Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. What are you doing? Good morning everyone. Welcome to the December 4th, 2025 zoning board of adjustment meeting. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the agenda today, there are speaker request forms located over to the left side of the room. Please fill out the request with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the secretary. The public hearing on item number one, the approval of the November 20th, 2025 zoning board of adjustment meeting minutes is hereby opened.

Motion to approve. All right. Vince made the motion to approve the minutes. And I believe Pat seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number two.

Good morning, chair, planning commission. Item number two before you is a variance request. This is a request maybe um to allow an 8ft fence in the front yard in lie of a 4ft fence. So we are located right now at 112 East Nullwood Street. This property is currently zone general commercial and future land use is mixeduse commercial and access to this property is off of East Nullwood Drive. Um it does abut to the north um Interstate 90. So, what the applicant is proposing to do, this is a picture of the property as it exists today. You can see the only development on this property as of right now is a cellular communication facility um that has been there for quite some time and was permitted through a conditional use permit. What the applicant is proposing to do is to install an 8ft black iron chain link or not chain link, excuse me, black iron fence on the perimeter of this property. Um there is a major drainage easement on the north side that they will remain outside of. Um what they are proposing to do is to extend a fence um all the way around the property. It will border the cell tower facility. So here's the cell tower. The cell tower already has a 6ft tall chain link fence with barb wire um that surrounds that. They will not be impacting that fencing at all. That fence will remain. They will border it on the east and the north um and then extend their black iron fence around the rest of the perimeter of the property staying outside of that major e drainage easement that exists on the north side of the property. Um by code only a 4ft fence is allowed in any front yard setback. Um but for the purposes of future development that they are planning for this property, they would like to bring that fence all the way to the front yard um all the way to the property line that abuts East Nwood

Drive. So that is essentially what is being requested today is to allow the 8ft fence to be along East Nwood Drive here. Um when staff was looking at this, we did take note that this property is located almost at the eastern terminus of Nwood Drive. East Nolwood Drive right here um just down the street does dead end at a culde-sac and this property does a butt um a significant city drainage lot. Um so right over here is where city property starts. This extends just to give you a frame of reference extends all the way around back behind um like the Grand Gateway Hotel is how far that city-owned property extends. So, like I said, the applicant does anticipate um developing on this property here in the near future. Um the fence like they're proposing um will allow for them to secure the site so that when construction does happen, the equipment and the materials that are there for the purposes of construction um are not vulnerable to theft or any sort of um other activity that might occur on the property. As of right now, with there being no fencing, they do experience quite a bit of trespassing on this property. Um, the iron fencing will still allow for um a level of um seeing into the property for both code enforcement and for the police department to be able to see what's happening on the property, but will provide security for the applicant. So staff is recommending approval of this variance request um with the consideration that it has minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood um and that it does not appear to be injurious or detrimental to the public good. I'll stand for any questions the applicants in the audience as well. Oh yes, elevation of the fence. There you go. That's what it's going to look like. So

black iron fencing um not opaque um so still will be see-through. Mr. Chair Vicki. Um Cassie, could you also explain what the future use is? I think that's important to demonstrate why security is needed.

Yes. So, um the applicant does operate a um a foundation business if I'm correct. Um so, they will be anticipating to build their office building on this property. Um and so that's what they'll be they'll be operating. They also have thrown out the idea of potentially subdividing this property at some point in time and putting two buildings on it. That's why you see whoops on the site plan that there's potentially a second building site over here. Um and then they are also moving um the approach to the west just a little bit. Currently, this is where that approach exists. They are moving it to the west just a little bit um to be able to access this site and still allow for a potential another future access over here if they do build again.

Mr. Chair, I just thought it was important to note that this is zoned general commercial and while office use is certainly permitted in general commercial, a contractor's yard would not be, but we can appreciate that there is a need for security alone. Thanks, Vicki. Just for my recollection, the the city has a a park development down the street from this on the books. um does it run into that drainage area and and sort of redevelop the the storm water feature or is it separate from that? I think if we can have Todd uh chime in on that one.

