Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

So moved second all in favor aye All opposed All right. Next order of business is approval of the meeting minutes from the June 2nd, 2026 Special Planning Commission meeting.

So moved.

Second. All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed? Good deal. Next order of business, comments from the public. Any comments from the public today? Seeing none, we'll move on. Next order of business is nomination and appointment of planning commission secretary. Shu, do you have any preamble for us on the planning commission secretary roles and duties?

It never changed, really. So it was, I believe.

Signing the minutes. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Anybody want to self-nominate? Any nominations for others? Pretty easy gig. I've had it before.

Who was the secretary?

Reintal.

Ah, that's right. That scared him out.

Yeah.

It's too much work. What do you think, John?

You want to do it?

Yes. There you go.

I nominate John.

That's what you get for being here last. Yeah, second.

All in favor of John becoming secretary?

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Congratulations, John. Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, thank you. On to the regular meeting items. First one up is PC 2026-0701, Cerner Campus PUD Amendment.

All right, good evening, everyone. This particular item in front of you was a approval of a site plan and a resolution to amend a use of a building located at the formerly known Cerner Campus. The overall campus was zoned PUD, that stands for Planned Unit District. It has its own controlling plan. And as of today, it remained vacant. This particular PUD was approved and established back in 2002, and then later was substantially amended in 2016. At this point, the proposed, the applicant proposed to change the use of the former campus into a medical office building, but only limited to the 2701 building, which is the building located at the southwest corner of the overall PUD. This particular building is two story, about 35 foot tall, and have about total 42,000 square foot, and currently it is remain vacant, as I mentioned earlier, So staff has reviewed the proposal against the ordinance 7544 which was the controlling ordinance that established the PUD and the development data and the staff also reviewed it against our current zoning ordinance under Section 17.08.020 and we believe they meet the minimum code requirement and staff will recommend approval of the proposal with three conditions listed on the resolution. The first condition basically is remain the subject to all the other requirements of the ordinance 7544. So other than amending the use of this building, nothing else. that was established for the PUD shall be changed. And then the second condition is that this approval does not exempt them from pursuing a building permit if they wish to move forward with a new certificate of occupancy tenant finish. And then the last condition over here is that This particular resolution is held by Planning Commission that will be directing staff to file a copy of the plan with the Clay County Recorder of Deeds. So this way we have an amended controlling plan up to date. So with that, if there are any questions, I am open to answer those.

So we're just changing the use of this one building. What was it before under the PUD plan?

I think it was calling under the PUD plan for particular, it doesn't really even specify the particular uses. I believe it was one of the administrative and office uses for the former Cerner campus overall. Detail-wise, it has been quite a few years. I couldn't recall exactly what it was used for. Right.

I mean, I drove by it this morning, and, I mean, it's an office building. Right. And I'm just curious what the necessity of us making it from office to medical office. Like, is that a thing that we have to do?

Yes. It is a different category and a particular use. And this is one of the things about PUD, which was Planned Unit District before in the former code, and nowadays it's called MPD. It stands for Master Planned Unit. It's essentially equivalent type of zoning district. What it does is it creates a controlling plan that caught out all the buildings, the uses, the footprint, the stories, and parkings, all the development data is associated with it. And in time you wanted to amend it if it triggers a large or big change, which we call that major, like when you're changing from one use to the other. We bump the stories or the square footage into a certain degree. We believe it's a major amendment. And when it's a major amendment, it goes into the city council for final approval. It's essentially like a rezoning process. when you think about it that. And at this point, because the change is small enough, we believe, it used to be an office building. And the proposed use is it looks like they're essentially focusing on medical offices and therapy and ambulatory services. So we believe they're somewhat equivalent uses over here. Therefore, we determine it is a minor enough change. However, under the former PUD process, the Steel Planning Commission approves it. So this is why you're seeing this particular item. Okay.

I appreciate the explanation. I'm all about cutting unnecessary red tape. It feels a little unnecessary, but I understand the explanation. The other question I have for you, and this is probably well beyond the scope of this, is There's a lot of parking over here, just a ton of surface parking. And I think that harkens back to the requirement of 3.33 spaces per 1,000 of. Is there a point where we address that and say, like, this is a chaotic amount of parking and cut those down?

