Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'm calling the calling to order the planning commission meeting of Paradise Valley for 11/04/2025. It is six 6PM in the council chambers. Please call the roll. Commissioner Rose?

Here.

Commissioner Nasekeis?

Here.

Commissioner Dickman?

Here.

Commissioner Curtis? Here. Commissioner Brown? Here. Chair Georgios? Here. And I'll note that Commissioner Covington is absent this evening. Thank you so much. So this evening the Planning Commission may go into executive session at one or more times as needed to confer with the town attorney for legal advice. The the first matter on the agenda this evening is the approval or amendment of minutes.

And then we also have one study session item. So I I think unless I hear otherwise, we're just gonna go down the the agenda. So first matter is the approval or amendment of minutes 25 dash two forty eight, approval of 10/21/2025 planning commission minutes. Board of of Board Directors Commissioner Nasekeis. Any discussion?

Of Hearing no discussion, we'll take this to a vote. All in

favor? Aye.

All opposed? Minutes are approved unanimously. So our next issue here is a study session item and that is 20 five-two 45 proposed amendments for administrative review on certain applications. And I believe Mr. Weaver is presenting. Who's presenting this evening?

Is it Mr. Misha? Okay. So yes, so what's on your docket today for discussion and for some input is the administrative possible text changes to our town code, for administrative review in certain plat applications, would, go into accordance with state of Arizona legislation. So the, legislature passed House Bill twenty four forty seven this year.

They had changed a shall to a or a a May to a shall regarding administrative review on-site plans, development plans, land divisions, lot line adjustments, and plat amendments. They've also the other part of that provision was to allow municipalities to adopt a self certification program, which is really not I don't think we're doing it, and it's not part of what you have in front of you either. So this is really just focused on the possible plat changes that we would make. This is which is in your packet. This is the actual house bill very short as you can see here.

Council has been updated on this during the year. They had an executive session on September 11, where there's some general direction sort of given and hence what you're seeing now is the draft ordinance, on that for for your input. And under normal circumstances, a text amendment unlike a zoning code amendment normally would not go to the Planning Commission for input. So there'll be no citizen review by the Planning Commission or public meetings or things of that nature. But since it's dealing with Platts, council thought it would be advantageous to have your input, on, any amendment that's going forward.

So the general approach that was taken with the text amendment, think the general direction, that that staff gleaned from that meeting with counsel was to lightly touch the code as best as possible, but not to do nothing. So that's really what was the intent was behind what's being presented in front of you and of course this will go in front of counsel for their study session for their meeting in November and then for their action in their December meeting. This, of course, gives an opportunity to clarify and further define the administrative process for these type of things. For the most part, most of the current processing that we do is going to remain the same. So that's preliminary plat, replat, things of that nature.

And in your packet, there's a land modification process table attachment, which I can go if you need to, but it really goes over all our processes, of what we do today, of, you know, a broad interpretation of what we can do or a strict interpretation of what we could do and things of that nature. But just to give you some framework of of how things work. I mean, you see some of it but not all of it, guess, so just to make sure. So what the changes are and I'll just really do a summary of the changes which you have the track change in your packet. There were several just corrections of things that were in there before I get into the real modification stuff.

For example, you know, commission approving the final plat but for many years now the final plat process as it exists today it goes in front of counsel. It doesn't go in front of the planning commission. One of the big changes that was made was looking at how we do a final plat. So, the final plat process today is review. We bring it to counsel.

They bring it to a separate study session and a separate meeting. They'll either put it on a meeting for action or maybe even consent action. So what the proposed change would be, would be to have it as a staff approval process but with a council review and that council review process we just mimicked directly off our managerial special use permit as well as our personal wireless service facility where we give council has a seven day review. It's pretty much staff approves it. Council has a seven day review.

If three or more of the council members feel that it shouldn't be approved that way, they call a meeting to see if they indeed need to do that. So this is the process or how we decided to take it. So there's still at least some oversight perspective. The mayor would still sign the plats at the end of the day. Again, this would apply to any zoning district as it does today including our special use permit district for final plats.

