Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Will you please rise for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance 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. This is the Selen City Planning Commission meeting uh for Wednesday, August 13, 2025. Will the recording secretary please call the role? Young here, Carol is absent, plastic here. Here, Gerba here. Heft is absent, and the fort is absent. Staff present tonight are community development director Atkin, recording secretary Katnik, and uh engineering consultant uh MC Morates. Um I would like to make an amendment to the um agenda. Um we just got a um memo from OM Adviserss dated August 12th uh that I would like to note under public hearing number 25-09. Um so that would be my amended. Um, is there noting that amendment? Madam Chair, I move to approve the agenda as amended. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Is there a motion on the table to approve the meeting minutes of June 11th, 2025 as submitted or amended if there's any changes? Move as as submitted. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion passes. Public comment. Under the open meetings act, any citizen may come forward at this time and make comments. The person is requested but not required to state their name and address for the record. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. hand.

My name is Michael Wass. I live at 582 Lancaster Court, Brook Village. And I got a couple comments. one about the traffic. In spite of the report from Fishbach, it's very difficult to get out of Breen Village at times to get on the Ann Arbor lean road no matter what way you're turning. So, I mean, obviously the traffic is an issue. And the other thing that I I guess I don't understand is even though in the fishbck report he mentioned that county requires a 230 foot setback from the active corner but he didn't suggest that that exit could change which doesn't seem to make any sense to me. That's one issue. The other issue is several of the owners in the condo complex are be looking going to be looking at the sides of those buildings with very little if any screening left after they do the grading. And I was just wondering if the petitioner would consider at his expense adding landscaping on the south side of the road even though it would have to be on the condo property. I'm sure that the condo homeowners association would be willing to work with it. My piece. Thank you. Good evening. Thank you for um listening to my concern. My name is Darlene Smith and I live at 560 Lancaster Court. My condo is on the northeast corner of Breham Village. The dirt path, which is to become a street, is approximately 36 ft

from my condo. And I just don't understand why there has to be two entrance exits for this development. The other two complexes this build has developed in this city each have just one street in and out. I haven't seen any plans for screening between the development and breed. If the builder isn't planning any screening, I suggest the city do something. For instance, trees or a fence or I'm sure other people might have good suggestions, but I want to point out that on Drive, which goes past Liberty School, back to the senior center and east to Maple, there's fencing. There's a fence along the sidewalk. um between the site and the individual homes there. It just kind of gives a boundary line. And um I just think that's a very good idea to have some kind of um boundary there. Although we condo owners are part of Breham Village, we each own our own condo, which means we pay city taxes, utilities, etc. and I just urge the planning commission to work something out with city council to respond to our needs regarding some kind of a boundary there. And thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my concerns. Thank you. [Music] Hello, my name is Reine Wer. I live on Hollywood Drive. Um, I still have a few concerns about the development that I'm hoping they might consider addressing. I reviewed the traffic study that they had

done. And one of the suggestions they have is to have a sign from on Harper to prevent people from going across going into the residential complex. Um, I don't see why they couldn't have a sign on the residential complexes side as well preventing people from going across the street to Harper because they already get a lot of cut through traffic there and it seems kind of silly to give another opportunity for people to cut through that neighborhood. The sidewalk still is very close to the apartment building which seems to me it's going to make it unwelcoming for people to use when they're walking along Anneline. I know personally I would feel a little weird about going so close to an apartment complex if I didn't live there. Uh I also have concerns still over the waiver of the 100 foot buffer around the property. The development while similar in density to the surrounding properties. The buildings being added are much larger than the surrounding ones. Most of the ones surrounding are single stories or maybe a few twos stories. the new 35 foot buildings will tower over those existing structures and eliminating the 100 foot buffer is only going to emphasize that difference in in addition to the aesthetic difference. Um there's also a far more practical concern those tall buildings in the winter are going to shade and our verseline and that might lead to long stretches of icy road especially when it's the coldest part of the winter and salt doesn't work. Uh since this is one of the busiest roads in Shel that has proved to be a very dangerous addition to the city. The landscaping features that they've added the um trees along the road are very nice. Those are welcome additions and will help alleviate some of the appearances about uh concerns about the appearance but I still believe there are improvements that could be made to this development to make it better accepted

and better overall for this. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional public comment? Seeing none, uh we will start with public hearing number 25-09. Application from Leavonia Builders for a final planned unit development and reszoning at 865 North Ann Arbor Street, Selen, Michigan 48176, parcel number 18-13-36-301-00 Oh, I'm sorry. I can't yet. I still have three four emails that I need to read and I apologize for that. Um, would you please time me for this? Yes, sir. So, we have received uh four uh correspondents via email. They were laid out here and I just forgot. So, um, here we go. Hello. Thank you to planning commission for allowing residents to present their thoughts related to the proposed PUD site plan application for the Ridgewater development on the corner of Ann Arbor Seline Road and Seline Waterworks Road. And thank you to Chris Atkin for reading my comments on behalf since I am unable to attend tonight's meeting in person. I'm a resident of the Cascade Point apartments which are located just across the street to the north of Bridgewater. I have lived at Cascade Point since 2019. If any builder is going to develop the plot of land for proposed Ridgewater community, I'm extremely supportive of the builder being Danny Veri and Leavonia Builders. Danny and his company build Cascade Point. The apartments are beautiful, well constructed, and Danny is a very attentive to his residents needs as things arise. He builds highquality housing, and I couldn't ask for a better landlord. I have the utmost confidence that Danny will build a lovely community at Bridgewwater. I do have two concerns about the impacts of the development on this parcel. Water quality is already an issue in the city and I am somewhat concerned about an increased drain on the quality of our existing water supply. My big concern, however, is with the additional traffic that will be

