Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

There's that starting. You're just in time. Is this me? You're still early. All right. Call the September 15th, 2025 Pulk City Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. Roll call. Henkins here. Barox here. Van Austin

here. Vogle here. Triplet. Mrage here. Oh, sorry. Doug Ol here. It did. Thank. All right. Item three, approval of the agenda. Make a motion to approve as written. Second. All in favor? I. Item four, approval of PNZ commission meeting minutes for July 17, 2025. I make a motion to approve the minutes for PNZ for July 17th, 25. Second.

All in favor? I. Item five, approval of PNZ commission meeting minutes for August 18th, 2025. I'll make that motion to approve the August 18th, 2025 minutes. Second. All in favor? I I item six architectural design standards presentation city engineer report. So for the council's consideration tonight uh oh there we are. Oh, here they come. We're back.

Now you have to straddle Um so so hopefully we're reaching a culmination here of what has been a several month process. Um just because Gus is new I want to bring everybody back in and kind of set a groundwork for where we how we got here tonight. Um, back in October of 2024, we did the URE at Sailor Hill Reszoning, um, which is a subdivision that's going to be a mixture of commercial and high density residential located south of Highway 415, um, and west of Highway 415. Um, that resoning was approved by the city council in October of 24. And then the next development that kind of drove a lot of this discussion was the type of storage um site plan which is located up here um off of East Vista Lake near the elementary school. Um so that developer presented to the PNZ in July of 24 and August of 24 as a discussion item discussing particularly landscaping and materials. And at that point in time, I think the question started festering a little bit of what is an architectural steel panel? Um, and we got we started thinking about it at that point. Um, where this really kicked into high gear and I think where we really put rubber to the road was um, in May of 2025, the potential developer Dollar Tree at 900 South Third Street came in and had an extensive discussion with the commission on what constitutes vertical steel sighting as a prohibited material and then what is an architectural steel panel as an acceptable material and at that point in time an acceptable alternative to the stone and brick requirements as specified by chapter 156. 7. So, in June, we discussed at length what the commission wanted to do to Chapter 157. I've watched that

meeting at least three times now, and I'll tell you, I don't like hearing myself talk anymore now than I did before. Um, but I think what we've got for you tonight to review, discuss, and potentially act upon is reflective of the conversation we had back in June. Um, and so I'll step through each one of these. um if I missed something as we were making these updates, go ahead and let me know that. If there's minor tweaks, things like that, um we can discuss that and then depending on what we change, we can kind of discuss what staff's recommendation would be for moving forward. Um so, as I mentioned, this is these are updates to chapter 157, the site plan code. Um all focusing on 157.09, the architectural standards. So if you come down here, the first thing we added was basically adding more districts to the architectural theme and the architectural standards um and the particular the permanency. I think that's the first step particularly in the CTS district which I think is a totally different discussion of the exact parameters of those architectural standards but adding CTS C1 and then the M districts really help lend some credence to what the what the commission wanted to do in terms of applying these across all of the different um zoning designations. Um, and then also within this item, we've added that um that requirement for some sort of warranty or certification demonstrating a lifespan in excess of 15 years. Um, that was specifically requested by the commission for the purposes of ensuring that we're getting highquality products even if they aren't brick and stone. um to make sure that we're not getting something that is lackluster, is going to deteriorate very quickly or potentially degrade um commercial and

industrial facilities in town. Um some of the these other ones are we're updating uh to strengthen some code. So instead of canopies, awnings, and portico coverings being encouraged, they'll be strongly encouraged. Um, and then in both of these with the pitched roof, the pitched roof and residential roof type structures, each of these also are strongly encouraged. And then they also lend back to giving PNZ the wiggle room to say if something about that neighborhood doesn't match with what we're saying in our code, we have the ability to make a modification that better matches that neighborhood. Um, and then kind of getting into some of the more nitty-gritty stuff, this commission really really liked the idea of some of the other metro communities have classes of materials. And so a lot of this rewrite pertains to adding classes versus acceptable and unacceptable materials. Um, so the CTS, we didn't change any of the proportions. We just added that class A material which is going to be your stone and brick. We'll discuss those a little bit more detail. Um so the proportions are the same. The proportion in the other C districts are also the same. Um just updating to that class A designation. And then this is the big one or one of the big ones that we added was the M2 and M2. So your industrial districts would now have a brick and stone requirement. It's less than the 60% facing public ride ofway and 50% for all other sides of of the commercial. We knocked that down by 20% for each. So, we're doing 40 if it faces public rideway, 30 for all other

