. In the driveway. Well, there was a lawsuit over part of that at one time between Miller Ross Camp and and uh um Marvston. So, in the past year or two, I mean, have there been any specific controversies associated with the subdivision code?

Not that I am aware of. So I mean I I will tell you that I remember being when the new schools got built that you know I was sitting on the other side of the table admittedly but it was it surprised me that the same kind of development requirements existed for an entity like a school district that is not a taxpaying incomedriven development as it is for a housing development, right, where you're going to turn the property over and resell it. So I mean I think that and I've this come up for me with other project school projects in the states not just Waverly but it's it struck me as an interesting thing that you know any sort of roadway construction and utility stuff and I don't remember the specifics now because yeah it's been two three years but it did surprise me that an entity like a school which is a publicly funded um taxbased driven nonresell profit driven kind of entity had the same kind of requirements in a subdivision code because it's not there to flip.

Um I mean I remember when St. Mary's Church was built all the same kind of road plumbing all those requirements were still there. I mean, we ran into headaches about people, you know, concerned about traffic, you know, does the infrastructure support the the flow of traffic coming out of church. So, there's a piece of me who, you know, I admit to some bias because I work with school districts all the time, but there is a piece of me who thinks that potentially a subdivision code would have separate language associated with certain kinds of development that might differentiate it, say, from a housing development where it's clearly there to flip. But that's just, you know, I don't think it's standard. I don't think it's done commonly, but it's something that surprised me.

So, I think it's good discussion. You know, I'm going to throw a couple questions I have out there, too. So, in the case, and I'm speaking just generally in any case of a PD zoning district, you know, there's a a formal approval of the plan, right? And this kind of talks through how that approval process works. Um, but then if there's a significant, what does this say? Minor change versus um, sorry, major change.

Major change. Yep. Sorry, I'm scroll quick. Um, what triggers that? Is that replatting based on the original plan? And is that what brings it to city council for reapproval or It talks about that a little bit in the code. It says, "Yeah, major changes may include but are not limited to. There's always an out." Yeah, it's very vague. Changes in density, changes in classification of land as assigned on the approved site development plan. Yeah.

And exterior street connections or major traffic changes. So then those decisions are interpreted by city staff and then presented to this meeting if they trigger major amendments. But we weren't really asked to review the PD plan. We were talking about a very specific set of it was really a service. But it sounds to me like really what we should have been doing was evaluating the site development plan that was originally developed and seeing if the changes that were proposed are are major or minor and maybe the city made that decision. I I don't know. I don't remember talking about it that way.

Right. And that's that's why I ask and and and I think this makes us better and sort of for future questions. Right. Um, and that's why it's important to talk about it. I think I would propose, um, you know, the the PD kind of just got added to this. None of this is new city code, right? But since it all is all in front of us, um, you know, I kind of propose that we, um, take some time to review this and discuss it again, um, at our next meeting. just any specific questions um or concerns. You know, I like to think of it as not a specific example. We all have specific examples, but just from a, you know, citywide sort of structure. Um how do we interpret this? And this major minor kind of caught my attention. And then I was just thinking kind of out loud here. Does does a PD ever expire and transition back to residential or it just maintains PD until it's

Yeah, it's I think it's forever. Yeah. Even if it's full density and done or is it ever done, I guess. Okay. As far as I know, it's it stays that way. And see the other thing that makes this complicated because that whole area is all part of the golf course. So it's a that is the development of that area. So it goes I don't have it right up here but if I remember right it goes all the way there. So I mean with our our what we have to talk about is since that was all golf that he's turned around and doing the housing there. So all really comes does that fit you know changed use

uh and the use. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. And therefore a major or a minor change. Yeah. I'd say it's probably a minor because it's a you talk about 18 holes of golf and all the land that's involved with the golf course. It's just a small piece of that. Wouldn't it? Well and and that's maybe what we should read that. Yeah. Because that because that changes what process we follow, right? if it's major or minor I guess is what I'm curious I would it be helpful for everyone on this group to see the original plat or the original PD development plan I think I'm using the right words I'm not sure yeah I would agree yeah approved site development might have been handy