It still doesn't change the fact that you know every final plat has a preliminary plat and preliminary plat we're not changing. So that's still we are saying goes through the planning commission process and if planning commission doesn't approve it as the process stands today it moves on to counsel. So none of that we're proposing to change in this. And we're also not changing anything with the private road conditional use permit process or the special use permit process or the private gate special use permit process. So, in those processes even though a final plat maybe wouldn't be approved if we do adopt this council review method, it's still tagged along with it because they're all integrated when you do those sort of processes.

But again, all those other things aren't changing. It's just final plat itself would go staff approval, seven day council review with that option. And this is just the tech changes that's in your packet. Just moving on and what else in the document, there's also a section that references our cross sections and that they're in the general plan. They were in the general plan but they were pulled out with the last general plan amendment so we're just referencing where they're properly located.

There's also a section, under loss and this has come up a couple times where we have deviation. So that's not changing as well. If someone's asking for a deviation or modification from chapter six provisions. That still goes to Planning Commission for a recommend review and recommendation and counsel for approval. There's a section under lots that talks about all lots have to be at 90 degree angles and then there's degrees, minutes, and seconds.

So if it's not 90 degrees, zero seconds, zero minutes, technically it doesn't meet that and it's a deviation. So, I think staff is looking here that you might want to consider we're saying nearly right angle. You could be a little bit more specific within a degree or so but we're looking at if there's some issue there it is a tough provision to meet at that point but that's in here as well so you comment on that. There's to correct the reference regarding lighting it references SUP in that section and a lot of that falls under with our private road conditional use permit. So I'm just we're just referencing that whole SUP article 11 secondtion so that's just a correction.

There's also a section under the hillside provision that talks about both private roads and public roadways and it's talking about the decorative pavement material and they both say decorative pavement. But the public roadways we've always just do asphalt. We never do the other. If you want to do the other, you do a private road. So, we're making that correction in there. And I did try to go back to when these codes changed. That changed in I think it was 'five and I couldn't find anything in the minutes. So I was trying to understand like why that was happening like that.

The only question that I have there is visually significant corridors had contemplated some decoration in intersection right at Tatum And Lincoln that would have been decorative and that's

But that's not hillside I guess. This is for hillside only.

Okay, it's hillside only.

Okay. Then also to modify on so then the other would be the lot split process. So the lot split still would go through commission which is under the ones that are under two and a half net acres. What we now have is a provision as you know it has to be a unanimous vote for it to move or else it goes to council. So the suggestion here is just to move it like everything else just a simple majority vote for approval.

And then the other change looking at would follow a council review process would be on our special use permit properties. So these are things that aren't a replat aren't the plurality plaid aren't the final plaid. These are non administrative. So these are lot line adjustments, some sort combination, some sort of easement modifications that we see a lot on our special use permit properties. These right now as a final plat they go through council. So this would be the same sort of thing. Would be staff would approve it but then there would be a seven day council review on those. And that's just showing those changes. But just one quick question.

But on the lot split, the recommendation is that it be approved and it doesn't have to be unanimous. But once approved by majority, then it just ends at commission.

Correct.

Okay. It doesn't move. Yeah. I don't

think we never had one that didn't that moved on to well maybe one I think we had one that did that. Yeah, yeah that that is the proposal for this text amendment.

This is Commissioner Jacob. Just a question on that. If there was a majority vote to decline the split, does that automatically go to council then or does that just get rejected?

Yeah, because it would be, let me think this. So yeah, you reject it, yeah, because

it I understand that's appealable to the council regardless, okay. But however, we could either by majority vote either approve or and reject then that would be done. Yes. Would only go to counsel if it's appealed. Is that right?

Yes. Let me look back through the code provision here. Yeah, pretty sure it's appeal. Yeah, we're not whatever that process we can double check it.

