Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

um on this June 17th at 5:30 something 5:33 p.m. and we'd like to welcome anyone who's uh visiting visiting this meeting tonight. Welcome here. Um, looking at our agenda, our first item of business is to uh approve the minutes from the prior meeting which were included in the package. We don't do that anymore. We don't do it. And we used to used to, but we found we didn't have to. Okay. But we can. No. No. I was just wondering. Okay. Um so if uh without objection we will adopt the minutes from the prior meeting. Is there any objection? Then the meetings have been if there's no uh further questions I'll make a motion to approve the meeting uh minutes from the May 20th 2025 planning commission meeting. Is there a second? Second. It's been moved and seconded. All in favor say I. I. I. The meeting minutes from the prior meeting have been accepted. And we now move to uh our first item of business which is uh a Mountain West pipeline application for a conditional use. Um do we have a we have a staff report for that? Yes. Shall of our staff will present that. Okay. So, good evening everyone. So, we've got conditional use permit application submitted by Mountain West Pipeline LLC. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a 180 foot telecommunication tower which is

antenna tower on 3 and 20 acre sorry parcel. So, that is a location. So the location is near north lake mountain communications road in the lake mountain area of uninccorporated uda county. So the proposed tower is intended to support internal communications within the mountain west pipeline system by transmitting signals between remote towers. The subject prop property is zoned mining and grazing one zone and currently contains multiple communication facilities. The surrounding area is largely undeveloped and the nearest residential subdivision is approximately 2 miles away. Yeah, you can see the location. And so telecommunication towers are permitted to use in the MG1 zone per section 12.28 28 B27 of the Utah County land use ordinance. However, the section 12.28G1D limits ahead of such structures to 100 ft unless a conditional use is granted by the planning commission for a greater height. So in this case, the applicants proposing a tower with a height of 180 ft. So due to the remote location and operational needs of the transmission system, the staff found that the increased height is justifiable and unlikely to negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. And staff recommend approval of the conditional use permit. And that's it. I'm happy I'm happy to answer any questions or and our applicant are here and happy to answer any question you may have as well. Thank you. Any questions for staff?

I don't have any. Is the Is the applicant here? Yeah, applicant I hear. Yeah. Thank you. My name is um Cindy Shehan. I am the land rep for Mountain West pipeline. We are the old Questar pipeline. So we have kind of a history in this area. Um south of that we have a um a facility and so that facility will send a signal up to this tower and the reason it's so tall is because our network between Colorado, Wyoming and Utah. Um we try to hit the highest mountains instead of putting a bunch of towers along the way. So that's why it is it is necessary to be so tall. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? So, you're talking about achieving line of sight between your towers or is there some Yeah. So, we can send a signal throughout our whole network um around the three states. Yeah. So, because it's on the top of the mountain, it has to be tall enough to get signals from the low part without having an intermediate um tower in between. If that makes sense. I hope is. So, is it a tower and will it have like dishes on the tower? It's only for our internal communications. So, it'll have um some sort of microwave on the top, but it won't be like we don't rent space to Verizon or anything like that. This is just for our internal communications. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And then do we uh do we have um we have we have we have one additional person that would like to speak on this topic. Is that right? Is that Maria? My coworker. Your coworker. You're

you're good though. Okay. Okay. Any discussion from the commission? If there's no discussion, I'll move uh make a motion. I move that the Utah County Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit CU205-04, a request for the height of a proposed telecommunication tower to exceed 100 ft subject to staff findings including the staff report and the following conditions as noted. Okay, there's a motion. Second. Second. Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Uh, any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? That motion has passed. What happened? Okay. We'll move to the next item on our agenda which is a uh land use ordinance amendment. Uh and we will need a public hearing when we after we hear the correct report. Okay. Yep. Yep. Uh Miss Dong has this one also. Oh yeah. So this tax amendment is initiated by the Utah County Community Development Department and it is proposing to reduce the required set and rear setback for residential accessory structures including detached ADU units of one 1500 square ft or less in the R5 and TR5 zones which are our residential zones. So the proposed reduction would

