Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

That's what I say. My button should be everything should be 30 years ago. I was talking about how it's just not even there. Okay, let's call to order our planning commission work session for May 27th of 2025 for Roy City. We'll get started with the pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Tannery. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. The first item on the agenda is the continued discussion for potential amendments to the Roy City annexation policy to include an area north of the railroad tracks um which are north of Hinkley Drive and east of 1900 West consisting of 20 about 25 acres at approximately 1811 West 3,300 south. So this is just a continuation of last meeting way we talked about it. We open it up for affected entities to make comment. Way the state statutes stayed is after that meet meeting and we open it up for 10 days for those affected entities to give us a written comment. Um so that ended Friday. Uh we received one comment which is in your your packet from Ogden City. Um so tonight it's it's basically to discuss how we want to proceed um proceed forward amend the the policy plan to

include that area um with the language as provided in exhibit B um or amend the language in um with what was provided but by Ogden um or not to proceed forward. So those are kind of your options. Proceed with as as written, proceed as amended or not proceed. So again, this is just a policy plan. It doesn't bring any properties in. Um so just kind of like a general plan, just kind of an amendment to that. So it really is how would you guys like to proceed? Any questions first? if you have any. No, it's just that one parcel, right, that uh I guess the previous owners, it's two parcels. One's smaller than the other. One's right on the corner and one's kind of south and east of it. Oh, I see. But there's total of five in total if you go what's beyond it. But that's not an area that we're including. Yeah. yet. Um the property owners haven't made mention and without consulting with them and Roy City doesn't want to proceed with with those others. It would just be these I guess it would be something maybe for future discussion if they if they wanted to they would just have to go through the same process of amending our policy plan and then applying for annexation. I think it's great. It's not like the 80s and 90s where you just pick a swat of here we go. This is what we want. So,

kind of like what you see in the the map of the policy yellow and green. It's big swath of lands and and again those property owners are not can't talk are not under any obligation to come in. They would have to make those applications to annex in. So but you did say that this particular one has asked they've they've contacted Roy. Okay. It's the only reason why we're doing them. That's kind of where I'm at is to me it's about the property owners and their their rights. And I realize this could create a conflict with Ogden's area, but it does nothing but give the property owner options to to do. Um, I know that when we looked at one of these particular sites in the past for development, we ran into all kinds of uh because they considered Roy serving the property. And this basically Ogden outlined in their letter was what we ran into is this. Yeah. I mean the the applicant and property owner would have to figure out how to get everything from Roy to serve that property. Roy, Bonavista, Ogden, however, you know, whoever they can get it from. It was considered pretty cost prohibitive. But again, that's just, you know, information for the table. Not saying it's going to be easy. Is it easier for the property owner to do one city over the other? Um, great question. I don't know. Again, Roy City doesn't really have all the utilities down there, but Ogden does, I believe. So, and 33rd 3,300 South in Midland, they may

have it all there. I'm not sure what utilities are in 1900. I know the across the way on 3350 that little manufacturing park that we have it is serviced by Bonav Vista Water and Central Weaver Sewer. So it's not even Roy. Steve, one question that I had just as I was reading through this as well as Ogden's letter and I promise that this comes from a place of genuine questioning. So this is what do you know when this was added to Ogden's annexation plan. Well, I know the portion that they the annexation portion that they gave you in their in their letter. Yeah. Was from their 2002 general plans. Can I then ask why they've waited to annex it this long? Again, it's usually property owners that that request annex in Ogden just identified in that general plan. This is an area that we would include in in Ogden City. And if you see it, it inc incorporated a lot of little ins and outs, ups and downs. So this is the last portion of what they called area 7 um to be looked at. So again, it's it's usually land owners application to do it. Um, I know years ago, 2018, the state amended the the state statutes on annexation and said if it's an island in the middle of a city, um, if the county deemed it to be okay to annex in, then the city could annex it in. Um, we took advantage of that in 2018 and we incorporated six islands that we basically surrounded and the county had identified them as annexable. That's a word it is now. It's on record.