So the PUD stands for its own. Sure. So what it doesn't matter how we amended the code, the controlling plan still stays there unless the controlling plan gets amended. In other words, the applicant has to initiate a proposal to lowering the amount of that. I'm not saying one way or the other. We haven't heard any intention from the applicant about that yet. The process-wise, I wanted to kind of echo back what we talked earlier. We are looking into, since now we don't really have PUD in our code. It is MPD. We're looking into modification of the code after we get the comprehensive plan, our current master plan, North Town 2040 finished, streamlining some of these items if the change is minor enough can we keep it administrative rather than bring it into Planning Commission so those are things we're checking as well thank you yeah move to approve with conditions I've got a question uh have has there been any well first question is the entire PUD vacant at the moment I believe it's not completely vacant. There is still occasional uses of some of those buildings. And we actually do have our representative, Rochelle, here. Hi. If you all have any question about the existing condition, the use, and future plans, feel free to ask.

Yeah, I think my overarching concern with PUDs in general, just from a high level, is this kind of thing where you develop a PUD. changes to the conditions or need for that property and then you're kind of confronted with the question of what do you do with it and I have no issue with the change of the use of this building it seems routine and something that it's likely to get approved my larger question has to do with this is a lot of square footage and the PUD governs all of it and so if there are larger plans or additional revisions that this body is going to have to make in the future? Do we want to take care of all of that at once versus piecemeal? That's sort of a question.

No, you won't need to. So typically the PUD is a controlling plan. That's the phase one. That's like a step one. Then later on, you have PUD final plans. That's kind of equivalent to site plan in our code today. So what that does is you will have detail to each site in each building. about the uses, the design, the landscape, the parking, and how the layout goes, even the artistic components like the elevations and all of that. Those were all controlled in the PUD final plan. They're generally administrative review. So the controlling plan typically only looking into higher level degree items including primary uses, The general parking that you provided over there and square footage overall. So meaning if they're 42,000 square feet, if they wanted to add an addition or demolish a component of it, and if it gets to 40,000 or 30-somewhat thousand, you probably won't even see it. Only because this is a sufficient change in the use, that's the only reason you're sending it. And you probably won't see it later on.

they're making modification to the building that will be going through the building permit process okay and then final technical question are are we making the approval to council at this point or are we just no okay you're the final decision maker we got a motion so this new use do we feel like that's a something going to be long term

It has some staying power. Are we going to be doing this again?

This is probably a question to the applicant. What is their business operating plan overall? From staff perspective, when you're amending a PUD, we're looking at it from a permanent eye that this is a forever change.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Yes.

OK, we recommend approval for PC20260701, the Cerner Campus PUD Amendment. Moving on, PC20260702, Site Plan Review, North Kansas City Parks and Recreation Maintenance Building.

Right.

We do have quite a few business going on today, which is exciting. This particular proposal is a Planning Commission site plan review due to its particular nature of it. The Department of Parks and Recreation proposed a maintenance building. of about 10,000 square foot to be built in Mackin Park right next to the baseball field as shown on the vicinity map. This particular building currently is designed to be a maintenance facility for daily functions such as storage and maintenance of the vehicles and even including some office areas over there. This particular proposal has been reviewed against the site plan review criteria, and the staff believe they meet all the minimum requirements. Therefore, we recommend approval without conditions. Any questions?

First one, like I see the, and I don't know if there's anybody here to speak to the plan.

I'll try to speak to it.

Okay. I see the buildings. footprint, I'm trying to understand what the big outline of the trapezoid triangle shape is. What is that highlighted for? You've got a building outline and then you've got like a...

It's the proposed stormwater storage drain basin.

Okay, so it's no changes to that area. It's just...

It would be, but then afterwards, presumably, it gets covered back up.

So this particular proposal over here is focusing on the maintenance building. However, the overall project did include a stormwater component because this is in the floodplain area. They have to meet the minimum stormwater detention retention requirement. So for them to be able to have this much of impervious area increased over there, they need to offset those stormwater runoff. So this is why you see that triangle area. That is not a building footprint. It is essentially some stormwater storage component over there.

It's interesting because if you've seen it during a heavy rain, that just turns into Lake Mack and it goes mush. 14 inches deep. So yeah, I guess they're just highlighting that's where the water already goes today. It's going to continue to go after this building, I guess.

That's correct. But there will be some improvement over there, though, grading-wise and establishing the stormwater component for the stormwater protection requirements.

Like elevation changes?

There probably will be slight grading over there.