change the setback requirement from the current 15 15 ft to 10 ft. So the purpose of this amendment is to provide greater flexibility for the property owners, promote more efficient site design and support the development of moderate income housing in alignment with UDA counties adopted more income housing plan and UDA state code 7 uh-27A- 403 and this this proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the land use ordinance and appeal to meet the requirement under the section 60.92 and 6.100 and and staff recommends that the planning commission forward a recommendation of approval to the county commission for this proposed tax amendment as detailed in the staff report and that's it. I'm happy to answer any question you may have for regarding this tax amendment. Was there any concern from fire or others on the proximity or is it looking pretty good? Uh so the fire marshall expressed uh the concern noting that reduced setback can increase fire risk only in the wildland urban interface area in this area and despite that concern so staff believe the proposed reduction balances flexibility for land owners with safety and land use efficiency. I think. And yeah, um just to add to that, this was there was a similar text amendment last year in our C2 zone that's more um our mountain areas and the um the fire code and the building code have a more um allowable setback. And so this is still

a little more restrictive than what fire code has its basis. they still have to meet, you know, fire separation between structures. Um, even with the 10-ft setback, that's still going to meet that that requirement. The other thing to consider is these zones, and one of the reasons this is proposed by staff is are these zones generally allow for smaller potential lot sizes, but to get to that lot size, um, you have to have a central water system, which would include hydrants. And so these areas would be areas that are generally serviced by a a central water system with hydrants to help mitigate some of those concerns. Could you remind me what lot sizes would be allowed in these zones? So in the TR5 and the RR5 zone, the base density is similar to our residential agricultural zone of one house per 5 acres. The difference in these two zones is the provision for a planned subdivision to have lot sizes as small as 20,000 square feet, almost a half an acre, subject to the provision of a central water system. And then the the u sizing of the ADU, is that is that in there just for the ADU size? That's Can you have an ADU larger than that or is that tied to that ADU or to the residential uh structure? Yeah, that's that's tied you cannot have an ADU larger than than that size 1500 square feet. Um it's a detached um ADU the it's generally I think is it 1,000 feet the Yeah, 1500 square feet. Yeah. Well, I think the default's a thousand and then you can have a um if you have sign a waiver or a a restricted covenant, I think is the term. Yeah, correct. Um the ADU a detached ADU is allowed to be a thousand square feet without any restrictions. Um but if they wanted to

go up to 1500, there is a uh restrictive covenant that is um need to be recorded that needs to be recorded that requires them to if they do rent it out that it is rented at at moderate income housing levels. So that's why the 1500 is there specifically. Oh yeah. I see the histories that over the years seems like it's grown to 15 feet from it was 10 at one point, right? What was the reason it grew to 15 and and what have what was the reasons for that? So it actually um I believe went to 25 feet at some point and then um just practice I think um you know that's the nature of sometimes ordinances is you kind of well in this case they did and they started less and then they they got a little more conservative to to have our RA5 zone had a 25 foot setback for a long time and those areas generally do not have um central water systems and so I think to kind of be consistent the the planning commission, county commission at the time um had those uniform and then just over time staff found that just um the concerns weren't warranted. There was a um concern especially in the RA5 zone of wasted space for agricultural use to have those type of setbacks off the side and rear. a lot of people wanted to tuck their accessory structures um more towards you know the the back or in the corner to allow more flexibility and use of their their agricultural pro property. And so we've uh a number of years ago we just felt that it was best to kind of make this consistent and felt that that's been supported by adopted fire codes and and uh to give that give more flexibility to

the property owner. Is there any reason not to go less than 10 feet? Um, I mean, you get some pretty small lots in our C2 zone or our TR5 zone or R5 zone. I'm kind of lumping the C2 zone because that that was kind of our test case. And so, we've always found that when you make that step, you kind of do it incrementally. it's harder to go back than it is to to go down. And so, um, you have some pretty small lots that are grandfathered in some of these zones. Um, that could mean you could have two if if the adjoining property owner had a similar setback. You're you're getting pretty pretty close together in in in small proximity. Um, generally that's consistent with how cities are. Um, but uh we have, you know, little different fire response areas in the county. So also with along with that some as Bryce was saying some of the lots are smaller but there are are some that are still quite large and on those large lots there are buildings that get do get quite big um arenas and stuff like that and indoor arenas that can be quite big and putting them closer than 10 feet sometimes is difficult because of the height and dimensions of those buildings it's it's difficult for some adjacent property owners to kind of enjoy their their property as well. So with this change, you'd be able to build say a large barn and put it 10 feet away from the this still this still limits the size of those. Um so this they can go they they would still put be able to put a large barn on their property. However, they would still have be required if it were if it was a residential accessory structure, they would still be required to put it um 15 feet away if it's more than 1500 square feet. But if it's under 1500, they could