So at this stage we don't really know what the cost of anything really be because they would have to the owners would have to look into Yeah. those different one annexing in and two developing up to them. So this is just giving them that option basically. Yeah. Because if it's not in our policy plan, we can entertain an application. But if they're interested, then I mean if the property owners want it, then we should at least give them that option like what Ryan was saying. And does changing that policy affect anything else in the city? No. Though it's really just that one. It's just that area. You look at the policy plan. Yeah. The yellow and green has already kind of been fought over between West Haven Hooker Roy. Most of it Roy that's in in our boundary lines and everything all this other cities have done. So what do you think, Ryan? You look thoughtful those eyes. He shared my thoughts. So, will we just vote on that? Like what's the procedure exactly? We just move it to a planning commission. I still have to go to the public hearing the next meeting and and then if you want to incorporate any changes to language that I provided um incorporate any of Ogden City's comments or concerns or again not proceed at all. Didn't the person from Ogden come down? Did they talk to us? Right. Yeah, they were here last meeting and they said above us and they see all right with it, wasn't he? No, no, they they want to keep it in Ogden. Well, he was a very nice against her. I thought he was fine with it. No, and it doesn't pro the thing that I the

reason I don't hesitate on this is it doesn't take away that option from Ogden. It It doesn't I mean, you can have overlapping areas here. So I mean if the land owner gets into it and doesn't want to annex into Roy, they still have that option option potentially of applying and going through Ogden. I mean that's that's a separate process but that doesn't So it gives the property owner more options because Roy would already be decided and then they could decide to do Ogden and then do that. Oh, I didn't understand that part. Yeah, I think that's a good idea. What we do doesn't take away the Ogden area at all. the option for Roy there to meet some of our goals with I know I'm just saying that so it's to me I'm with Ryan we might as well just throw our name in there and say yes this would benefit us and we want that opportunity to let the manics enjoy because I think all property owners should be able to do what they want with their property then reason except for Chris I'm afraid what he might do yeah you're right but I think that they should have the options to explore whatever whatever is best for them as the owners. There's no real drawback for Roy. Yeah. Right. I mean, again, it's just a policy plan. It doesn't obligate us. I mean, Ogden still know can go through the process. Basically, our decision is to say if it comes about then we'll decide at the time, right? But if it's not in our plan, they don't have an option to come to Roy. And and the benefit Ogden is if they're the only applicant, they're the only choice. But where we we are interested I I'm with Ryan say we we put it there and if the city council gets it before them and decides something different like I I don't have a lot of skin in this game so and we put I mean I think it would be a good property that would be a good addition to Roy.

Well, and so if they applied then we would go through like yeah the annexation the annexation process is another right grueling little process. I mean it's right they have to kind of go through the process with the county and then the city. Yeah because I was going to say most of like cost concerns and all that would just be down the road because we don't if they don't even apply then we don't need to know that. So again it's not information that's necessary for this discussion. Yep. Okay. We get to Well, then I I say we move it on then. I'll burn it. Thumbs for thumbs down. That's what we were saying. Thumbs up, thumbs down. Consensus. Yeah. Anybody not want to move it forward? I say thumbs up. Okay. Any language changes? in the description of area six. I mean, the great thing is you got Ogdens to reference it, too. And you can you can thank Corey Snder who used to be from Centerville for writing this. I worked for Ogden at the time, so I knew Little insider info there. Okay, let's go ahead then, Steve. Okay, then we'll proceed on. So, we'll go through us and then to the council to make It requires a public hearing from planning commission and a public hearing for city council. Y probably won't be on the next one. You don't have enough time or you do for us it 10 days. Huh. Is that what you need? 10 days. No, 10 days was the public comment period. It's that was after I mean noticing period and comment period are separate. Yeah. So they will be notified in in the