It's just interesting because if you use Meckin Park and you're out in that area, It's the free green space. It's where you throw your Frisbee or whatever, and if we change that to where it's an uneven surface or you put a mound there or something.

It won't be a mound for sure. Okay. It's going to hold the water, and it will not be a lake neither. You probably won't even notice it.

Fair enough. Okay.

And this is an APWA 5600 requirement, and it is reviewed by our floodplain manager, which is also our public works director. Because this is a construction project, inside of the floodplain area. So there is an additional step that they have to get through. Yeah.

My other question, and I can't tell even with my glasses on at this diagram, how tall is this building?

That is a really good question.

It looks really tall if that's a door on the side.

I believe it is... Okay, there's a reason that it is really tall. It is one story, and they might have a mezzanine area, as last time I heard. And I believe this is probably a little over 20 feet, because that is the elevation. So I think it's a little over 20 feet. And the reason for the height over here was because our new purchase of that 169 screen, that 16 by nine foot, that big screen that the city purchased, it will be stored at this location. And they given the trailer at the bottom, so they needed to make it tall enough to accommodate that particular reason.

I have a question. Yes. And since we don't have any visibility to the parks and rec committee. So I guess I find it a little odd that we're building an even bigger building. I don't think so. It's supposed to be on, but I'm not sure. Do I gotta talk? Okay. You're good.

I gotta get really close.

Why are we putting such a big building and consuming more park space? I mean, were there no alternatives, no cheaper spots, or...

So this one's been ongoing for a couple of years in discussions. It has grown over time. It started out as a smaller, and then there's a ton of maintenance equipment that the park is storing. They're storing off-site. They're using public works facilities. They're kind of scattering it around town that it's not good for them to be able to be efficient. And now with River Forest Park opening again, there's more need for this kind of equipment. And so, yes, it has grown significantly. Um, but it's, it's been workshopped through parks and it's being funded by the parks department. And that one eight cents sales tax, it was put on a couple of years ago. So that's more of a parks decision than it is a city thing. If that answers your question.

Not really, but okay. Sure.

There's always the parks board that they looking into these particular items. If you're interested, you can looking into their minutes and I can definitely refer your question to the parks director over there. But over here, when we are looking at the site plan review, we're merely looking at the minimum code requirement. Do they meet the criteria when we review it? The answer is yes, so staff recommends approval of this item.

Will the existing buildings still be of use? Yes.

This is really a growth pin for parks. I don't believe anybody wants to put tons of money if they don't need it. So really this is coming from the long-term discussion and the parks' particular plan for how they grow and maintain their facility. It's a necessary item, I would say.

And so this is like a 20 foot tall building, mostly sheet metal. It looks like the bottom may have some rock to it. It's kind of hard to tell.

Yes.

From a design standpoint, that's, I guess, yeah, I guess they went cheap, but yeah, if you're walking the Mackin Park loop and you come through right when you cross the ball field, there's this incredible sight line as you're looking like towards downtown. I don't know if you guys have ever seen it there. You can kind of see the city out in front of you and it's just kind of one of the few open views of Mack, and it looks like when you put a 20-foot tall sheet metal building facing east-west, it looks like we're pretty much just going to squash that. I don't know how well the parts rec thought that through, but

For design?

Yeah, for design aesthetics, for conforming to, or was it they just needed a big cheap building and we put up?

No, they have been talking about it. Again, there's a check and balance for the input and the output. But overall, I believe they have looking into the particular materials, what to put into it, and I believe style-wise they're trying to match the existing building over there already. So you probably won't see a shiny aluminum-looking one. That's probably not what it is. And you're almost only going to see the west side of it, which is the smaller facade overall. And there will be landscaping trees that show and move around overall.

It's just not in the diagram?

Yeah, no, they did not particularly put in a diagram about the existing landscape overall.

I do want to understand a little more about the detention basin. I know that's not the core piece of it. Since this is going up and creating hard surface, are we talking about a dug-out area that will hold water, or is this underground water detention? What are we looking at here?

Do you know? No, it's not a dug-out area. That's my understanding. If you're looking into it, it has a little elevation drawing. generally show like elevation changes. And I do have a specific plan, I believe, under the building permit. Because at this point, they also submitted a building permit for this particular building. So they're under review and revisions right now. It is not going to be an underground detention or structure. That is not part of their budget and it's not necessary. So my understanding is it's probably going to be a little slope elevation change to be able to hold enough water to compensate that particular footprint.