put it closer. Yeah. What's the height limit? Um, we don't have a height restriction adjacent to prop property lines like most cities do. We just haven't seen a need for that. Um, generally um that hasn't been an issue for us in the county. So, um, generally this we we based on kind of the uh uses that we've seen, we haven't seen a need to really restrict that at this point. So the height restriction would be for any other structure would be 40 feet, but we generally don't see something going that tall. So to to back that up, we do have a height restriction of 40 feet. Which which if it's an unoccupied structure can they can ask for a conditional use to exceed that. But generally those type of uses are not considered unoccupied. So There's references to the uh lowincome housing and and and initiatives. Did that drive some of this? Yes, it did. Um, one of the the county's adopted objectives that's that we adopt that the county adopted from the state's approved list included accessory dwelling units and um creating regulations that eliminate barriers to the provision of more accessory dwelling units. And we felt that this was a good way to eliminate a potential barrier of greater setbacks, especially on smaller lots. Any further questions for M on this? Just these two zones though, right? Is it just two zones we're talking about?

Yes. What's the What's the height of a singlestory home? Typically, we have very few that ever exceed 40 feet. Um, generally, I think we looked at it, it was more like 25. Now, the building code has a our ordinance refers to the height as measured by the building code and on pitch roofs, they kind of get into average heights, you know, kind of halfway between even the pitch or the roof roof line. So, even with that, I I can't think of uh very many if not all we've had that have exceeded 40. I think there's been a couple that have um well they can't because they're they're occupied structures, right? But we've had some of their um purchases like a chimney or something that's that's come forth that kind of request. But I would say a twotory house or a story with a home with a second story been around 25 to 30 feet. Right. So a single story would be what like 12 15. Well, you get the roof in there, you're probably closer to 20. So, yeah, they kind of some shared space once that second floor. So, how likely is it that an accessory dwelling unit would be more than a singlestory smaller structure? Um, pretty unlikely. Um, we have a I think it's still on the books. We have a provision that says it's it's got to be subordinate to the the main dwelling um in in design. Is it in design? And sorry I should pull the ordinance. I got to look at my staff who looks at this more regularly. Right. It has to be subordinate location design. Um and now I can't remember it. But basically that would generally interpreted that means that generally it shouldn't be higher or in a more

prominent location than the the main dwelling. And with with the size limitation, it be surprising to see a really tall accessory dwelling unit um to to to hit that max of 1500 square feet. Um be surprised to see someone build it that tall. So, well, with within our um cities at least, not so much in the county, there's a lot of pressure to approve smaller lot sizes and smaller, more condensed homes that are taller instead of wider, raising the height of the structure without increasing the square footage of the structure. So, if we're going to go closer to a property line, would it be prohibitive if we said if you're going to be this close to the property line, you need to reduce the height so that if you're there's another structure behind you, you're not encroaching too much visually on the the adjoining structures. Yeah. So, we we you see that a lot in in uh municipalities like you were saying. Um in in the county, we haven't seen that become an issue with most of the lots that we're dealing with. um that you're that could definitely be something that we could look at. Um there's currently we haven't really seen um people that have requested an ADU that have designed it in a way that would be um any different than any kind of accessory structure or shed or some like not shed necessarily but um other types of accessory structures that um would exceed two stories that would inhibit their ability to enjoy their property. um based on our experience at the county at least the permits that we have seen. So, but you're correct. There's a lot of jurisdictions that do have a height restriction based on the prox or the how close they are to the prop property

line. Um, and do limit that height as they get closer to the property line. And we we have I have seen that in many jurisdictions. We just at this point we haven't seen it be become an issue for us. So, we haven't really seen a lot of requests that have asked for anything taller than what you'd normally see for other types of residential accessory structures. So, but you we can definitely look into that if if that's something you feel like um would be important to review. Are any of the areas that we're looking at putting this close enough to where they could be um become part of a municipality or grow to where they they incorporate and become their own city. Yeah. So generally, and Bryce can probably speak to this um more clearly, but the TR and R5 zones were designated for areas that were to be kind of located near municipalities to be in their annexation policy plan so that they could ac at some point be annexed into jurisdictions. um we try to review our ordinances to make sure that we're not allowing things that might um conflict with those jurisdictions. Um based on kind of our experience with residential accessory structures and other residential uh other ADUs, we just like I said, we just haven't seen a a need for that yet. But yes, they there are lo those zones are located next to municipalities generally. Okay. So I guess my concern would be that if we approve something that is not conducive to being next to another developed area and people who come in second say, "Hey, why is this thing so tall right next to me?" Agree. Yeah. Yeah. And that's definitely a concern