appropriate time frame it need to be for the public hearing and then the council will notify again for their public hearing. Thanks. Never seen so many public hearing requirements and seems extraordinarily long especially for developers who run the state. But we'll get changed next session. patients on their docket to change. Okay. Well, with that, we'll move on to the next. So, no language change, no additions, subtractions. Okay. Good. Yeah. We'll move on to the next one, which is commissioner's minute. Um, I just wanted to take a quick minute and just maybe get a little bit of a fill because we've had two projects come through the last month that to me seemed almost identical yet we came to different outcomes and I just wondered if there's a little bit of room for discussion on on those as to maybe what the differences are. Which one was you referring to? Um the one on 5500 which was the um town home project and then the one the last one that one um was 25 against and then the one was four right against sunset and those two seem very very similar. I think you're talking the train station one. No nos. There was one on 55 or 6,000 south. No 5500 South and 4,000 West about 4 and a half acres. Well, first one was the one where the guy cleaned up the property and and that one just passed the council. You guys did a 42 vote to deny and then a month later on 6,000 South next to the railroad tracks it was a 70 to approve.

Those two just seemed really similar to me. And I to me I I mean I voted obviously against and for because of the proximity to similar housing is what my vote was. So I'm looking at 6,000 to the to the south was apartments if I remember right. Mhm. From uh from Clinton or Sunset Sunset. Um Clint then you a buffer really is there with the railroad tracks from the housing to the west. So to me it seemed like if we're going to put something in that was ideal because it was buffered and close enough to that type of housing. The one on 55 I thought was again in that you know single family home area that It just seemed logical it stays that same kind of development. So to me I saw them as two different areas with two different types of you know that's that's how it was for me. That makes sense. I was going to say same what he said what he said. No, and I I just feel like that's a good discussion to have because like I said, I I view them very very similarly and, you know, kind of looking at the property, you know, I drive past the one all the time and there just really isn't much else that could go in there. You look at the shape of the the parcels and things like that and trying to put a road in there just really wouldn't be wouldn't be functional. Um, you know, I I know just one of the goals that we have, at least I have, I should say. I shouldn't say we, but Roy City has is trying to provide, you know, a breadth of housing options. And we just don't have a lot of land available. And I don't know, it's it's hard because you hear what people say and people live in those

neighborhoods. I live in that neighborhood. I know um, Commissioner Bailey lives not too far. We kind of triangulate, make a triangle between our houses and that one. But um and and I get it, you know, we want to keep things the way that they are and but also like most of the projects that come before us, you know, if if they were proposing the same if they owned the property, they would be proposing the same exact thing that was being proposed there. And I look at it and it's like pretty much anything that anybody would bring to the table is is a hard no. So, I just want to be cognizant of kind of looking through those things and and I appreciate that there is some differences, you know, with Sunset having um some different housing that kind of absuts it. I know uh Hooper has a little bit, not not a lot, but there is um some multifamily housing that's not too far just on the other side of of Emma Russell there. But I think as I look at what's coming before us, um, with the the goal to have moderate income or some affordable income housing that we're seeing a lot of going away from single family to this, you know, higher density, medium density housing and and I don't know that um that's the solution for all of that if they can build affordable housing, single family housing, that's great. They don't seem to want to because they don't make as much money on it. But is it possible? Yes, it is. And and and I've heard arguments that they're not desirable. Well, if the price doesn't make it desirable, I don't know what will because sometimes you just you live in what you can afford. If it's a trailer in somebody's backyard, that's what you're living in, right? So, but if we if we're looking at the diversity and and save some sort of