To Byron's earlier point, this is one of those kind of spots where you're tossing a frisbee out there in the open green space. And I would be, I'm sure the parks have thought this through, but like cautious to have that dip off where people are running and then, oh gosh. But I understand the need for the detention of the stormwater to offset a second piece. Do we have a distance between home plate from the softball field to the north? I was just looking at that. I'm not one to brag, but I've hit balls about as far as where this building looks to be sitting, and there's no fence there. So I'm not sure what that risk of damage to the building from a hit softball, because there are certainly people that can hit them harder than I can.

I'm sure Parks looked at it with their designer over there.

Sure.

And there are other buildings over there already.

Yeah, but they're not as close as what this is proposing. So if you look, it almost looks like it backs up to the out, well, there's a little, temporary outfield fence there, right? And they shag balls, you know, 20 feet, 30 feet over that fence. So you're either going to have to move the ball field or just constantly do repairs to the building, I think. I mean, we're not talking about tennis balls. We're talking about softballs, you know.

Yeah, I mean, that is kind of an actual concern because the home plate, I'm using the scale of the ball field next to it, that's a 400-foot fence. This looks to be about 260, 270, just a straight guess. But that's pretty close for these guys mashing softballs, especially with the windows pointed in that direction as well for the drive-throughs. What is our timeline? I know we've got a Parks Board member. I don't want to put you on the spot, but do we have a timeline that this needs to get done so they can start rolling pavement? Where are we at in that?

Yes. Well, they are hoping to get on this docket and get approved today. Got it. So they can start. So they have a pending permit. They do have a pending permit right now that they're trying to get it started. I know they're... Building plan is probably getting close to be 90% or 100 at this point.

I mean, I want to believe everything's been considered. I'm just a little itchy to approve it where it does seem to be right in the line of fire.

And regardless, I feel like those items are not necessarily a site plan review issue. They're more of a building permit issue. And so these answers, I could go look for more details and bring up the building plans back to planning commission at the next meeting when you guys have these questions and bring the parks directors over here to answer some questions and represent the parks board overall.

Just out of clarity, site plan review

it's we're just determining if it meets the the code we're not determining the plan of the site being good we are there is a set of criteria over there um so the code requirement over here is that is the site come you know can the site accommodates this particular use this is what we're looking into yes it's a park and it's a maintenance building for parks purposes so that's why we say it meets the criteria Is the design arrangement for the building and open spaces, is that consistent with a good planning landscape design? I mean, this is questionable. It sounds like you guys all have questions about here. Is this a good practice?

I think on that question, we maybe aren't. I'm not 100% convinced on that question with good design. Maybe it has moved. We just don't have all the details to really say if that's a good compatible design.

Yeah, it's tough with timeframes, because we meet once a month, and if we continue this to the next meeting, get more information, we just jam up the works. That said, there is the process for a reason. I'm struggling with it. I wish we had more clarity on some of these answers, but I'm also not looking to, like, like change where they've put it. Even like the landscaping question.

I know a lot of times we have a business come in here and we'll evaluate like the landscaping use. Is this, you know, compatible with the area and what we expect? And so I just, it's kind of surprising that's not included here. It doesn't look like there's much room to slide it in any direction.

The landscape is not a requirement here overall. The requirement is only triggered under certain criteria. So that's why we review against the minimum code requirement.

So if we were to approve this site plan... Could we then go back to a public parks meeting and ask questions, anybody here or anyone, ask questions about this site plan that we have now that aren't actually related to whether or not this meets the requirements. It's more design aesthetic, which does sound like it's a parks question. So I guess my question is, can we approve this? And if anybody has any specific questions about the design of the building that they'd like to bring up with parks, you could ask that. And this doesn't say this exact thing is moving forward, does it?