I mean Dave's been on this a long time so he has that knowledge but I mean rest of us are you know it's uh it it's available out there. So, we could you can take a look at it. I you're going back to 199 um six eight or seven or eight. I land records. Yeah, land records would be there, but the stuff here is everything been digitized yet or No, there's It doesn't go back that far that I've seen. I That's why I didn't know if they uploaded more. So, you'd have to go back into the I threw my stuff away already, so I don't have it either. There's a lot of files for subdivision. I mean, in Centennial Oaks, I mean, as you can imagine, huge,

but the original one is what everybody wants to see. So, and I think that was 1996 was the 96. I don't remember it. Kind of dove into that folder. Yeah. But none of that is on the like website. So agenda minutes that far back is it

um 96. So they switched programs from uh I compass that they use now to back to like early 2000s and then there was a part of a time frame in there where there isn't available digitized items for agendas. But everything that would have been a part of that may very well be in Carlo's files, the city clerk's files or in the um subdivision files back in the address file. Was this was that the first plan development project in Waverly? Cuz I mean plan development wasn't always a thing. Well, what was Gateway? I don't know. Maybe.

Yeah, that was a previous development that he had done. Yeah, but that wasn't a But it's not that was multiple that wasn't multiple uses. No, no. Right. Strictly resident. So it might not have been a plan development because But when we get into talking here, should we have been involved when uh uh Whitager bought the piece of the plan development? Uh probably. You know, I don't think we were ever involved in that. You know, that's kind of I don't know who you um uh what's that? That was a private sale. Yeah. But I mean, but it but it's a you know, it's part of the plan development was sold to another person, you know, outside right next to it, you know, so

lots along the side, but but that's his property and he can Yep. Yeah. No, that's why he had to divide that off and um he just sold that chunk of the plan development. So, did he have to create a survey and come in and I don't think so. He could just divide that off, survey it. Yeah. Which piece of property are you talking about? Those houses south there's no land. There's no houses. It's on the um you know opposite side of the fairway right to the south of that. There was 23 lots of there's that was developed under the planned development.

That was part of the planned development. There was 23 lots that are going to be there. Well, I mean the only issue is if there are site plan amendments and it says that but they didn't they didn't talk about it being a site plan amendment I don't think when they ever came to but if it was in the original plan development site plan then it wouldn't have be an amendment because it was already included in yeah but didn't have didn't have residential housing along there. Oh well so that's where the difference is for every other trust. So, whitetail across from Waverly Utilities is a plan development. We've talked about this.

Whitetail is it? Whitetail Bluff rightly. That's the one I was thinking. Yeah, guess I didn't realize that was a planned development. So, what's the utilities as well? Why? I just pulled it up on the Waverly zoning map and found an area that was there. I would have to We'd have to look back. Why wouldn't it have been just a regular Well, it's R1 and R2. It's a mix out there that maybe where Yeah. Sorry. But

that's those kind of elements are done all over the Yeah. city where ones and some R2s. Well, um the south of the south when Brier or what's her name? buyer west side south of the school there that was I think that might have been because there's commercial along utility that wasong commercial and then there was residential and multiple houses or multiple housing or not oh

multi they had a big discussion that became an issue causing become an issue. There was something regarding the commercial property 10th Avenue there. I don't remember cuz the one you remember that you don't remember where someone wants to live. Yeah, that's down south of the high school. This is too right along 10th Avenue was um yeah that that was done strictly as a as a commercial along 10th and uh just standard residential except for the uh the section where the apartments

you had the section 8 housing there and then you had the apartments be to the east of that. Um, there was some controversy over that commercial property along the 10th Avenue. I can't remember what it was. What property? The ones south the apartment south of the high school. The old ones. No. No. the the commercial along the tent that there was something that came back to us that we had several meetings on the south side of the street. I feel like there was something

north side of the street right south you know that all part because you had the commercial, you had the residential and then you had the section 8 and then the apartments. Those were all so that was that was that a PD? No, it wasn't.