sides. Um, if you'll recall as part of our prior conversation, basically where we where we landed is across the metro. It's really hard to compare commercial and industrial because the proportions um vary so much, but essentially what we determined is a normal range is to have a commercial standard and then your industrial standard is anywhere from 10 to 25% less than that. So that's kind of where we landed as we knock that down by 20% and we feel that's in line with the rest of the metro codes at least from what we saw. um R2, those R districts again, just changing that designation to class A. Um basically, you know, replacing brick with class A materials. Um in all of these designations, that's for the most part what everything here is. Um and then something that we discussed too is by adding these classes of materials, we're going to have four classes. So class A is your brick and stone. Class B is your acceptable um replacements to brick and stone. Class C is going to be all of your other acceptable materials. Class D are prohibited materials. So basically this this line here says up to 30% of the required proportion of brick and stone can be replaced with a class B material. So that's to say in a C district if you've got 60% of um brick and stone required that would equate to basically 20% of the entire frontage of on that side would be allowed to be class B material. So allowing that flexibility that if there is an acceptable alternative that maybe saves the developer a little bit money, maybe it adds to the character of the neighborhood, things of that nature,

that gives you that flexibility. But we did add that sentence at the end that's basically says, "Hey, this is not this is not a foregone conclusion. You have to specifically request this at the PNZ and council level." So, it's not something that you know they submit something, nobody sees it. It's not necessarily automatically approved. It has to be specifically designated as part of that. Any questions so far? uh how do you see uh like schools and civic buildings falling into this? So schools would be a nonresidential use and if it's in one of these districts it's going to be governed that way. So that's how all of these are written is basically well in the RS it's residential structures as well but um if it's in a C district or an M district um and there's that proportion it it would be a non-residential structure the civic uses I guess would technically count but Pulk City has kind of made it a policy that upon acquisition and designation of a property as a development area for a civic use. We're moving that into that GF district.

And would there be a reason to not include the GF district in this so that we're held to our own standards that we're holding others to?

I don't I don't No, I don't think so. I guess the only thing would be is exactly what you said is we would be allowing ourselves a little bit more flexibility than we would allow others. And then the other thing would be problem with that is you do create existing non-conforming uses or existing non-conforming structures. So like the fire department would not qualify and it's in a GF district. This building probably would actually Old City Hall wouldn't either to be honest with you.

The historical landmark. Well, and that that would be the other thing is federal regulation is going to govern over anything I've got written here. So, um, how many government districts do we have? It'd be this stretch right here. Okay. The maintenance facility, library. Yeah. This, uh, no, the schools are in underlying zoning. Okay. Um, and then the library. Okay. I think those are the only GF districts that we would have. And remind me is the Army Corps property in government district.

Did we put the backwaters in the government district and then we added additional? Yes, the backwaters would be. I'll be honest with you, I don't know what that um that parcel west of Quickstar. I don't know what it's currently zoned. It would not surprise me if that's a to be honest. Okay. I don't know why we Well, no, it would have been GF because the the core owns it and the core would have required us to put it in a governmental district when it came in. So, yeah, those would be the other ones cuz even like the regional park is an R1, so it's not zoned GF either.

Okay. Um, so yeah, it's really these the maintenance facility and the library are the only structures. And for like the fire station to be in nonconformance, that really only comes into play if it would be destroyed, isn't it? Right. Uh 50% of the value, which is kind of weird with governmental buildings, but yeah,

it's Yeah. a remodel that would constitute 50% of the value. Just I mean my own personal opinion is I always think everybody should be held to the same standard. Whether you're a quickar, a church, a school or a civic institution, you should be held to the same standard. And in particular, a civic institution, you're uh if there is any pain involved in compliance, you're better understanding what that pain is. Where could we add that? uh just in the districts that are covered.

Well, so the the where I listed those additional districts are for the permanency and um whatever the terminology is that we use the permanency basically and the strength and then each one of so each district then has its own separate brick proportion. Okay. So, I guess that would probably be a discussion that we need to have is what would you want the GF district if we want to add the GF district? What do we want the GF district to mirror?

Wouldn't it be under the C? I would think commercial. The only thing would be is because I think like town or like city hall definitely makes sense as a sea building. A police station definitely makes sense as a sea building. A police station or a fire station probably does, but like a maintenance facility probably doesn't. Mhm. So it's a nonpublic public building, right?