No, so site plan usually, even when you go from site plan to building permit, there's still deviation because it's not the final design. You see a general concept usually at the site plan stage. You're looking at a much higher level component like what I kind of said earlier. What is the primary use? What is the square footage? What's the density and intensity? What's the general layout? And then when you get down to the details, by the way, when they meet the code, we recommend approval. When you get down to the detail, when they come with the building permit, they can finalize all the materials. And even when they finalize the materials, sometimes they could even change because of the inventory. It's never a set say. But they meet the code, and that's the thing. And of course, anybody, if you have question, and I totally agree with Council Member McGrone, that this is more of a parks question, since it is more under their jurisdiction about what particular materials and designs and locations that they wanted. It has been discussed by the Parks Board, so I'm sure if we reach out to the Parks Board, they're willing to share more. what their outcome of their meeting and since we do have a board member here he could have probably speak on behalf of parks board a little bit more and I'm sure there will be opportunity giving how we used to and still continue to work together yeah yeah

move to approve it's not within the Planning Commission's purview to judge whether or not a building is gonna get hit by baseballs I think this one is definitely going to get hit by softballs I don't think it's within our purview of to evaluate whether or not a building. What I do think is within our purview is whether or not the building fits the uses of the area. There is an adjacent building across the gravel lane there that's being used for the same purpose, which makes it difficult to say that this building does not fit the use of that area. However, I do think that this is a bad site for this building. I don't think, I think it's going to interfere with the usage of the open space that's next to this building in a way that the building across the gravel lane will not or does not today. However, With that said, I understand the parks needs to serve their purpose, consolidate operations and have all of these things under one roof. Totally sympathetic to that. I am curious about what other sites were potentially considered, especially as we talk about connecting over 35 or under 35 and if anything in that direction was considered. don't expect to get an answer to that question but I I'm hesitant to approve it without more information about this building and how they thought that through on a personal level but I don't think that as an entity the Planning Commission really has much to say beyond does it fit the usage and the design criteria. I'm skeptical about meeting the design criteria, but in terms of usage, I'm not seeing a lot here that says we shouldn't pass it. Does that make sense to anybody else, or am I just talking?

It makes sense, but I would also say the priority seems to me should be park space. And that seems like a big, like you're plopping a big building down in the middle of a park. It's a broad use of the term use, right? Yeah, there's a similar smaller shed-like building that has a couple lawnmowers and things in it. That's one thing, but then to have this, I mean, it's a pretty big building. I've put in those kind of buildings, and they're tall, and they're sheet metal. It's odd to me, but okay, you're right. Our purview maybe isn't all those questions. I'll second Mayor's motion.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye. It does raise a question, Shu, of how groups work together. So while this is under parks, when another group has a corresponding set of approvals, it feels like, I don't know, maybe we should have seen this six months ago or something. This happens a lot in the government. Now we're under pressure. Somebody's already started. People want to stop and ask good questions because someone will come to me and say, you're on the planning commission. How did we end up with this giant building there? Did anybody think about that? Did you ask that question? And I'll say, I did, but it was too late. And that should have been brought up six months ago. So if there is something from Parks and Rec or another group that needs to coordinate with the Planning Commission, how do we get these items earlier in the process? Maybe they need to be telling us, hey, we're thinking next year about the following things. Do we need a joint planning session or something where you could get input? Because it does sound like there's a lot of good input from here that maybe they could have used. Maybe they didn't think about some of those things.

Absolutely. Normally, you will see the proposals from the private entities. That is true. So from public entities, right now we're trying to refine and reestablishing our standard operating. So I'll take the blame. Don't blame Victoria for this. I should have probably have more antenna coming up and say Victoria would probably be nice if we come to the planning commission ahead of time before you guys go straight onto the particular design for construction. So I'll take that particular blame over there. But definitely moving forward, I think I will dot my I's a little bit more on these city projects particularly. Not that I'll always know what's going on with the other department, but I'll try to reach out to them and see, understand a little bit more. And maybe I'll consider attending their board meetings like I used to do when I have a project cross over their board as well. So this way I can hopefully get some information and bridge the conversation. And when I see this is probably, could it be a planning commission item, I'll encourage them to come early enough so we can hopefully have planning commissioners influence the design overall.

I'd also like to recommend, and I know that this was kind of a different one, but if we have a recommendation like this from a group like Parks or hospital or library or any of those it would it would be really helpful to have the director here to answer those questions and speak on behalf so so because there's no real opportunity for community members to to learn about these this kind of thing except like right now because even the parks board isn't publishing this type of information where people can see you know, here's the design that we're going forward with, at least not that I'm aware of. I mean, I haven't seen that as a resident. So, yeah, just this is like a package. Here's a thing from a city organization and the director or somebody that they designated who can answer questions should be attached to that as well.