that we we try to take into consideration when we're reviewing these. Um, again, based on our experience, and this is only based on our experience, we just haven't seen any any requests for heights that exceed just a a typical residential accessory structure you'd see in any municip municipality that would cause concern for us to not conform with other jurisdictions. Okay. generally. So just um to point out the ma the the default setback is 15 feet. So you know within five feet you can have up to a 40 foot tall house. And so um kind of looking at that that second five feet and if that would warrant maybe a further restriction on height. Um, so if the final commission feels it's warranted, like Greg said, we can take a look at that to um put in some some language, but haven't seen the concern yet. Um, the other approach is to, you know, see and see if it becomes a problem, then be more reactive, then you're stuck with one at least. But it's good, good, good point. Any further questions for staff? Nope. You're carrying the ball. Can't hear. Well, um I uh I think we need to open the public hearing. It's going to be long. Down. I'll uh entertain a motion. So moved. And we have a second. Second. All those in favor of uh opening the public hearing say I. I. Any opposed? Okay. Public. We're now in a public hearing.

There's appears to be no one wanting to address the public hearing. Seeing that I move that we close the public hearing. Second. Been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? The public hearing is now closed. Is there a motion to consider? I'll move to adopt the resolution as uh for the let's see what's the right language here. Are we the final or the recommending? This would be recommendation to the county commission. Okay. Uh, I move that we recommend approval to the Utah County Commission of the proposed amendments to sections 12.12 and 12.16 of the Utah County Land use ordinance with modifications as specified in the staff report along with any applicable reing and reformatting in each section based on the findings specified in the staff report under subsection 5. Motion and Is there a second? Second. Rain seconds. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. Uh, all those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Say nay. The recommendation is passed and we'll now move to the last item on our agenda. I think there's only one more, right? Other business. Yeah. So, we'll move to uh the discussion on the uh uh updating the Utah County Planning Commission resolution number 20131 for rules of conduct for public hearing

and meetings. We don't need a public hearing for this. No, this is just a discussion item. Just a discussion one that we can't even act on. No, we would probably need to notice it up as an action item. So the thought was we had a discussion last month, got some ideas, we we put something together, kind of see see where you land and go from there. Yeah, I saw that you dated it 19th of August. That was a hope. We'll get to that in a minute. Um is there is someone worked on this? Is there anyone? Yeah. Yeah. You want to speak to the recommendation here? I'll tee it up a little bit. So, um, myself and and, uh, Mr. Heir kind of took some time and took our our red pens to the existing one. Dale's was a little bigger than mine, but uh, I think we both uh, kind of landed on um, a version we fill kind of kind of simplifies it, kind of presents creates some some basic framework that'll give you all some tools in the event that you need to utilize. um you have a meeting with a lot of people and you have some framework that'll kind of help keep things organized. Um let me just pull up maybe a clean version. We got that red lines. It's kind of hard to see everything. So this is kind of a red blue line, but uh if I turn off the edits, you'll see what ignore the formatting, but you'll see kind of what we we landed with. Um we kind of kept the basic framework of having um time limits. We we did specify the difference of a public hearing which is you know we had the discussion before which is um required to allow people to speak who desire. Um and so we've really focused on most of that being tailored to strictly a public hearing. But as

part of our conversation last week, we've also included a provision, I think it's number seven, um that would create at all public or all yeah, public planning commission meetings, all public uh planning commission meetings a period of general comment at the end of the meeting that would allow someone who to come and just say whatever similar to what the county commission does. um that way it's not part of the action item that really isn't designed to receive public hearing. Some of our more administrative issues that can be challenging like we said before to kind of allow people to speak thinking that they're going to have influence when really on administrative item that influence is very limited but still giving them an opportunity to speak their mind and feel like they had a voice. So, if I if I had to summarize in my own words, we're we would limit the the the the invitation for public comment to only when we open it to public hearings and then only uh for additional comment at the end of the meeting during a public comments section of the agenda. Yep. and we would not um collect a ro of speakers. I mean that's kind of out the at least not included in this language. And so if we open the public hearing um we would invite people to come um I guess get in line or raise their hand or whatever, but they'd come up come to the mic and they'd have three minutes each or seven minutes if there was a group. um they would be reminded of a recommendation not to repeat things that have already been said. And um we can stop someone from speaking or