Sure, Todd. Yeah, the property to the east there is a regional pond. Um, I do know that the parks department has a they're working on a plan to develop that property and as a part of it there there will be some work on the pond too to uh increase the capacity of it. But this this project here would not impact that though. Okay. Thank you. Anything else from the commission on this one? Fence.

Thank you, chair. Um, so, so the fence is, uh, you can actually see through it, you know, for the security and for fire. If they wanted to change that and and and actually board that up as opposed to having it, you know, having the visibility is do they have to come in front of the planning commission again? Mr. Chair, Vicki, the proposal today is a rot iron fence. It's a very decorative fence. And so if it's the desire of the zoning board of adjustment to grant this um you can stipulate that it's to allow a rot iron black fence as proposed. Thank you Karen.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I think this is a an adequate request because it's it's at the end of nowhere really and uh I think it'll in be an improvement to the neighborhood and so I would make a motion to approve this with the uh idea that this is not injurious to the neighborhood and it seems like a special circumstance. Uh Mr. chair for the motion maker and seconder a friendly amendment that the proposed black rot iron fence I'll add that to my thank you yeah thanks

all right Karen made the motion as she stated Eric Hikis seconded that motion any discussion on the motion to uh approve the variance with the revised stipulation. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Motion to adjourn the meeting. All right. Karen beat me to it. Karen made the motion to adjurnn. Vince made the motion to second. All those in favor, please say, "I." I.

All right. That takes us to the Rap City Planning Commission meeting for December 4th, 2025, beginning at 7:09 in the morning. If any member of the audience wishes to speak to an item on the planning commission agenda today, there are speaker request forms on the table along the left wall. Please fill out the request with the agenda number of the item you wish to speak to and hand it to the staff seated over there. Items 1 through 4 have been placed on the consent calendar today and may be approved as a group. Action will be taken on all consent items in accordance with staff's recommendation by a single vote. Any item may be removed from the consent calendar by any planning commissioner, staff member, or audience member for separate consideration at this time. Findings of this planning commissioner recommendations to the city council. The city council will make the final decision with the exception of the following items. Item two, 25 UR035. Item three, 25 PD034. And item four, 25 UR037. The Rapid City Planning Commission's action on these three items is final unless any party appeals that decision to the Rapid City Council. All appeals must be submitted in writing to the Department of Community Development by close of business on the seventh full calendar day following action by the planning commission. Are there any items one through four that staff would like removed today?

Number three, please. Okay. Any items one, two, or four that any planning commissioner would like removed for separate consideration? And are there any items one, two, or four that any audience member would like removed for separate consideration? The chair will then entertain a motion to approve items one, two, and four in accordance with staff's recommendations. Motion should approve items one, two, and four.

All right. Vince made the motion to approve those items and Eric Hikas seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes. Item three. Mr. Chair, uh we pulled item three. Uh Alicia noted that she needed to abstain from this one. All right. Our recommendation is to approve with stipulations. Any other questions from the commission on item three?

Karen. Mr. Chair, I'll move approval of the item number three with the stipulations. Okay. All right. Karen made the motion to approve item three with stipulations. Pat seconded that motion. And Alicia will be abstaining from this item. Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number five.

Good morning again. Item number five before you is a major amendment to a plan development overlay to allow an addition to an attached garage with a reduced sideyard setback. So right now we are at 3910 Park Ridge Drive. This property is zoned lowdensity residential one with a planned development overlay. Future land use of this property is lowdensity neighborhood and takes access off of Park Ridge Drive which is a local street. What the applicant is proposing to do here, this property is currently developed with a single family dwelling with an attached twocar garage. They are proposing to add a third stall onto this garage. So you can see it here on the east side of this property. The addition would be a one stall garage about 264 square ft in size and um would be like I said on the east side. They are also proposing to expand their driveway um in order to accommodate getting access to that third garage stall. So when staff was looking at this um the reduced setback does have to come through as an exception through the plan development process. So, they are requesting to reduce that east sideyard setback from what would be 8 ft to 6 1/2 ft. You can see right here, this is that proposed garage addition. Um, so that reduction would go down to 6 1/2 ft. The purpose of a sideyard setback requirement is to make sure that there's adequate separation between structures for privacy and also for fire safety. When staff was looking at this, um the fire department did note that if the major amendment is approved that on that east side because um it will be most impactful to the east adjacent property, um the fire department does want a stipulation that there be no windows on the east wall, that the east wall be constructed with fire rated material, and that the sit um not allow any