So we're not

changing that. Yeah. So it

automatically goes to counsel if it's rejected? If it's not structured that way, it seems like we should

Yeah. Defer to the

Planning Commission. If somebody wants appeal, they can always appeal it to counsel, right? Wouldn't you do it that way? It's definitely appealable. Versus automatically having the counsel. Right. It should. I would depending on what it's set up right now, I would suggest we just do it like that and force the person who's proposing a split to appeal it. They always can do that regardless.

Law split application is not approved including a vote denied then the law split application is subject to counsel review. So, directly goes to counsel. So, you denied it which would be the case that we are describing it goes to counsel.

Do we need to have that or could we change that to say that the whoever they would have the right to appeal?

I would guess if you wanted to do that. But right now it's an automatic it goes to counsel if you deny it.

Yeah, I'm suggesting we change it. That's fine. But I don't know how to support that or not. Well, there's some merit to that. If the person who wants to get that last bit done, know, take the The burden would be on them to, you know, appeal it, which then the council could review it and make a decision.

So, Madam Chair, Commissioner, is the proposal then to take the current text text and to modify it to remove the automatic appeal provision and make it appealable so that it was the onus is on the applicant to request an appeal? Right.

Yeah. That's what I'm suggesting.

I don't think there's any functional problem with it. There's certainly no legal problem with it. There might be a practical, a lack of any time when that would actually be a problem. Because any applicant who's asking for approval and gets rejected is going to want the council to take it up. So I think functionally it's going to work the same way.

Not necessarily depending on what the discussion is on why it got rejected. Somebody might say, well, isn't likely and that's worth the time. I don't know. Just think Right. No, I see. Yeah.

Realistically realistically speaking, speaking, they're they're going gonna to want it to go to counsel. So either either it automatically goes to counsel or they're gonna appeal to counsel. I mean, if they've gone through that process, I don't think someone's just gonna take their choice and go home.

And that's why we ask because the one thing we try to avoid is to have processes or extra steps that don't have a practical effect. And what we've seen for lot splits for the most part are the really big lots splitting down into it's like a two and a half acre lot goes down to two one acre lots. And the value differentiation there is millions of dollars. So the likelihood someone's going to decide not to move forward is pretty unlikely. So certainly happy to entertain it. It's just one of those if it adds a step that someone can then have a footfall on and not make the appeal and now they're rejected altogether, it seems to me we might be

in would point out that we have had lots of splits come within the last year that where it wasn't exactly right angle and they were splitting a lot into two and they had kind of angle that had chunked it over a little bit to come up with it. And the staff recommendation was to reject it and I believe we did. I don't know, I can't recall whether what council did with that or not, but I do remember that did come to us. And we I think we voted not to approve it at staff's recommendation. I can't remember the address or anything like that. So it is relevant. It's happened is my point. Do you remember?

But I guess the applicant still moved. I mean it was automatically moved to council but the applicant I guess did want it moved to council for rendering. On that particular one they actually were able to correct the issue and the code I think.

I can't recall if the council

approved it. Yeah. Modified it.

That was the existing house that was over the

Yeah, was one on Josh. I thought there were two. There was one on Josh Trez. It's automatically appealed.

It was the issue of whether or not it was an orthodox shaped lot. The lot was not orthodox shaped. Applicant went back, redesigned, and came back again so that it would comply with the requirements of the town.

Well, I think we oh, this is question, Rose. I think in the last meeting, had lots that weren't actually 90 degrees. But the circles within the lot I think met the code.

Well, no, on that particular one you're talking about the hillside one we just did with the dual frontage lots. Yeah, on the true frontage it was at 90 degrees. Okay. But

not on the sides of it that were Right,

because they were already in yeah, because when we look at it, we look at what the new line they're creating because you really can't change the perimeter that's already existing. We're really looking that.

The 90 degrees refers to the frontage? First, the frontage and

the first 40 feet of it. So that's why sometimes you'll see 90 degrees and then maybe shooting out or something.