the chair can stop someone from speaking if they get off track with one of those recommendations and don't speak to the topic or if they were redundant. and we can still be uh coerced into hearing the rest of their comments if we have a motion and a second and a vote to continue hearing the person to the end of their three minutes. I mean, we could have the opportunity to enjoy the coerced or opportunity either way. That's a good summary. So, that's a that's a good summary. Um I'll maybe let Mr. speak to the the signup sheet. I think that was your Yeah. Um, one and then the other thing that we did kind of eliminate was before we had a rebuttal period and that got tricky to manage sometimes. Sure. And so it doesn't keep you from asking someone say, "Hey, we have another comments or question." But um, yeah, that means we don't have to go with turn orders and it's your turn and you've already had three minutes at the microphone. Now it's your turn. Exactly. Yeah. It It's all about simplifying this. It's it's not a debate, you know. They're not here to win a debate and, you know, take up sides and different things. This you are the decision maker. You have everything before you. They can make comments, but that's really where it ends. Okay? Um, this is a public body having a public meeting in public, not inviting the public to do your work, do your job, or tell you how to do it. And so we're just trying to say, hey, let let's have public comment that's appropriate. And and this seemed to get a little bit um it seemed to get a little bit too involved, this old resolution from, you know, 2013. And so what we tried to do is just simplify for you folks. Um that that's really all you need. Open it to a public hearing, take those comments, um if they're valuable. If they're not, it's fine. Um it's

required by state law. We have to do it. Um, and then for public comment, I I really haven't seen it done better than our county commission. Uh, it just it's it just works seamlessly with the meeting. Um, no one's upset. We'll we'll even clo we'll even close the the commission meeting for closed meetings according to law and then open it back up for public comment and you know, those who care stick around and talk and those who don't leave. So, this seems to be the about as simplified a process of public comment and hearing as you could have. And hopefully that's that's what we've given you. The other thing I would add is we we did kind of tighten up the allowance to provide written material. We said you need to submit it before the meeting as certain a little earlier deadline so we can get it out to you. Um or as a speaker and that gives you the opportunity to accept that. In the past we've had people kind of congregating up here before the meeting and wanting to pass something out to you uh the planning commission and just didn't feel that was appropriate. So that way we kind of tighten that up a little bit too. And then as far as the roles, you don't need the roles. Um, you will as as the chairman will always have them, hey, what is your name? So that it's clear on the record who is who is speaking and that's consistent with with state law. We took a look at that. Um, we just have to record who speaks, identify them. Okay. I like what I was seeing. I just have a couple of comments on uh paragraph three. You refer to paragraph 14 below, which is now paragraph six. You might want to change that. And then I'm really offended because you don't accept faxes anymore, you know. So I'm like, come on. You know, the dawn of the dinosaurs has ended. I think I think we unplugged our machines.

No, other than that, I I I don't have any objections. You know, everything looks good to me. I don't I don't think this prohibits it. and we've only seen it maybe a couple times where instead of written materials, we have someone who's able to bring up a map or a PowerPoint or other digital materials. Is there anything in here that prevents anyone from doing that? We should we should probably address it. I I don't know that we would prevent them, but we would require them to leave it with us. So, if they bring it on a flash drive or something, they're going to have if if it's seen by you, it has to stay here. What if it's a website? like they're bringing up Google Maps to be able to show an aerial view of an area of something that we're considering. Boy, um which can be helpful to the discussion. We don't want to know, but yeah, but we'd have to find some way to capture it. Take some screenshots. Screen I don't know. We'd have to ask it how to do that. Recording of the video if that's pointed. I don't know. But you know, it's it's got to be something that can be put in the record. If it can't be put in the record, we'd have to say no, you can't consider that. At least that would be my advice. Please don't consider that. Please don't let them show it. If they want to talk about it, they can talk about all they want. But to submit it to you, we have to have some form in this in in the in the record. They bring their Tik Tok reels. As long as it's online, we we have it right until it gets taken down. Screenshot. Maybe script. I I don't know. I'd want to talk to it about that and then make make sure we can capture it and it's in our system before we'd allow it. Okay. Just not a good idea. Those things change when they're out out in cyerspace online and we can't control that. Do we have the same uh rules in place when it comes to like staff presentations? I know sometimes we throw questions at you guys and you say, "Oh, hey, if we pull this up, then we can show you what we