ventilation into the attic for fire safety. Public works did also note on this one as well because you can see here is the new area of the driveway the maximum width of the driveway within the right of way is 30 ft. It can expand um widen beyond that within the property boundaries but within the right of way 30t is the maximum. So when they submit their building permit for this, if this does get approved, they will need to show on the site plan that that 30 foot maximum driveway width is not um exceeded. Um they are proposing this as they do have um additional or they do have children that will be soon driving um and so they are proposing this third garage doll in order to allow for additional cars um to be parked within the garage structure. So, this did originally come in as a minimal amendment to this plan development overlay because it is within the parameters of what could be approved through a minimal amendment administratively. However, when staff was reviewing that minimal amendment, we found that because of the proximity to that east adjacent property and because three stall garages are not um something that is dominant in this neighborhood, most of the garages in this neighborhood are just twocar garages. staff found that this was more an appropriate request for a major amendment so that the public notification requirement was there and so that the surrounding neighborhood and the neighboring property owners um could come and state their support or concerns with the application through the public hearing process. As of date, um staff did receive one letter of support from the property owner to the south across the street on Park Ridge Drive. um they support the request um stating that it will help alleviate cars being parked um in the driveway, over the sidewalk or on the street. Um so I do want to point out

in terms of separation, this structure, even after it is constructed, will still be approximately 31 ft from the adjacent dwelling on the east property. There is a a deck on the the west side of the east abudding property and this structure will still be about 19 ft from that deck as well. So it does still maintain adequate separations. Um so here you can see the property as it exists today. That third garage stall would go over here in this area. Here's a little bit closer picture of what that separation looks like. As you can see, they'll have to do some grading and things along those lines um to be able to level this area out for that third garage stall addition. Um here is east on Park Ridge Drive. So, you can see even in this picture, twocar garage, twocar garage. Um when we went out there and took staff pictures, we did also note that there are some properties that do have one double stall garage and then a single garage as well. also technically a threecar garage. Um and then this is west on Park Ridge Drive. So again, here you can see double car garage. This one has a double car garage. Um but ultimately staff um given the fact that the neighboring property owners in the surrounding properties did now have the ability to weigh in on this if there was questions or concerns and staff has not received anything. Staff does recommend approval of this major amendment with the stipulations noted in the staff report. I'll stand for any questions. I don't think the applicant is here today.

All right. Eric Hikus. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh quick question. Can we go to the image that shows the side and the there? That's good enough. Uh will this impact drainage uh on the neighbors parcel? That there. That's better. Uh, will this create a negative drainage challenge for the neighbor or this property by extending? Looks like I'll let Todd speak to that. All right, Todd.

I don't expect there to be a significant impact on drainage. Uh, the neighbors property is required um or the building code would require that they are draining away from their house as well so that there's a soil. Okay. Thank you, Todd. Would a retaining wall be required or no? Looks like three, four feet of grade chain maybe there. We're under permits for this. What's that? If a wall is required there, it's permit. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Thank you, Vince. Thank you. Um, so right now there's a tree obviously with no leaves, no uh foliage or anything on it, but is is this tree going to have to be removed?

Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Vicki, um Todd, could you explain what's the maximum width of the approach that would be allowed at this location,

Todd? So, for a three-car garage that is set back less than 30 feet to the rightway, the maximum approach is 30 feet wide. That's I think that was in the stipulations as well. The current one is 24 ft. So they can widen that up to six more feet. And then once they're inside the sidewalk line, they can cut over to a wider spot. Okay. Anything else? No. Thank you.

Anything else from the commission? Questions, comments? Karen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to move approval of this item with the stipulations as noted. All right. Karen made the motion to approve with the stipulations. Mike Quasnney seconded that. Any discussion on the motion to approve? All those excuse me, all those in favor, please say I. I.

Are there any opposed? Motion carries. Item number six. It stopped working. It works.