continuity and it's my belief that, you know, we look for that again diversity that we're not just looking at what they're moving towards. It seems like they're migrating to in the whole area is town homes, you know, medium density, high density development. And do we keep that diversity within our city? We keep what we believe is um the majority of our community is already single family home. It is. And actually I was thinking about the guy that spoke about the one on the UTA but he had his child with him. Yeah. At first I wish I would have told him thanks for speaking up but then I really thought about what you were saying about the no driveways and stuff and I was really thinking about what he said about he wants everyone to have grass or a little lawn. Um two different locations you're talking about. I know this Wait, I'm getting there. So, I reached out I work with a lot of younger people that are just getting married and having first and second babies. And of of the 10 that I have worked with in the last four years, seven of them have bought town homes. So, I reached out to them and said, "Why did you buy a town home?" Every one of them said they wanted a town because they don't want to work on a yard. They don't want to be responsible for mowing and all of that. I asked my own kids, "Would you guys rather have a house or a town home?" My kids are 27 to 22. Well, first off, they said they'd rather live at home cheap. But they don't want to do yard work. They don't I don't know your gener if I can address you a little bit. Are you finding that more with your friends? And people don't, we grew up, we knew we were going to have yard work and stuff and now there's another option. And I don't know if the generation that we're raising necessarily wants to spend their weekends doing yard work and they're not as possessed with having so many things. Like they ride their bikes and they want to be by the train. So I kind of I kind of think it's a good idea because I think things have shifted their

mentality. They value different things than I did at that same age. So, I do think that the town homes and things are where we should be going because that's what the people that are buying the starter homes or the smaller places want in my opinion from what I know of what the age group that I work with. Rings true for my kids right now. I I can speak to that as well. I think that is the case because they do want options. You know, they want the benefits of being able to own property without the responsibilities of taking care of land whether that's because of work or whatever. And so, and it generally is a little bit cheaper than, you know, buying a a full-blown house on a quarter in. But is that is that option? Exactly. If they don't want to buy a house that's a, you know, 100 years old and they want to buy something newer, but they want to have a yard, where do they buy it? They don't. Well, well, they do because the town houses people are building give them green space. They have playgrounds and they have like it's everyone in their community that are their age. It's not yours. Yeah. I'm saying that the people that want a house that they want to mow a lawn, they want to have their own garden, they want to do all that. Where do they go if they want something newer? Not going to be in Roy. Not in Roy because we don't have the roof for it. That's the hard part is, you know, when I started on the planning room. Well, yeah, we had like 97 acres. We're 99 now, aren't we? That were available. 99% built out in That's what I'm getting at. So, it was like 97 acres that were available when I started on. So there's not, you know, if we had a bunch of big open pastures, you know, there there's the opportunity to do a variety of houses, but when we're in small small areas and I I look, you know, I grew up in Logan, and I think one of the mistakes that they made was basically, you know, they'd create these areas where it's like, okay, this whole area is now apartments and high density, you know, and it it's it's okay, but I think distributing that throughout is in in my opinion a smart idea rather than clustering it all in one place. And if

you take out the area kind of around 1900, there really isn't a lot of multifamily options. And I I think the moderate housing is is kind of a oxymoron, a farce. I mean, you're chasing something that's never going to be achievable, you know, because what's a moderate income to me is a luxury a luxury house, but I'm just an old boomer. So, um, like you're not on that, but but you you know, you look at the the one parcel and what was like 11 houses that they could fit under the current zoning had we left it. Well, we didn't leave it where it was, but you know, and and you build a road in there and infrastructure. I I don't know what that costs, half a million, 3/4 of a million somewhere in there. And then you add that onto the cost of a house, no matter how affordable the developer is trying to make it, you throw another 50 75,000 on top just in infrastructure. and you just went from something that's moderate to something that's never gonna sell. And my issue desirable with that particular application was the extreme in the zoning going from I mean he was going to the most high if I remember right my memory serves he was going to a pretty high density. I don't know that I would have been so opposed to it if it would have been a more moderate shift, but I mean that left it open for I mean he was talking about a nice little development, but we're talking about a reasonzone. We can't base our decision on a proposed development he's talking about. We have to base I mean we're changing the zone which leaves a potential for a lot of stuff. And I did that was that was what I was most uncomfortable with with that extreme change in the zone. That was definitely part of the thing for me is it it felt like well we don't this is what he maybe wants but we also couldn't that maybe he'll decide to change it his prerogative and someone else will come in and yeah which is their prerogative