Definitely a good suggestion. We'll try to implement that. It's a good practice.

yeah that was i was going to say that as well with library or parks or hospital anytime something's coming through and i get frustrated with people who show up to a city council meeting once we're like making a final approval to say like i'm shocked that this is happening like look we've talked about this for months same with the parks board right they've been talking about this in open meetings but unless you go to those meetings or you're able to read through dig in the minutes and then go ask a parks board member they're not my knowledge is not recorded um i don't think they're broadcast So for city council meetings, you can go back and check the record. With the parks board, you got to be there. And so that's tough. Like even for me, and I pay a ton of attention to this stuff, this building, each time I see it is bigger. Each time from like its inception, each time it's, and I'm a little surprised each time it comes across. So I can certainly sympathize with any average citizen who's like, what in the world, how do we get to this? from what was originally conceived. So it would be very useful to have, especially at these kind of meetings, to have some representative from the parks or the director of parks, somebody to speak and answer questions. And then maybe putting a pin in when we kickstart processes so that it doesn't feel like this is a must. Because it does feel like if we don't approve this, we're going to jam up some budget stuff. We're going to mess up some processes. And so maybe... month ago or we would hold construction for another month so that there's a there's room for us to have the questions and pause get clarity on this one like we're rolling we got the approval but for future i think we look at that totally agree cool all right all good okie dokie uh next item discussion september special planning commission meetings

I'll start with this particular request. Currently we have our Charette event for the North Sound 2040 being scheduled for both Wednesday and Thursday, September the 2nd and 3rd. So for that particular reason, there is a conflict on the scheduling component because that is our overall master plan final presentation time. after the Charette event and everybody is welcome and I will strongly encourage all planning commissioners and city council members to be there as well and so am I planning on being there for that particular reason I do recommend us to find another time to for a special September meeting because we do have potentially two applications we're looking right now that will need a September meeting. I know it's a little early to talk about it, but just in case if we don't have an August meeting so we can decide today, then this way we don't miss the particular requirements for September meeting. Is there a preference for Monday or Friday or like the second Thursday?

Second Thursday, just kick it back a week.

Is second Thursday the community enrichment?

Was it September 10th?

I was like, September 10th works for me.

That's a Friday.

September 10th is a Thursday.

Oh, sorry. I was on July.

TBD for me, but if everybody else is on board, I'll probably make it work.

If I pencil it in now, it stays open. Yeah.

So can we meet maybe at 5 then, if the 10th work?

Can people make it from work by 5?

Is it? I can. Because the SEAC meeting starts at 6 o'clock. 6 o'clock?

Yeah. Okay. Let's pencil it in for 5. Yep.

Does this sound good to you all?

I will try.

Yeah, it will be fine for me. Great. So we have a quorum.

For sure.

All right. Thank you.

Okey-dokey. Moving on. Comments from staff.

Thank you all for attending the meeting today. And again, advertising for the Charette. Please sign up for steering committee and come to the Charette event. And on September the 3rd, that Thursday evening, there will be an overall presentation at the Parks and Recreation Building.

What time?

I believe that one is at 6 o'clock.

I think it's, oh, I have it at, oh, the public open house. Yeah, it's at 6.

There's a session right before that at 4.

Yeah, there is a work session before that. It's actually a two-day charrette event. So there are two sessions for the charrette, and then 6 o'clock in the evening on Thursday is a presentation of the findings from the charrette event. So I encourage you all to come. And then happy 4th of July, and hope you all keep your fingers and stay safe.

No sparklers.

I actually have 5.30 in my calendar. 5.30?

Yeah. You can be there early.

Okay.

Yeah, we'll probably start with some hot dogs and cook-offs. Perfect. And I'm trying to work out the plan with Mayor to do a community dinner that day. Perfect. And then this way we can get more attendees.

Can you say the date one more time?

September 3rd, that Thursday. Okay. Okay, we'll catch up. And thank you all for the time and effort you put into the joint meeting for the visioning workshop. We appreciate that. And that's it. Okie dokie.

Comments from commissioners?

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the Go North Watch Party in Riverside on the 3rd. I think it's like all afternoon at the Morton Arena. So go check out the new amphitheater, and they'll be doing fireworks as well. We're all trying to support each other and our Northland City friends.

It's a cool amphitheater.

I heard.

Salt Amp.

Any other comments? Okey-dokey. Time for adjournment.

So moved.

Second.

Thank you, everybody. Have a great holiday.