So, good morning. Item number six is a reszone application to reszone the northern portion of the Rapid City landfill from public district to heavy industrial district. So this property currently contains a material recovery facility which is right there, a co- composting facility up above and then small accessory buildings. So the area of the rezone is going to be approximately 104 acres in size. It excludes the east the leased out areas to the Army National Guard and to the Community Corrections Inc. which is the areas that are shown in blue on that map. So the property is currently zoned public district. Uh the southern portion of the landfill as you can see is zoned heavy industrial district. And then if you look uh south of Elkale Road uh between Old Folsam Road and Highway 79, that area is primarily zoned heavy industrial district to just this general area. So when looking at this reszone request, staff did think that this was an extension of the existing land use patterns in this area. It's also within close proximity to the Black Hills Industrial Center as well. So, the future land use of this property is public, which does not allow the proposed zoning district. However, the city's comprehensive plan does allow flexibility when applying future land use categories when you're achieving the overarching vision for Rapid City's future is how the comprehensive plan words it. And so the solid waste division has indicated that this reszone is necessary for the future land uses and operations of the landfill that otherwise would be not permitted or excluded in the public district. So the property is accessed off 79 which is classified as a principal arterial street on the city's major street plan. This is just an image of the co composting building uh looking north uh

towards 79 looking south towards 79. So staff is recommending that this item be approved because uh it's an extension of the existing land use patterns. comprehensive plan supports. It allows for that flexibility in future land use uh applying future land use categories and it's necessary to allow for the future operation of the landfill. So with that, I'll stand by for any questions. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Vicki,

uh just another point of clarification. While it is zoned public and public does allow the city to do a lot of different things on public own land in this case um the city is looking at partnering with GCC and the next item on the agenda uh is a conditional use uh to allow uh facility to process tires into an alternative fuel source um at the existing landfill. And that's what what initiated this reszone. when you look at the definition of public, it's for those uses that are operated by the city, by the state or by the federal government. And so to just make it as clean as we could, uh, and what more appropriate area to allow heavy industrial than next to the landfill, uh, we worked with public works to, uh, bring forward this resone to heavy industrial. Part of the reason for doing this is um to increase the revenue options at the landfill. We currently are struggling with uh all of the services that we're providing and there's a cost to that and trying to keep that cost down to the end user. Doing things like this at in the long run helps us address some of those issues. Thanks, Vicki. Eric Hikis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I really want to put out a lot of praise for our landfill. Um, I I think we have one of the more progressive and innovative landfills in the country here in Rapid City. I take great pride in our landfill. Um, I know that, you know, trash is not exactly glamorous, but um, the the way that we handle ours is is really ahead of its time. It's good to see this uh expansion happening. Will there be Tanner? Will there be an access from Catron as part of this? Is that considered uh is that I know we front there, but do we No. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Um I'll be supporting this. Thank you,

Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Never heard of TDAs or TDFs until now, so it's kind of interesting. Um my questions are about the facilities. Um but since you know the next item is you know this is zoning so it would kind of impact my uh vote for this. Uh my question is with the closest house being you know 62 miles away um I know they passed all the permits and you know pass muster for all the uh environmental what will the you know the the actual impact be to in uh surrounding areas? Noise we talking particulates we talking fumes. I mean, I know they've done all their studies, but what will the actual end result be for people close to this facility when it's all said and done?

I think that's a valid question and it is more specific to the next item, but Tanner's going to ask you to continue that item because we didn't notice it correctly. Um, they're going to process the tires here to get them into a state where they become fuel alternative, but they're not going to be burned at this location. Right. Um GCC purchased the cement plant property. Um that use would go at that location and that is regulated by D uh by Danner, not by us. Right. So half of it's going to Dakota and half it's going to sale to the public it looks like from a report.

Um I guess my you I can save it till the next one. But I'm just curious, you know, how much all this will be processed indoors? I'm assuming nothing will be processed, you know, out in the open. Well, that's the very reason why we're continuing it. As we too thought in visiting with public works staff that it was indoors and advertised it accordingly, but it's uh Tanner, could you describe the design of that building? It's um I guess it's a covered wing to at the end of that building. So, there's a covered roof over top of it, but it it won't be indoors or enclosed. It'll be out in the open. Okay. Just a covered roof or a roof over top.