mean." Do we manage that any differently? I don't know. Um, no. And we have in the past used a our website our our portal map is part of our it's not our official presentation, but I think it's a it's a record that we we document. Um, these are also these are recorded recorded on I don't I don't know what's recorded, but the the meeting's recorded so we could make sure the presentation is shown, but yeah. I I don't want to limit tools that are really useful for sure. But I see the point. Yeah. Maybe that's one I one thing that we can maybe work on a little bit, tighten up a little bit and then bring this back and we could find out if if this behind this is part of the recording. generally I mean most computers have some kind of a you can e you can ether either take a screenshot a still image or you can just hit record and record whatever you're presenting there. So I I think there's going to be a way that we can do it whichever device they're using. Okay. Is there any any We'll definitely look at that aspect of it and maybe see if we can create some wording under the written material section that might capture that a little bit. We'll come up with something. Okay. Maybe. I like I like the idea that you say we're modeling it with county commissioners. I mean, and that works really well. I mean, we already have a model how it works. We do. And you said it works really well. It does. Do they bring do they sometimes see digital content? They do in those public comments. Yeah. So, they're using their screens like in front of you and then the big screen. Yeah. They're using them. I just don't know what's recorded,

what's not. So, maybe maybe we could take an action item to find out if they capture that somehow and whether we can allow it as well. A lot of times it's it's a work session item. Um, but there are action items that like an applicant will bring written material, but someone who just shows up unannounced, I don't know if I've seen that, but it's not unheard of. Someone says, "Hey, I got public comment. I got to show you this. Here's a picture of what happened at outside the building, right? So, okay, we'll take a look at that and see if we can build in some flexibility." Yeah. Thanks for taking our thoughts into consideration and main story. Thoughts then any further discussion on this tonight? So So it sounds like if if not then you're going to maybe work on adding some digital the ability accept digital material that they might deliver. Yeah. Right. Yep. To capture that as part of the record. And so you're okay with everything you've seen so far? I appreciate that it's very s succinct, very like cut out the fat. Make it as simple as can be. Do you need to add text messages to number six for written material? Written information submitted before the meeting, including emails. Do we need to add text or just that counts as an umbrella? I don't know if I want to. We set we set up an email so when people like our our our last big public issue. Yes. We had set up we we created a a specific planning commission email with a domain that was specific to planning commission and we directed all comments to there and so it doesn't keep someone from saying hey I got your

number I'mma text you but we'd prefer it to be directed to a an email officially. Right. I mean, as an exhibit, they may bring something like, "Here's a conversation I had with one of you, or here's a conversation that was between two other people that I grammared and now I've brought it in here as an exhibit." Yeah, I guess if they print it off, that could be deemed written. But we'll we'll consider that, too. Make sure that we're capturing all medium communication if we have to. So, do we do we want as a commission do we want to direct staff to do anything and and so that we can add this back onto the agenda for our next meeting? Yeah. How do we make it happen? How do we make it happen? We've been talking about for like two three months. How do we like actually on an action an action item on the agenda with with with the the issues that we've discussed here, the changes? Okay. I think let's I think we should have a motion here to make uh make this an action item on the agenda for for the next meeting along with direction, but we can't move on because it's not an actionable item, right? You and you don't need to. Yeah. All you need to do is tell us to put on the agenda. Just give them direction. All right. So, let let's have you work on the digital content acceptance and then let's add this as should we add it as an action item then for our next meeting that we will vote to adopt this um or whatever. Um we'll vote on this um change to this resolution in our next meeting. Our next regular meeting happened to be a picnic. Got it. Where there's space. Okay. make it. So on that note, I don't think we had today was a deadline for July. We were really hoping to give you guys a break and us a break. And so it sounds like we'll be able to u we don't

have any applicant driven applications for July. We still have a few housekeeping things we'll bring to you, but we those wait till August. So we won't meet again until August. Okay. That's what I'm trying to spit out. Okay. Okay. All right. And with that, I think we've reached the end of our agenda for tonight. So, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.