It's almost it's almost like does it make more sense for us to write it in that the GF1 district shall meet the um architectural standards nearest its use or something like that? Because I'm thinking like a m the maintenance facility, it's more probably more applicable to apply it to like the industrial standard. Yeah. And then like a town or a city hall or a police station or a library would be more in the C district, right? But the police and fire would be in the town square district. So you I I think you're on to something though because

that's true. You've got to have some leniency there based off of existing structures.

Have to put police and fire in the town square district because parking regulations made. If you required them to follow C1, they wouldn't be parking. But if the GF1 district has no parking requirements, so if we're just making if we specifically reference architectural standards, I think that gives us the flexibility for parking and things like that. But you're right in that. So it's almost like it needs to be based on use and adjacent land uses too.

Yeah. But in our maintenance building, there's really nothing similar to it around it, right? It's kind of, you know, large lot residential up, right? And so I think I think but I think that it I think you could make an argument that that maintenance building as it sits today probably matches the character of that neighborhood because they're large lot rural street cross-section that have a a more rural feel that I think the maintenance facility probably meets.

And my goal is to not recreate the wheel here. I think we can proceed with what we have and if we choose to want to add this in a few months, I think that would be an easy thing to not carve out but carve in at a later date.

And I I think too it pro because so many of the GF buildings are focused on the town square, maybe it makes sense to do that as part of the the town square architectural standards, which we've kind of talked about doing. um you know once once it starts getting cold and construction starts slowing down um to make sure that we we have it ready for the next development season. So okay I'll make a note to myself with that and then we can we can well do other folks have a similar concern I mean or is that just me? No I fully agree with you. Yeah, totally. Yeah. I think the more you can clarify it also, the better for the city staff.

Yes. When you don't clarify it is when we have issues interpreting. Yeah. Okay. So, anything else with what we've talked about so far in the in the PUD district? Is there a reason why we didn't change the the brick wording to class A material? Uh because I missed it. Okay,

there you go. I'll make sure that that's the correct place to put it. That's a good catch. anything else. So then we'll jump down here. Um so this is where we really get into um defining those new classes of materials we have. So like I mentioned, class A, brick, stone, and acceptable alternatives. Um, basically this more or less reads similarly to what your previous um read, although it looks like it did not save correctly. Oh, okay. I did I meant to ex excerpt that. Okay. So, class A materials basically taking it down to brick and stone. That was the guidance that I felt we got from the commission was that we weren't offering a blanket substitution as architectural steel panels being allowed as a as a blanket alternative to the brick and stone. Um, so that I meant to take that out and I must have missed saving it. Um, so you've got the brick, stone, architectural concrete or stone panels, textured concrete, um, block, and then we've got that that cop out statement there at the end that other acceptable materials as deemed by planning and zoning.

Can I ask a question on that? Yeah. Too, does architectural concrete cover architectural pre-cast as well as like a poured architectural concrete with a sand blast finish as an example? I'm just wondering do we need a several line? I guess it's not explicit, but do we want to explicitly say that? It's kind of going to add some other texture other than well architectural concrete. Some developer is going to say, well, is that pre-cast or is that pou concrete? I just thought I don't have a problem putting it in class A material. I'm thinking of in particular because our church has both.

Uhhuh. And I thought about it right away is like would one be acceptable and one not? We would have to ask that question. I think if we just clarified it here, it'd make it'd be easier personally. I mean, I'm fine with both materials being acceptable class A material. How's the rest of the commission feel about that? To to me, it kind of depends on the scale of the building. uh the the larger the building, the more acceptable to me it would be.

And the church is a classic example of that. But if you're, you know, doing, you know, a convenience store as an example, I'm not sure that's a good fit there. I mean, well, cost will drive a lot of it, too. I mean, these are high expense items. That was a question. The other question I had, well, we can think about that one, but textured concrete block, what exactly would that be? Try is that scored? I mean, I'm not sure what that term

I think I think the intent would be for it to be a concrete cast that simulates stone or brick. So like what I'm thinking is like they don't make landscape pavers out of brick anymore essentially. Like you go to Menard, the only thing you can buy is the cast concrete. It's like stepping stones, right? So I think I my thought would be is that's what that's meant to do. And we could certainly beef that up that say that simulate brick or stone. I I would like that beef up phrase because someone will say, "What about burnished block as an example? There's that textured I

we we've gotten some good lessons recently about how people might interpret things. It's part of part of this exercise, right? So then architectural concrete, do we want to add those additional or do you just want to have the flexibility of saying what architectural concrete is at this point?