Gotcha. And my other question would be, you know, stockpiles. If you had a processed product sitting outdoors, what, you know, if it rains, would it leech into the ground? I mean, you know, these tires obviously have chemicals in them. So, just kind of curious. These tires are out there right now. I mean, when they're processed and ground up into pellets, you know. Yes. That that was my question. Uh hopefully we'll have public works in the room with us uh at the next meeting. They believe the conditional use is being continued today. So, usually when we continue an item, we don't discuss it. Sure. Um, so if you wanted to continue the reszone with it, you could, even though we do believe that heavy industrial is appropriate at this location independent of this specific use. Got

and this use is conditional in heavy industrial. So, you will have the opportunity to determine if you align with that use and then any expansion going forward would be brought back to you as well.

Understood. Thanks, Mike Quasnney. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Those uh questions that just came up from Cali here is some of the questions that I had. The other question I had, I guess, and you kind of uh alluded to it is what does the uh traffic along Catron see? Um there is a lot of traffic on Catron. It is a major structure. I mean, major um road. I I guess the view we went from thinking it's a building to now we've got an open and and I guess the view to the public. The uh landfill does a great job with their little hill that they have of hiding what they have there. Uh, I guess in view of this, are we going to have uh an exposed area that is now viewed by the public and and changes what the public sees in the landfill?

Taylor. Yeah. So, that would I'm I just got my cursor. If you're talking about the TDA and the tire processing facility, it's over on on this side and I believe that's covered from view from Catherine Boulevard. you correct me if I'm wrong, but yeah.

But yeah, it's quite a distance away too from Catherine Boulevard. Yep. Does that help you, Mike?

So, there is not going to be any change to the elevation of what's out there today. uh any significant change that would open this area up for view and and I agree. I think that the city has done a phenomenal job trying to ensure that we uh are operating the landfill without creating an isore uh along Catherine Boulevard. Um uh Highway 79 more of a truck route. When you drive down that corridor, you look over, you do see some part of the landfill, but even the open raw operation is pretty hidden from our two uh arterial streets.

They've done a phenomenal job of that and I I I compliment them on that. Um I just didn't want to uh go forward and then change that uh what they've done so well. The other I like the idea that there's a possibility, you know, I think it came to council about the landfill prices going up and hopefully this will help to keep prices down for the public that um we the citizens of Rapid City don't have to pay a whole lot more in and uh I I don't know how that affects like if you drop tires off, do you still have to pay or is now is it a free or how does this affect it? I guess I I don't know. Um and maybe that's a question that we go forward when we get into the building and it's not even our maybe our area of concern, but um I I think it opens up some opportunity for us to discuss it in the public.

Mr. Chair. Okay.

So, this is great conversation, but it's really specific to the proposed use, which is the next item. If you prefer, you could make a recommendation to continue the reszone so that they could be heard in conjunction with each other. Or if you believe that this corridor again south of Catherine is where we should be moving more of our heavy industrial uses, then it would be appropriate to support the reszone independent of the use. And then uh if the conditional use permit is then reviewed at your next meeting with the proper notification showing that it is not a fully enclosed building but partially um that would be the appropriate time to put additional stipulations or uh conditions on that use. I I guess I would uh make the proposal or I would move this forward to the next meeting is what I'd like to do.

Do you have a date on that? Yeah, January 8th is your next planning commission meeting and coincide it with what we're going to be discussing in the next item. So, it would be to continue the reszone to January 8th to be heard in conjunction with the associated conditional use permit. Please. Is there a second to Mike's motion as stated by Vicki from the commission? Okay. Kelly seconded that. Uh discussion on the motion. I um got a few lights up here. Karen, I didn't turn your mic on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I understand. And and this is not to the motion obviously because I just wanted to add one thing for the next meeting that we have when we're talking about the next item and that is is the um storage of any trucks that are on there where they're going to be located and also the weight of the trucks that are going to be on Catron and those places. How is that going to affect the the uh road system? So, I don't need the answers, but I just thought maybe we should add that to the mix of what we're going to talk about. So, that's it. Mr. Chair, Vicki, we can get answers to those questions and actually update the report.