They did they just do it section by section? The first thing I can think of that was PD was the golf course because you look back at the dates when the PD section of the code got put in. That relates to after Centennial was built and then when the golf course was going to go in, but that area down there was done after um Centennial Oaks. Mhm. So, it could have been, but there maybe that's why it was controversial because they did it in sections. They did the section 8 first and then the residential started and then all of a sudden they were going to put in commercial.

Well, that was a lot of the controversy for that was from the residential people on the south side of 10th Avenue. Oh, that's right. Because excuse me, how many accesses are we going to have in here? What kind of commercial is going to be in there? Yeah. That's right. That's what it was. What type of traffic? Truck traffic. Yeah. But, you know, it goes back to if we're going to re look at what the proposal is from Brent. Well, I don't know if he's bringing it back. I think he might be, but I don't I mean, they

We're basically trying to be proactive here to think about this and understand it better. So the conversation is more fruitful. Mhm. Either way, it seems worthy to spend a little time reading it, looking at it, see what we're dealing with. Familiar with us. And since there are very few PD neighborhoods in town, it would probably be good to have access to those documents for com to understand what decisions were made and what the kind of rules were for the development. Would a study session kind of thing make sense? I instead of a formal meeting.

I mean, I I just But we can have a study session as long as it's announced as such. Just cuz you guys get in trouble once in a while. I mean, we don't even know those documents are available for us to review. stuff. No, I'm sure there was cuz it was quite a bit of discussion over that whole Yeah, as far as looking at minutes and stuff. Yeah. So, yeah. Pull that meeting minutes out for those times. That's what you're really asking, isn't it? Well, I think that would Yeah. be useful, right? If they're not available through the city, would Dale have them? We have Dale since he was attorney for McKe. So,

yeah. I mean, they're supposed to submit a site development plan that is agreed to and becomes the planning document for the whole thing and it's approved by Yeah. And it should right somewhere. So, it must be there. Yeah. So, is that something you can look at Kate from the city side or do you do it all the time?

Okay. So, so I guess uh I propose that we we just kind of conclude our discussion on it here tonight and have some followup, keep it on the agenda or place it on the agenda for next month as well. Additional material.

Yes. Um, and then, you know, we can kind of have a touch point in between if we think uh there's not enough to go over and we don't want it on the agenda and we want to do something special with a a planned um pre-planned study session or not. Um, so one thing I'd like to bring up that's a little off topic, not relevant to our current topics, but I'm looking at the parkland development portion of this, and I feel like that's something that needs to have attention drawn to it. Um, this is section 103.6.0. Are you talking about the Waverly subdivision code? Correct. The PD zoning requirements. The subdivision code.

Okay. Um because I believe in the past there have been times when subdivisions were created and the land that was gifted to the city was like their retention ponds. Um and I think that we want to make sure that if park land is given to the city, it's things that can be used as parks. Um and I it does say in here that you know the land that's given to the city has to be approved and accepted. But I I have concerns that in the past retention ponds have been given as parkland and I'd like to make sure that that doesn't happen in the future. Well, I don't think that's happened. It was money given. Well, money can be given in

and I think that's what took place. I don't think we've ever approved of retention basins being the parkland. Um, but it's either been actual parkland, but because the city didn't want any more parks and so that's when they went on to give them land. But I don't know. I could be wrong. Okay.

But I I don't think I can ever remember where we gave uh where they we allowed the retention basins to be given the parkland. I don't know. Do you remember of anything there? I I can't remember anything that specifically would have been a a detention bond that was left as parkling. There was the money issue with paying for not having a parking. You kind of left that up to the city to decide how much money that should be given. So then they can improve the other state regulations that got into that of what you could and couldn't do with money from designated for a subdivision.