Oh, right. Yes. Remember that.

And that's what the prior modification was intended to address that issue. Because of those two that we had, one was off by

A hair.

Like a half a degree or something. It was really, really minute. And the council had a fairly robust discussion about it until Councilman Labelle asked, how far is the deviation?

And the

staff said, well, it's less than a degree. And then he's like, oh, Okay. Why are we here now? That pretty quickly became an issue that was clear to staff that there should be some flexibility on that. If it's close, we don't want to say 75 is 90. But we also don't want to say 89.5 is not

90. Maybe just a suggestion, that kind of feedback that we don't really get into council acts on that might be instructive to us when we look at future stuff. So it would be useful to hear that feedback because if we're spending time reviewing stuff and it's going to council and they're overruling it as they can and should if they think it's the right thing to do. It kind of puts some ground rules for us so we know like the lay of the land and how we should be evaluating that would be helpful.

Sure. Yeah. Yeah. In that case, the applicant actually did meet the letter of the code because they had to. Right.

So but we're looking at whether or not it needs to be exactly 90 degrees, right? As opposed to, you know, 90.01 or 89.99. Right? That kind of thing. So it seems like wouldn't be unreasonable to have a little bit of deviation there as to what that might be. Is that a degree? Don't know.

I was just making a broader comment that if the councils sort of make a different decision than we did, that feedback would be helpful to us.

Yeah, sure.

Going forward and looking at stuff so we don't have to be useful.

Okay. Well, let's continue to move through and we can continue the discussion.

Sure. Yes, I'm pretty much almost done anyway. So yes, there's not a lot of changes. We're not changing anything to the modification process as I mentioned. There's no changes as I mentioned before to the private road CUP, the gate SUP and a regular SUP whole section. It really boils down to the final plat, things for SUPs that are non administrative, adjustments, the easement modifications going through that staff council review process, and then that on the loss of it process goes to commission, changing it from a, unanimous vote to a simple majority vote, and then the issue with just the 90 degree thing. Those are the main points of the changes that you're seeing.

Well, I think it would be helpful to go into executive session, understand background. With to all of this with counsel, I don't know what you all think. But I mean, this is all sort of legislatively driven and I would like to hear more on that.

Before we do that, have maybe an additional question. When staff and counsel were reviewing all this, did anything come out that would simplify the process for applicants? Is there any way to make this more streamlined, simpler as you stand back and look at it from far as you have through this process? I'm just trying to think about can we make it easier for people and what would that look like? I don't know what that would be just broadly did you look at it like that?

Yeah, Chair, Commissioner Tickman. I mean there wasn't a lot of in-depth discussion in that meeting. So I think there was just direction that we generally feel what we do today is administrative, but maybe we should move the needle a little bit to make some changes and that's why you're seeing what you see. I I think if you ask some people at the legislature, they meant administrative is just staff does everything and that's it. And that would be the simplified process. But I think we look at it more of we really don't when compared to other communities, we don't get a lot of these type of requests compared to them in numbers. It's more impactful to this community being its size and it's mostly residential.

It's just a point in time right now where we're reviewing it just to kind of look at it and say are there opportunities for us to Yeah.

And there are timing provisions. We're not changing any of those timing provisions that are in there. Certainly with the ones that we've made we did put some provisions in there with some time parameters. I think just overall just how working with the applicants I don't think anyone really I really get a lot of kick back from our applicants that our process is so onerous. I think certainly, yeah, I mean this is the time to look at it. There's some other things you want to streamline. Since I've been on

the planning commission, I've gotten two calls. I remember I passed them on to staff about people complaining about a process or something. And I just pass along or whatever.

It's usually our special use permit process. Those can take long, especially intermediate and things of that nature because they go council commission back to council. And that's just when you have meetings and advertising and that just takes the time to do.