I'm flexible. So what what's your thoughts? I I would add architectural pre-cast because they both they're both both going to be limited in their application only because of the cost of them. And in my thinking, I don't think you'd see a small application of either one of those. Um, and they both have a nice appearance if they do. I mean, you can do colored aggregate, you can do sand blast finishes on poured. There's a lot of varieties of things you could do with concrete or pre-cast. You going to cast pre-cast with brick face on it? You know, there's all types of things they can do with architectural pre-cast. So, yeah. So, is the commission as a whole okay with that modification? Parentheses pre-cast or cast in place. Okay. So, then we'll everybody good on class A material?

Yep. Okay. Class B material right now is one and it is architectural steel panels with embossing or other texture to mimi mimic or otherwise simulate the appearance of a class A material and it shall have a have enclosed or concealed fasteners. That was kind of the guidance that we got. You don't like the exposed fasteners and then you don't like the smooth steel as an acceptable alternative to brick and stone. You have no heartburn about the smooth steel as an acceptable material, but it's more so that you don't want it as a replacement to your brick and stone. Correct. So, that's kind of how we wrote it. Everybody feel comfortable with that? Yep, I do.

Did we have a width uh that we were considering? A width of the panel to not have narrow panels as a replacement for brick and stone. It seems like we had that conversation. So, I have that down here. I can pull that up as well.

Okay. Does that make sense? It seems like the narrower the panel, the less it's going to look like a larger sheet of stone. Correct. And because I think I think part of it though is if you're mimicking that texture, it's going to look less like a slab of stone, but it could have the the stone embossing or it could have like the brick embossing as well. And the idea would be is that those

would it because I think what we're looking for, right, is that you could mistake it for brick and stone. What if we beefed up the class B to say um with concealed fasteners and no visible seams? Because then the the idea would be is you can make if you want to stamp a little piece of metal with a brick and you put it on there, more power to you. But we don't want to be able to see that it's a bunch of little metal panels. Mhm. We good with that? Yep. Like that.

Okay. And again, this is one that as we continue to become aware of products, as we continue to work through some of the inevitable snags that the this update will do, we can always add things to that class B. But it sounded like that was the one thing that the commission was okay with at this point, replacing brick and stone. And again, remember that class B materials are not a full replacement. It is up to 30% of the class A material proportion. And that'll be the important thing too is, you know, 30% of 40% on industrial or 30% on 60% of commercial and that kind of stuff.

And I think this building was an example that we kind of talked about. So this one you actually wouldn't need to replace it because the proportion of brick is so lopsided that you can just use what the the steel that's on the side is an acceptable material and you don't have to substitute it. So then this one so class C materials this is where we've there's been a little bit of change here. A majority of these first several are um basically copy and paste out of the old acceptable materials. Um the architectural steel panels is where um is where really where this material changed. So this goes back to the discussion we had last time where exa ac acceptable steel panel shall not have a vertical seam and it would help if I can spell and shall not pro be provided in a length or width less than 24 in. So, the idea being, you know, if you take a a steel lap sighting that or a steel sighting that is meant to be placed vertical and just because you turn it horizontal and it's still this skinny little thing that looks like vertical steel siding or or steel siding that's unacceptable, that not doesn't make it an acceptable material. It's meant to be panels of these. And then that architectural steel we further defined as having concealed fasteners. So getting away from, you know, the ribbed exposed fastener, for lack of a better term, Morton sh Morton shed sighting. Um, further clarifying that. And then again, that copout statement that if there's something in out there that we really really like that technically doesn't fall as an acceptable material or isn't explicitly defined by code, uh, gives

council the option to, um, provide that approval. Class C materials. Any questions? Okay. Class D material. So again, most of this is pretty much the same except for item four where we beefed up that vertical steel siding. So no corrugation, no rib surfaces, no exposed fasteners, and the slat width can't be less than 24 in. Ju just a quick comment on what you were talking about at the end of class C. Yeah.

I think in other locations you've talked about it being recommended uh to council by PNZ.