but um yeah but you don't know what's really going in there and nor do you have the right to house no right well exactly just look at it our for zone allows for 12 units an acre Yeah. That's that's high density. It's an acre and it could be apartments or town homes. Yeah. Or 6,000 foot single family homes. But you can't Well, we can't decide. I mean, it wasn't what we were deciding then, right? Exactly. The project isn't before. I mean, it sounded the project itself sounded very nice and and if that was what the application was for, probably would have felt differently about it. But again, we can't ask him. No. So, they just can give you an idea. They want town homes and that's best you're going to get. But that's not necessarily like we're saying what could go in there. And that's what all the residents are worried about is, you know, you're going to a pretty high density project here. And who knows what that's going to look like. So, also the homeowner should have a the land owner should have a right to do what they want with their property. I think I mean if if the if the neighbors don't like it, they should pull together and buy it. And I also think I don't mean that in a mean way for the height of what's going in there. I mean, there were concerns that they were going to just be these absolutely monolithic just these massive buildings and that's just not the case. I mean, it's as far as size, it's going to be very similar to the properties that are around it. So, they're not going to be staring down at their neighbors. Property's opportunity is to sell to whoever they want to. Agreed. And if somebody's going to come out offer a higher dollar because he's going to be able to produce a higher dollar, then then they're going to go, "Yeah, I want to go with that." But our zoning is going to restrict kind of what that is. So they have every right to sell who they want to, but likely they're not going to develop it. They're going to sell it somebody else to develop it.

So I see that. But that's okay. I mean, I think that if I had a big chunk of land that I could sell and I just feel like people should be able to do what they want with their property if it's not going to be detrimental to their neighbors and just because you don't want apartments by you, well, you don't get to decide what other like my neighbors painted their house god aful turquoise. Let me ask if you can hear me. I think it's ugly, but there's nothing I can do about it. I just tell everyone I live by the ugly turquoise house. You know, they have this dogable. Yeah. It's just like I don't get to decide what they do because it's their property and that's what makes where we live great. Well, but we do I'm not gonna argue with you. But we because we we if we look at continuary community, we want to look at livable, you know, communities that we take pride in. Part of that is we got we've got to have some sort of checks and balances saying, okay, this is appropriate, this isn't appropriate, this is good, this isn't good. I think it was appropriate that I think that it's appropriate. if it's not going to be detrimental to their neighbors more than just like I don't want town homes next to me. Well, that's not a good reason. I mean, I just don't think that's a good reason. Doesn't the R4 also have business? No. Or was it R4? Is that R4 allow for Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm just saying like if we changed R4, they could possibly have businesses there as well. So, it's it's not just like he said, it was opening it up to a lot of things that they may not want. and and already in the general plan. I mean, you're a resident, you move in, you look at the general plan, this is the area. I mean, one of the ladies brought up the general plan to us is like this is what the general plan is for our area and this is what we were expecting as property owners. So anyway, I'm just saying like the R4 was just probably not ideal for the in my opinion because that's how I voted obviously, but another one would have been more

appropriate in my opinion which one is right next to R4 R3. There's R3 and some other the only difference is zoning or allowance for business. So, you would have voted for the no business. Would I probably would have, but Oh, I mean, I can't say in the moment. No, I mean, but it's more likely. You would have been more comfortable with the no business portion. That makes sense. I think everybody everybody's saying this like if it wasn't to that extreme. If there was a more moderate thing, I think everybody said they'd be on board. Yeah. Because I'm not ex I think that a lot of points have got brought up that are really good like like diversity of housing. I think that we do need that. I think that that's good for your for e your economics in your city. I think it's good for lots of things, but and especially if it's ownership, you know, if there I mean, we can't dictate that, but if that sounds like that's what he wanted. So, if people have that ownership and can actually purchase something and have something to own, I mean, I know I'm a millennial, an old one, but I have younger siblings that that's their main thing. They want to be able to have a piece of property that they is theirs so they can actually have equity, you know. Yeah. Well, good discussion. So, I I think healthy and I'm one that's not afraid to have some conversation. So, I hopefully everybody kind of saw each other's perspective here a little bit and good. That's one thing I value in the planning commission is we all come from different backgrounds and have different different perspectives and that's a healthy a healthy thing. You want to talk about partner? No, I mean you talk about commissioner just go right for the you know contention. I'm not saying like you're I don't disagree with what he was saying, but on the whole I don't think it was just not what was at hand, but I