Well, and I guess the overarching issue here is that staff is really good with applicants and you're responsive and you handle applications with the due pace, right, and interact. And what we're really looking at here are, you know, what is more along the lines administrative process. And you have reviewed these the processes and are making some recommendations in terms of how to move forward based on the the legislative changes. And I think that's really what we're looking at here unless I'm mistaken.

Madam Chair, one of the key things to keep in mind too is that last year when the mandatory time frames were the approval time frames were passed down from the legislature, the staff's internal clocks were already on a shorter time frame than what was mandated by the statute. So I think, you know, to Paul's point, there's not a lot of this type of application to constraining subdivisions in particular. But the ones that do, they're not coming through with two fifty lots. They're coming through with four or two. And so it's a much more focused process. And generally, the staff is able to handle it on a pretty efficient basis.

We don't have much demand. I mean, there's a lot open land that's split two fifty acres. I don't think that exists anywhere.

Yes. The real targets have been the 2.5s and larger lots that could split down into one acre lots. And I think you have a finite number of those as well. So between the legislation that last year and this year, there really isn't much more for you all to streamline other than if they reach into your true legislative process of the SUPs and start to mandate something. Then that'll be interesting and not really in a good way.

That's my only other question.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. So with that having been said, do I have a motion to go into executive session?

Sure. I'll make a motion to go into executive session.

And why are we going into executive session?

Because this is because I'd like to get some, guidance from our counsel in terms of how we should be looking at this given that this is driven by legislative action. Do I have a second? If you don't want to we don't have to but it's always sort of good to get some legal advice as we move forward with this.

I'll second.

All in favor? Aye.

All opposed? Okay. Motion carries.

We're going to have to accommodate Bob. Yes. Because that's public lines.

Okay. Mr. Michaud, had you completed your presentation at that point? Okay. So I guess maybe it would be helpful to just hit each of these changes and see if we've got any comments for you.

Sure. Okay. So yes, so this starts on this slide here. So there was a correction regarding removing the word final plat since you don't approve it. And then the next one is regarding

So final the first one there's really no issue. I that's

a correction. I can harp on just not the corrections but just the actual change if you want. Right. So modifying the final plat map process which right now is a council approval process to a staff approval with council seven day review very similar to our managerial process.

Well, and I guess that given the legislative direction that seems to make sense to me. Does anyone have anything to add on that? Then

we have under loss where we have the right angle, the 90 degree to change that to nearly right angles to allow a little bit of flexibility.

And so along those lines what does nearly mean though? Mean, is it a partial degree? Is it a degree? Is it, you know

Yeah.

As much as we wanna try to to to take the the guesswork out of these things, the plan is designed to do that. I think that one, unless anyone has a strong opinion, I think we'll know when we see it. If we see something that seems to be creating odd lots in other ways, we can address that. But for now, I don't whatever we move the number to, we're gonna have the same problem at that number that we do now.

Mhmm.

One minute off. And now we've got to go through a process for one minute. So I think this isn't nearly we're not gonna get that one right. So we have a lot of curved roads that I could I could imagine a situation where something would be more degrees than this table might arrive at today that probably is still okay because some of these lots are very unusual. So I think really right angles, at least the right angles in there gives us the guidance that we're trying to make these square when we can. So that would be my suggestion.

So I guess I'm hearing from staff that you'd leave it at nearly as opposed to trying to quantify that by some percentage of a degree, right, or how many minutes or seconds that would be acceptable.

Okay. I'm not sure I know what nearly right angle means.

Well, I don't think we do either other than we still got the notion that it should be tried to be a right angle. But as I said, if at any point you put a number in there, we run into the same problem of you're a hair away from that number. You're into a process now because of an imperceptible change in angle.

We're going to define nearly on a case by case basis is what we're going to do. That makes sense.

The preponderance of the situation, the neighborhood, the angles of the streets.

I'm more comfortable keeping it and let it go through a process if it's not at 90 degrees. Then it's clear what the rules are versus what nearly 90 degrees is. Don't even know what that means.