So I think it's valid, right? I mean it's something that we can add to our review, right? Just to understand because maybe what comes out of that is some proposal to change the wording in the subdivision code, right? I mean that's a action that we could just specifying what park land what defines parkland or things like that. Yep. And you know the other thing that triggers in my mind here too is just you know the comprehensive plan right how does it define and what is it it's not code right but it's the kind of the guiding document for how we interpret change. So, you know, if you really want to get down to it, the parkland for the Centennial Oaks was the driving range and that got sold off.

I don't know if the city ever did anything about taking some money off uh for that. Uh cuz that was the designated park. Uh the golf course wasn't part of the park line. I believe the driving range open to the public. It was open to the private it was it was to the open to the public. that was uh and I think there was supposed to been some money given to the city when they sold that, but I could be wrong on uh that, but I don't, you know, so getting to your point, there's some things that happened that, you know, people forget about.

Well, and I mean, I've had many people complain about the fact that you've got this big golf course, but there's no public parks here. Like people who live there, the only park park they have is the golf course. There's no nearby, you know, kids parks to go to. Yeah, that was the that's what the um they gave up and designated the driving range as the park.

You have to remember too there was absolutely no children out there for a long time. Yeah, we uh Greger and Ann had kids out there for a long time in on the course, but it didn't have a covenant or anything that said no children allowed. No, no, it did not. Actually, there wasn't supposed to there wasn't supposed to be jungle gyms, I don't think, in the backyards. No fences, no play, no kid-friendly stuff. Yeah. Yeah. I mean that's

I mean they built it as a an adult subdivision park whatever you want to call it not attracted to people or kids so it's clear needs change over time and that's why there's this path right for major or minor amendments. So um all good questions. I'd like to conclude it for tonight unless somebody wants to bring up I don't want to cut anybody off by any means. So, okay. Good.

All right, Ryan, you're good. Perfect. All right, so couple things there. Um, I would ask everyone to review these two documents a bit. Um, maybe jot down some questions. Kate, if you can look a little bit at the original and any I don't know, do we expand it just briefly to any plan development because there's only a couple might not hurt cuz we're not we're not zeroing in on anything in general. Yeah. Okay. If you don't find everything, let me know cuz I was one of the original 20 people that owned that all. So, I have a lot of that stuff that I buried in some box someplace.

That's right. Yeah, I think the city should have some. So, okay. So, completing that, going to item G, staff updates. Um, oh, deferred. I mean, it's kind of our task, I guess, you know, with this uh update coming for the 25th for my update to city council. Um, so I'm just going to rev kind of the presentation I gave last year, um, and the year before, I guess. So, kind of modify that a little bit. Um, what is the date to get that published in the So, it'll be two weeks that Carla needs it by. Okay.

So, we're narrowing in on that. Yep. I wanted to get past County Fair and now I'm past County Fair. So, so I'll shift a little bit. So the meeting is Why doesn't that not open? So the meeting is the 25th. So she would have to publish a week ahead of that, correct? Yeah. So she usually asks for them to be there by Wednesday. Wednesday of the previous of the prior Yeah. of the week ahead. Okay. Yeah. So the 13th 20th because it'll be the 25th.

The meeting's the 25th. So yeah, sorry. find a calendar works. Sorry, I just want to make sure I'm tracking correctly. So, the meeting on the 25th. So, she would want it by the 20th. We said I thought you said it had to be posted. The Wednesday. So, that's when she has to post it. I think she would need it. I mean, at least the day before, at least the 19th. Okay. Not more, but

that's probably in time for me. I'm just I'm just targeting um and I may add a factor of a few days ahead of that. So, all right. So, we're saying 19th, but I don't think that'll be a problem. I'll stay in touch with you, Kate, and make sure you have it. Okay. Item H, commission updates. Other than that, I have nothing to share. Does anyone else? I move that we adjourn. Yes, sir. We are.