understand what you're saying and I don't disagree, but I don't know how somebody plans for that when they're developing something, you know, other than it's just you're cutting out profits for them to accommodate extra park. And is there anywhere that you know, Steve, you've got a lot more experience. I mean, this is your your area of expertise that requires more than one and a half parking spaces for kind of a town home kind of a project. Well, each city is going to be different. I mean, if you compare, take Ogden City for example, their standards are a lot less, especially downtown when they've got so much parking. Same with Salt Lake. I don't think some developments even require parking. you know, you can find it within 500 ft. In downtown Ogden, I know a little bit more in Salt Lake. Well, you've got the the mall parking lot. You've got about 500 extra parking stalls downtown that can be used. Why start requiring? There are other, you know, as you get farther out and their parking standards come into play, but they're not going to be as high as say a rural community Hooper. you know, they're going to require a lot more. In fact, the town homes across from Russell's zoned R four, which is four units to an acre. Yeah. Which is four units to an acre. That's their high density. The parking is equivalent to that. So, each it's going to be different. You know, I think uh Front Runner Station, we have the ability to be less just because of the tracks orientation of that. Our Ford in general is you know, still two stalls per unit plus a half for um for visitors, which is more than a single family home. It's just two stalls. So, and and I was going to do some work for this meeting just at time and that's why we're going to put on the next work

session, but Salt Lake is predicated on rooms and how many parking spaces by bedrooms. And then it it rounded up to the next number. No rounding down, but rounding up. So, a three bedroomedroom town home would require three. Um, so two of those can be or required to be the garages and that would make another one be available. So, um, and that is in that same type of development. So, it's it it's different. I I wanted to go in and and clarify a little bit, but I just didn't have time to get it in time for this agenda. I talked to Steve about it. So we we'll bring some information the next one and just have that discussion and just see what we prefer. You will be happy to know. I drove through a Roy one today like a town home area. Well, actually two today and um they didn't have people parking in the way and stuff. They did have people parking in their driveways, but they didn't have um people parking on the street and like sideways. people seemed to just park right there. And and parking on the street is legal. You can put your creative car out there. Well, yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying that parking wise, it seemed like they weren't overcorating themselves like Well, a lot of those are in HOAs that are pretty strict about they are. So, it's kind of self-p policing a little bit. Now, if it spills out into the public streets, that's a different any of those that are connected to a a public road, right, is a different story sometimes. So, well, I get your concern on what was it Sanders Drive, right? That they were talking about, but yeah, that's but that would have to be something the city decides if they're going to prohibit parking on that street. Yeah. And the parking requirements on the street are are controlled obviously by the city. So, the city gets to

dictate that. But, um yeah, my heartache is seeing what that is. Yeah. Developers thinking it's okay to not. Okay. Well, now that we've slayed those two dragons, any other Commissioner have any items that they want to bring up in the commissioner's minute here? Can I bring up stuff that was brought up in city council? You would like. Okay. I'm just curious. The city council has um talked about us not bringing the parking or the front yard parking thing to them. And I was just wondering what if we're going to do a public hearing on that or what you found out exactly what steps. It's really up to you guys. Okay. I wasn't sure. I mean, they've given you 60 days. Oh, yep. To bring it forward. If you want, we can. I don't know what from last Tuesday. No, it's too it's too The city council was not I'll don't let me say it. I'll let you say it. Okay, I'll say it the best I can. It's been a couple weeks. So, um I don't know. I can't tell if they're unhappy with our decisions or if they just want it to be brought to an official vote so that we're I guess accountable for the decision. But basically, it's the one about putting um the roundabouts. No, it's about putting like the little addition the island allowing parking in the front yard on the side. Right. Yeah. But in the front yard. So like for instance, if you didn't have room for your RV on the drive side, the drive side, then you would be allowed to put one in the front yard on the other side. And we've had Well, they've brought it to us, I don't know how many times,