There you go. And that spot doesn't have it that way and I'll make sure that language is consistent throughout. So, any issues with the class D materials at this point? Just beefing that up to be very explicit in what we're talking about when we talk about vertical steel sighting. Okay. So, then we jump down to five. So, under additional architectural elements, this was also a bulk of our discussion. um towards the tail end um back in June. So, detached garage structures containing multiple parking stalls proposed as accessory structures to row homes, town homes, or multifamily residential structures shall include similar architectural and visual elements to those incorporated in the pime into the primary structure. So, that's just that blanket statement. You can't have a bright blue garage and a bright yellow apartment building. You got to have them coordinated. Obviously, we don't want a bright yellow anything, but you get the point. Um, so all garage structures shall include recesses or protrusions along their frontage of the public streets, private streets, or shared driveways as to ensure that no more than four consecutive parking stalls are located on the same setback from the adjacent pavement. Um, so that kind of goes back to the conversation we had at the end. I think we landed on three or four. I went with four for now. Um but basically that kind

of and the way that I've written it um they have the flexibility to do whatever they want but no more than four shall be in a single elevation from that from that adjacent pavement. Um and then going back to um the garages. So in addition to those recesses and protrusion, the building's facade along a public street, private street or shared driveway shall include visual interest items places to ensure that no greater than onetenth of the building's facade is monotonous un uninterrupted expansive wall. So this language is based on during the discussion we liked Windsor Heights um code and so that's what this is based on. Um, and then I just gave some examples. Um, and this is another one where we'll need to recommend. So, recesses, projections, columns, openings, ornamentation, material variation, color variation, plantings or other elements as specifically approved. Are there any other specifics that you guys can think of that you want to blanket approve or is that a good enough list to start with and then it allows you guys to approve separately?

That's a good start. I guess Windows.

Yeah. Oh, you're right. Okay. So then row homes um so these are the actual principal structures. So no greater than onethird of the building's frontage along a public public street, private street or shared driveway shall be proposed at the same setback from the adjacent pavement and that the projection of the recess can't constitute more than one/3 of the building's elevation. So basically, we don't get in a situation where somebody's like, "Well, I've got 60 foot of frontage and I've got, you know, the three required recesses or projections, but they're all over here kind of thing." Just kind of clarifying and and beefing up that language. And then um in addition to the recesses or protrusions basically um you have those those other visual elements every sixth. So basically at a double at double the frequency and we'll add windows down here. And then that recommendation for planning and zoning. Are you okay with that?

Yep.

Okay. Um multif family, I've removed this line. The multif family buildings with plain walls or boxy appearances are not encouraged. Um, we kind of we talked about last time getting away from encouraged, desired, all those that kind of language. And basically, I think what we're saying drives home that point better than that sentence does. So, um, I'm not, you know, really committed to deleting that sentence if you want to keep it, but that it kind of seemed or redundant to me. So then with this one, we've got the uninterrupted expanses of walls are prohibited. And then instead of a third on the rail homes and town homes, we've got a fifth. So no more than 20% will be at the the same elevation from that adjacent pavement. And then we've doubled it to be one/10enth. And so that that's where that one/10enth that we talked about at the garage um comes from is basically it's mirroring the requirement of the principal structure in a multifamily residential facility. And then I need to update this to say Windows and has specifically by planning and zoning and approved by city council. So, are we good with those proportions for now?

Yep. And we like the way that language reads. Yeah. Uh, I'm just trying to think what happens in if it scales down. What happens if you have a facade that is very small on an apartment building? Uh I I think this is based on scaling up. Yeah. So you're you're saying like the short side of an apartment complex.

Yeah. And and what if due to physical restrictions it came gradually down to be only like one apartment wide at the end of a of the building? And do we want them to break up that facade into tents? Probably not because you can't probably get anything that close. And is or is that something that we want to have them come to us to discuss? But I I I we got into that problem with our sign ordinance where it didn't it scaled up but it didn't scale down,

right? And and I think maybe that's the way that we think about it or the way we approach it is just like the sign ordinance where until we although this one we're kind of thinking about ahead of time I guess. Is there is there a number or a a dimension that feels right? Like is it if a frontage is less than 40 feet, it shall meet the requirements of the row homes and town homes or is it something that we wait to respond to? Because I think it's a good thought. I just don't know that I have a the right answer.