Does it set a precedence that if it's a degree off then somebody comes back and says, well, mine's four degrees off but you let the guy go with one degree. Is there a run at the bank?

Highly unlikely. I mean, we do one of these a year, two of these a year, Paul. So I don't think there's any runs in any instance. We just don't do a lot of this work. But I think as was mentioned earlier, we did get to counsel with one of these, oh, it's not 90 degrees. Was really I remember can't that approve it. So they had to do something else until they could get that 40 feet that Paul mentioned at 90 degrees. And then they changed some other things around. You asked my feedback

because I don't like things that say nearly or almost. And then it goes through a process. Well don't if that's there should be a process if it doesn't meet the thing. I'm just clear with the rule is. I'm not saying that we wouldn't approve something that's not 90 degrees, but it goes through a process. Otherwise it's very fuzzy.

But

if that's the case, why can't we leave it at 90 degrees and then have flexibility after that? I mean, nearly 90 degrees, I mean, that is that's not clear at all as to what that is. So I I don't know. I mean, what do other what else have you seen in other codes? I mean, how have others other jurisdictions dealt with this? This whole, you know, whether or not it's exact.

So I don't like that change. I'll just give you that feedback. Let it go through a process if it's not 90.

Was the thought process on was it that one beneath eighty nine point five and ninety?

Right. Yeah, think it was, I mean, we're looking at it, it was close to, yeah, it off by a couple seconds and minutes in there.

That wasn't what I my recollection, I think what happened is we reviewed it. It was like a jog the way they drew the line. They must have redid it and took it right to counsel then. I think that's what happened.

But we get other ones too where people come in and we correct it at the county, we correct it at a staff level and say hey you have to be 90 degrees.

So we're happy to take any guidance Yeah.

We Exactly. Don't see

kinda like it's 90. We could all also might have to sit and think about it in the meantime. Okay. Is there a different way where we can address it if it isn't 90 than we did before and still try to make that easier. So I think the problem we have right now too is the way manage the 90 is, in that case at least, is you make that 90 and you make something else odder than it has to be, frankly. That's the way, in my estimation, that one ended up. They got that to 90 and then the back end was really wonky. It didn't have to be that wonky. They could have had 91 and it was nice and clean. Submitted 90 and went away from there.

Yeah. But that case came to us with the staff recommendation to reject it.

It was exactly 90. Yeah. I mean, I guess another thought is that we maybe do. Well, council so is good for just that portion. Okay.

But I think the instance that Commissioner Dickman was talking about was way off. It was not nearly it was not nearly 90. There was a different

I think they read it. I think that's what happened.

So So is the word nearly recommended by staff or is it legislate?

No, this legislature has nothing to do with While this we were in there, we suggested that was a problem recently. Didn't love that.

See what

we can do about it. So if the issue from the partners of the group here is that we don't like nearly 90 either. We're doing really is taking your guidance on the council. We can take that. We can see if we can do something else with it in the meantime.

But nearly does give us flexibility. Technically, if we say 90, it doesn't give us any flexibility. So we have to be careful here because as somebody mentioned before, we have streets that curve.

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting make the rules clear and have a process where if you don't meet 90, then there's a process that can go through.

Yeah. We just don't have that yet. So that's what I'm saying is we would have to evaluate what that process could be. And it might have to come back later at that point if counsel agrees because this is kind of a bit of a rush job, unfortunately, due to the nature of the state.

How are you gonna come

up with something? Well, I I think, frankly, we should then as a as a planning commission on a case by case basis because we have to see what we're dealing with. We're talking about something right now that we don't really even know what we're talking about because everything is not square in this town.

No, I'm not suggesting that we strictly enforce them. Have to say make the rules clear and then have an exception process for people.