right? like four times. Okay. And so I guess that and each time it seems like we're basically like we don't want to change it or I don't know what exactly had happened the last three before that but I was only I don't know if I was well we redid the whole parking layout and everything. We redid that and then after that, so the next time was on the um front yard parking in the snow and then we had the inhome businesses that would have taken up garages that would have allowed additional parking. So, I mean, in my opinion, I think we've addressed it as best as we could through changing the the parking ordinance in and of itself and then through those two other things. This is the third thing. Yeah, it's kind of and none of us have found like if there was a a silver bullet here that would solve it, I think we would have a little unclear that I'm sort of getting the message. They want a certain decision from us and they're not getting it and so they keep giving it back to us to but saying taking no action is a decision, right? Yeah. But they can because I guess so if we take no action, if we don't have an official vote on it and if we have a vote, we have to have public hearing, I believe. Right. So if we don't do those things, then they will then take over that decision if that makes sense. So like like they've done before. Well, they're prerogative. Well, let's let's take the time. If they gave us 60 days, let's we're in like how many days now? Two weeks. So let's take the other 50 days. I mean, we've I I think we've addressed it three times as a planning commission, but let's let's take a little bit of time, whether that's two weeks or 50 days or whatever, and just think through it again. And is there anything we've we've missed? I mean, we've I can put it on the agenda for next work session to talk talk it again. That still gives us days. If you decide to have a public

hearing, put it in the July's meeting. might be a day beyond the 60, but at least you've made some sort of decision where it's no or yes or whatever else. I'm just not sure how many times we I don't think the same issue the budget. Yeah, probably not. So that would be on the 24th, you're saying? Yeah. Okay. I thought it was the opposite. I thought if we didn't vote then it then it just stays as is and there's nothing they can do about it. No, they can vote and they get to have an opinion. They can do whatever they want. We vote then they can still disagree with us and well I'm not an attorney so I I don't know how to interpret it all but from my understanding is the planning commission is supposed to have some sort of recommendation planning a public hearing with a recommendation. Now, there might be statutes in there that says if planning commission doesn't do anything in an an appropriate amount of time, the council can take that as a negative recommendation and proceed on. But okay, but I think if you guys want, we can talk about it again the details from what was presented and we can make a determination how we want to proceed. Yeah, but there's no new information that was brought up unless something new not during a council meeting. No, but we have all the information. We already made a decision. I think it's important too that we are separate from the council. I mean, and I appreciate them giving us things to consider and whatnot. You know, I want to be respectful in that, but we are also separate from from the council. And so, we can have an opinion that is different. We're recommending body to them. And then, you know, there's several things that we've done in planning commission that I'm like, "Oh, hey, this is this is great." And then they've altered that completely and it's like, you know, that's their that's

their prerogative. So, um, like I said, I appreciate him bringing stuff to us, but this parking one, I just I don't know how many different ways we can try to cut the So, we need to make a a a formal recommendation to them saying I can sit down with Patrick and Matt Wilson and figure out I mean, do we have to have a public hearing? If we don't, then well, if we're not changing anything, most of those things I'll have to sit down with the attorneys and I've only played an attorney on recommendation that the planning commission is making and ultimately the city council can take it into consideration but they get the final say as someone mentioned down there it's their prerogative and that's that's that's the case we make we discuss it we make recommendation give it to them and then they can accept it they can veto it that's that's their power so and I I agree with what Brian was saying is you separate entities and you want to keep it I also agree There's no additional information has been forwarded to us. What's the point in talking about it? We just want some sort of recommendation. Y whether no or and heck no or recommendation not to make a change. Yeah, that's the recommendation. We don't vote on it. Yeah, it's part of the process. If we come back and say the recommendation is not changed, then yeah, and then they can do with that whatever they feel they need to do. But I I don't know that we need to I don't know that I have anything more to say about it. Was it a particular issue with one or two members of Harper? No, it was just brought up to I think Brody actually brought it up, but not me. Not you. Not that but this is this is all fog, you know, two weeks ago. So I'm trying to remember off the top of my head, but um and I can't remember what it was in relation