U it's almost if it's in if it's so small you almost don't you almost need like two and then there's a medium ground where maybe you want to go in fifths and then you end up going to your tents for the for the larger structure. But, uh, I'm kind of I'm kind of leaning towards the have them come to us and ask for an exemption, which I think we need to grant at that point. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know that I've seen that addressed anywhere ever. I don't think so either. I I think it's a good thought. To be honest with you, I think Ron's right in that a lot of city codes scale up, but they don't scale down

because we always talk like you're going back to the side hornets, right? before we made that change for scooters. Your signing ordinance um

right, but your sign ordinance specifically referenced to something that had a setback of more than 200 ft, which means it had to be on a really really big commercial lot. And so, you know, it goes back to that whole it scaled all the way up to big box stores, but the uniqueness of a scooters per se kind of changes that. So, I think maybe that's the approach. And then if we see something that's recurring, I think maybe then that's when we address it because you are pushing into several areas that have future land uses that are highdensity residential. So I think if a problem is going to be found, it'll rear its head sooner rather than later.

Okay. So, while it's still all fresh, I think I'd be worried about putting in a length dimension that we're be shooting for just because that opens the leeway of somebody just trying to be just short of that length to just try to take advantage of of the code.

That is that's also true. Anything else on recesses, protrusions, and ornamentation? Okay, we didn't change anything about the roofing elements, the loading docks, um, HVAC systems, all that kind of stuff. But what we did talk about changing specifically was further defining what adequate treatment or screening of negative aspects were. So, um I think the code before did a really nice job of defining loading docks, loading areas, outside storage, garbage, dumpsters, HVAC systems as being negative effects. But then what what is adequate treatment or screening? So, we've updated that to say opaque screening at maturity. Um, and then that the negative effects shall be screened as to be hidden by opaque screening and an eye height of 6 ft. And I meant to put from the adjacent public right of way or shared driveway. So basically, if I go out and stand on a sidewalk on the property line, can I see it? That would I guess that would be a little unfair. They'd have to go go a little higher because I'm 6'3. But that's kind of that's kind of that high level that I'm that we're talking about.

And that's a minimum six feet. Yeah. Yeah. That's a good maybe that's a good clarify. No less than. Right. Yeah. I think of that again in particular from our church perspective looking down on it as a street goes quite a bit above street level or floor level. So I think we put an 8ft fence in there if I remember right. I think you're right. Just for that reason. Yep. Okay. That was it. A lot of work went into that thing.

Yeah. Thank you. Good job, Miss. We missed anything. At least right now. Again, CTS is a totally different conversation. So, we know that's coming. And then I've got written down that we need to do some with the GF districts. Um, but anything else that jumps out right now? for that right of way. Can we put and or shared driveway? Just because I'm trying to think of areas that have a shared driveway that might be a little bit higher or lower than the public right away.

Scooters would be a good example because that ride ofway would be on the what would that be? The south edge of that driveway. But then that driveway continues up from there. Yeah. Or the driveway might even be lower than the rightway. Yeah.

Okay. So, I guess what we would ask you guys tonight is if you don't, we're not going to add stuff to the GF. I think we've made the modifications as we've gone through this. If you guys are agreeable to those modifications, basically what we would ask the commission to do is recommend approval of the ordinance change um as amended during the meeting. Um, and then what we'll do from there is if we get a recommendation to approve, we'll update the ordinance and we'll take it to the city council from there. I'd make a motion to approve to council the revisions as noted to the architectural design standards. I'll second it.

All right. Roll call. Ros. Hi. Henkins. Yes. Box. Yes. Allsten. Yes. Vogle. Yes. Oldfest. Yes. Triplet. Yes. All right. Thank you. Item seven, reports and particulars. City manager Thank you. All right, staff.

I have a question for Cody. Uh, you'd brought up last meeting about a concern on accessory structure and sizes. Did that get resolved? Did you want further comments? I think maybe towards Okay. Okay. We want you to have the tools you need. I will when I get some time, I'll start put some effort into that. Okay. Okay.

I have a question too on the senior housing on Parker and Washington. Where are we at with that? We really don't have an update from the last one we gave you. They uh received an extended site plan. They came to you and requested essentially a new site plan approval. Um I've not received a new timeline from them. I don't have any new information. Last we talked with them, which is the last few months, they intend to proceed with the project, but that's all I've got. Okay. People are asking. Yeah. Any other commission?

Yeah. I have an announcement. I'm going to be moving I'm going to be moving to Ankeny to a townhouse. um closing the 23rd of October. So, this will probably be my last meeting. So, I've I've enjoyed all of you. I have learned something from each of you. I've learned a lot during this time and um it's always a pleasure. Everyone is so professional and I've learned so much. Thank you. Well, thank you for your time. Thank you. No more of those, I hope, but Right. Any other comments, questions?

All right. Item motion to adjurnn. So move. Moved. Yep. Second. All right. Ajourn. Right. Thank you. the word.