Okay. Let's hear from counsel at least. What

Paul's suggestion, I think, is probably a good idea is that you can do the same kind of process you do with the council for the, you know, the seven day look back. Where it can be that if it's not exactly 90, staff can make a call on it, send it all to you and say, hey, if anybody disagrees, let us know and we'll I'm okay with that. Because then at least it gives you a there's a check on it, but it's not it doesn't expand the process too much if the staff says this is why. Because that process works really well for the council in general to keep an eye on things that they have at the managerial amendment side. So that requires everybody to pay attention, but it gives you a process

if

that's what you're saying.

It sounds good me.

Will suggest that to counsel.

Good suggestion. Okay.

The next two are just corrections. The next one is regarding the SUP, the non SUP properties or the SUP properties where we're talking about the lot line adjustments, the easement modifications, things that aren't the plat, things of that nature. So,

the modifying the lot split.

Oh, sorry, this is not that one. This one is the lot split one. The next one is that one. So, yeah, this one is the lot splits that are under two and a half net acres that right now the commission looks at which you'll still look at is just changing the from a unanimous vote requirement to a simple majority vote.

I'm okay with that. I mean it's I don't think everybody is 300%.

And then the other one is the one I was just talking about which is the non administrative land modification process for SUP properties which would act just the same as the final plat process which would be staff approval and the seven day review at council.

And so, you give us some examples of what that would be?

Excellent example, we had Scottsdale Plaza where they just combined, they were required in the SGP to combine all their separate parcels and that had to go in front of council. So we went a separate work session and went to set another meeting for their action to combine it. So, that in this instance would be staff would approve it, we'd give a seven day review to counsel as long as that's okay, it's done. Could be also easement modifications on some of the Ritz products. We had a lot of various easements changing here and there and lot lines changing here and there slightly. Those also went to council under our current code provision. So these would just be staffed with a seven day council review.

Well, I could see adjusting easements where that's really sort of ministerial and administrative. I mean in terms of all of the modifications, like managerial modifications.

Yeah, none of that. This is just talking about the plat.

I think we should make it easy for applicants who are in the final stage and want to tweak something and have a process.

Because they almost always tweak something.

Might change through and not have to go through. Right. So I think that

And we used to I would say that changed about seven years ago. For years, it was just a staff process. We never brought it through and that that changed. But

this this relates this is non administrative land modification which relates to final plat.

It's not the preliminary plat.

Like okay so there's some something technical as the plat that needs to be fixed.

Correct. And I think that was it.

Have any other comments? Anything else staff wanted to share with us on these issues? Did we miss anything? Nope. Okay. You've done a really good job. I know this has been a lot to sort of go through everything and do a good review and give us a very detailed, very thoughtful assessment, and we really appreciate it. We hope that we've been able to give something

back. Yep.

Good. Yeah.

We'll we'll give all the credit to Paul because we may not do all the heavy lifting.

Mr. Michaud, wonderful job as you do. Okay. All right. So next on our agenda is public hearings or no public hearings or legislative actions. Action items or no action items. Do we have any staff reports this evening?

None.

Okay. No staff reports. Any public body reports? I hear no public body reports. Future agenda items.

Certainly, chair. So I guess first, to go off. So we we just discussed that text amendment. So as I mentioned before, that's going in front of the council for their study session on the thirteenth. So I'm not sure if you or someone might want to attend that particular meeting. And then their action is set for December 11. Then for future items for just yourself, so your next meeting, we are having one. It is on November 18. That is the citizen review work session and work session on the assisted living code changes which changes the occupancy. It lowers it and parking all on-site there's a couple little things that are in there.

Okay.

And then you are also going to have your meeting on December 2 that's the public hearing that's scheduled for that text amendment on the assisted living. And we are not going to have a meeting on the December 16. So that will be canceled.

You said we will not.

We will not, correct, on the December 16. But we are gearing a lot of things up for January. Don't get too comfortable.

Do I have a motion to adjourn?

So

Nobody wants to say juror. In favor? Aye.

Okay. Unanimously approved.

Meeting is adjourned. Thank you everybody for all your your thoughts this evening. Thank

you.