to why it even got brought up. But um but yeah, it did get brought up and circular driveway and then I was Oh yeah, because we voted on because they voted on the work that we did on circular driveways and the hammerhead driveway and so then the other Yes. Then those were approved, but the other part got brought up as part of Brody's presentation. So anyway, so that is I just wanted to make sure everyone was aware because Yeah. Yeah. Okay, Steve, I think we're up to you for uh I really don't have anything. You already mentioned that the circular driveways was approved. Um the reszone request from 4,000 South and 5,500, no 4,000 west and 5,500 South was approved. 50 or R4. Um the amendments to R4 R5 zone that we forwarded on will probably be in the second meeting in June for the council and then that reszone on 6,000 South by the railroad tracks probably just after that. They've got budget right now so they don't want to be bombarded with a bunch of other things. So kind of got to limit what we send. They have to work for their paycheck. I understand budget is big. So it's a rough time. Um I like to take the month of June off on land use for them. So um Oh, one more thing. Oh, we're past you. Sorry. Yeah, I didn't realize until then. Sorry, I'm still going. So, but was just real fast is that um if you So, when I was watching the last couple meetings in person, not just listening online, um it helped me realize that

maybe there's only a couple people watching our meetings. So, when we come forward with a thing, a lot of them maybe don't even understand the work that or discussion that was put into it. So my idea is that if there is something we kind of feel passionate about or whatever um that because once we've made a vote and decision then we can we are allowed to talk to the council. So you can email them and say hey this is why I voted the way I did or whatever. Or you could go in public comment if you really wanted. But anyway, did I say all that right and everything legal? Okay. We don't know. Legal is whom? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I'm just saying. So, anyway, so I'm just saying if it if you see it on the agenda for then it might be something you bring up if it's something that we feel and I didn't realize that until like I don't know maybe within the last year that I could openly go and talk to them personally like that because I was just worried about Yeah. But you know what I mean. I was trying to be extra careful about not breaking. I think once it's brought if I understand right once it's brought up in a public meeting it's public discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Once you voted on it, it's fine. The time frame between when you're receiving the packet and when it's discussed is when you really need to not talk Yeah. to people, right? Before that, you guys generally don't know what's coming, right? So there's about three days usually. So once you have it in the public meeting that night or afterwards, you're open to discuss anything. So, I just thought that might be helpful because it just seems like some of them just don't even understand what we voted on in the like they're like, "Well, why would they vote that way?" Well, I was like, "Well, we had a whole conversation about it." I'm very aware you're giving her the stink. Well, no,

no, not saying. Anyway, just just a little epiphany. item. Okay. Uh just to make you aware, not this week, but next week is the deadline to apply to run for council. If you're so interested, I think it's Friday is the deadline. So, those who are interested, please do. I like having council members at Houston Planning Commissioners. No speaking, guys. Chris, are you going to run? Do it. You don't have to answer that question. Oh, you had in the past. That's why I wonder. Oh, sorry. I forgot. Oh my gosh. I'm new. Whose seats are up? I don't even know who. Well, Byron's. No, his There's two fouryear and one two-year. Yeah. Sophie's uh Saxton's. No, not Scatterens. And then Wilson's Oh, yeah. And then the mayor's is open too. Is there a time limit on how long our mayor can be mayor? No. So they can run as long as they want. Oh. Same with council members. Oh, I didn't know they weren't. No, there's no term term limits. You guys have term limit. Should have remembered that from the last council and the last not remember to come like a minute early. All right. Well, I think our last motion's in order then. I make a motion to dismiss. Is that what I'm supposed to adjourn? I sound like a teacher. I'll second. Second. All in favor? Any opposed? I feel like he does that. Does he have to write an extra sentence? Chris is like, "You guys are my only friends." I'm a non-conformist.

I don't think that's true. Are the mics still live? Who? Chris, hold on. Oh, you? Oh, yeah. Maybe. Sometime