I've got another um city light up comdev 3. Kip.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Uh just to answer the question, I did take a look on Google Street View and you really cannot see the landfill at all from Katherine Boulevard. That hill blocks the majority of it. And then as you get closer to the intersection with Campbell and Highway 79, the uh driver's license facility really blocks off the view from that building that where the tire processing would be. It does it is quite evident along Highway 79, but as we talked about, that's more of an industrial type development truck route roadway. So, you'll see it from there, but really can't see it from Katran Boulevard based on Google Street View. I'm going to chime in here with a question just on Tanner. You said future uses um is the reason for the um reszone request. Are there other uses besides this tire recycling being considered that would not be allowed in public or is it just this on the agenda today?

Uh we can check back with the public works staff and I can't defer to Todd because this is not in his his uh area. Um uh but we can certainly add that to the report as well. And I know part of it is that by working with an outside company that can take something that would just fill the landfill and do something positive with it and partnering with them and giving them a spot at the landfill so that we don't have um tires stored elsewhere in the city. Uh I I think there's positive in that and I'm not sure uh what other master plan projects would be coming forward and that's a part of why what you have to look at by zoning at heavy industrial is that appropriate for this area. Uh what are the permitted uses? Any conditional use uh would always come before you. Uh, and this certainly is a conditional use. Uh, but we'll add that to the list of things to try to get some answers on and put it in the report.

I'd appreciate that. I I'm not I just think of this as the dump, you know, and what the city's doing there and if there's plan other plans, you know, in addition to this tire recycling. It'd be good to know as we consider a reszone. Sure. Mike Quazny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we mentioned at the last meeting, we have this street as um a truck route, yes, but we also have it as the uh an entrance into our city. So, I hope as things go forward, we always consider uh what we're doing to make that entrance look. And even though we're not we're we're taking care of Catron, we also need to take care of that entrance to our city and make sure that that continues to look good and not uh create a view that is not uh conducive to what we want. So um I just bring that up as a add-on.

All right, Eric Hik. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh I was thinking along the same lines, Mike. Uh in fact, we talked about that there wouldn't be any access from this parcel on to Catron. Um maybe some language or consideration in the long term about viewshed buffering or that sort of thing. Impact of view as part of the whole holistic uh work we're doing here. Um maybe that should be a little bit maybe some sort of setback or something could be considered in the process as well. So, yep. I thinking right along the same lines as you, Mike. Mr. Chair,

we cannot approve a reszone with conditions. The state of South Dakota doesn't allow for conditional reasons. However, if you do believe that you want to see all uses when you do consider the reszone, if it is continued and consider at your January 8th meeting, you could put a plan development overlay on this this reszone area of the landfill and then everything would be brought before you for consideration.

All right, something to think about. So the the motion on the floor or the motion that exists is to continue this item to January 8th to be heard in conjunction with the following item apparently. Um any further comments on that questions? All those in favor of continuing please say I. I. Any opposed? No. Okay. That would carry though with Eric voting no clarification. Oh, can you you want to get on the mic? I got a Eric.

Sorry. My no is not opposing the reszone. My no is I'm ready to vote on this today. So, um just to be clear. So, all right. Item number seven. So, as Vicki mentioned, item number seven, we're asking that it be continued to the January uh planning commission meeting uh just due to a publishing error. All right. Motion on this one from anyone. Second. Oh, you got to make the motion, Vince. I thought she made Oh, no. I'll make a motion.

Okay. Vince made the motion to continue to January 8th and Pat seconded that motion. Any discussion on the motion to continue? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. All right, that's the end of the regular agenda. Any items for us, Vicki?

Well, as you probably picked up on, we do not have a second meeting in December. We stopped that several years ago. Um it was hard on the applicants. It always fell right before Christmas. Um it became cumbersome for them and so there was pretty much universal support. So we all get a break. Uh January 8th will be the next time we see you. So we just wanted to wish all of you happy holidays. Be safe, be happy, and be grateful that we live in this fantastic city. Nice sentiment. Yeah. Merry Christmas to you all as well. Seems so strange. Yeah, no kidding. All right. Anything from the commission? Move to adjourn. Okay.

Second. Karen made the motion to adjurnn. Eric Hikus seconded that motion. All those in favor, please say I. I. And we are adjourned at 7:42. Woohoo. Okay, go home.