generated by this development. 51 units are proposed for the 6.5 acre parcel and the units are mix of 19 ranch homes and 32 multi-level town homes. There was a trip generation study conducted by Fishbach to assess additional traffic in the area. According to the trip generation numbers and including both ingress and egress, morning trips in and out of the development for all units equals 37. Afternoon trips in and out of the development for all units equals 41. Then there is a WD section which includes a calculation arrow error. Single family homes ingress equals 47 egress equals 47 total of 94 which is correct. Multifamily town homes ingress equals 140 egress equals 140. the total shows as 140. This number is incorrect and has been confirmed by community development to be a mathematical error because 140 plus 140 equals 280. Thus, using the corrected number of 280 results in a total WD trips of 374, not 234. This is a significant increase from the original traffic count submission. I implore the planning commission to carefully review all of these numbers as the mathematical error is significant and the current incorrect number shown in the report greatly underestimates the total number of vehicle trips per day. In addition, this WD table is not clear to what it means. It does not reflect the totals for AM and PM daily trips. It does not reflect the totals for AM and PM daily trips times 7 to reflect weekly trips. The answer given to what number is in the trip generation tables was given by community development as the numbers that are used in the calculation are standard to and provided in the institute of transportation engineers trip generation manual. That does not clarify how the WD trips were calculated and a combination of total morning 37 plus afternoon 41 estimated vehicle trips of 78 seems extremely low. Again, there is one confirmed error.

Thank you. That comment in its totality can be made part of the record. And it is in our packet. Um, second is from Kathy Rogers. Thank you, Amy, for this information. I cannot attend the August 13th meeting. My comments are as follows. Number one, water quality has been an issue ever since I moved here. While the city says it is addressing water issues. I continue to experience slate yellow water from time to time. My concern that our water quality will diminish with the addition of many new residents to our area. Two, it has gotten increasingly difficult to turn left from Selen Waterworks to Ann Arbor Selen Road. I saw that Fishbach has recommended restricting access during peak AM and PM hours. I don't think that will alleviate our problem. I experienced difficulty at all times during the day now. What What will it be like with many more cars on the road? Even with the restricting access during peak times, I can foresee an increase to traffic problems and potentially more accidents. Thanks for considering my comments, Kathy Rogers. This is from K. Jennings K. Jerome at 960 Savannah Court responding to the notice of public hearing regarding the request by Danny Berry for a PUD approval for 865 North Arbor Street. My concern involves the significant increase in vehicular traffic entering and exiting the development on a daily basis. With 51 units, it seems unreasonable to expect an increase of a minimum of 75 plus cars on a regular basis. Also, with the increase in construction vehicles that will be a sizable addition to an already busy intersection and Arbor Street is a major street and left-hand turns are difficult now. I understand a traffic study has been completed. However, the traffic study provided by a site plan firm used incorrect math. using the corrected numbers provided by a site plan firm. There will be indeed a significant number of vehicles. The additional traffic during construction and after will definitely require the installation of a traffic light at the corner of Ann

Arbor Street and Selen Waterworks Road. I hope these concerns will be addressed using more accurate realistic estimates of the increase in cars construction vehicles and plans for the installation of a traffic light will be seriously considered. Please let me know that this will be accomplished as soon as possible as as construction will begin soon. And this last one is from MG last. Uh sir, here's a copy of an email I sent to the planning department last year. I am resending it because it I didn't find any mention of it in the planning commission packet I picked up today. I believe it is totally appropriate and within reason. I would like to add my voice to that of Amy Simola. The traffic of on Ann Arbor Selen Road is already a problem. We have difficulties trying to get out of Breen Village no matter which way we are turning. The fishbck study is not not only contains errors, it doesn't follow the county road commission regulations as stated in their report in regards to the waterworks road driveway distance from Ann Arbor Selen Road intersection. Shouldn't the opposing exits on waterworks be realigned? And additionally, uh, I am a co-owner of the Breen Village condos and I'm concerned about the visual impact of the subject project. I suspect the required grading will have a negative impact on the little foliage that shields the pathway in future development. The existing landscaping plan does not show any landscaping on the south side of the access road and there may not be room for any. I was wondering if the city could add a suggestion to the final PUD plan that developer work with the condo association as a good neighbor to develop additional landscaping to be installed on the condo's property at the developer's expense. I am fully aware that the city cannot require the developer to install landscaping on the condo property, but I believe they have the authority to suggest the developer work with the condo association to reach a mutual agreement. I'm a snowbird and will probably be in Florida when this project is approved. I would appreciate an email response of your thoughts and my suggestion and I can approach the HOA. Thank you for your consideration. Mike Glast,

thank you to all the comments that we have received um via email and in the room. Uh now we will go to public hearing number 25-09. Yes, we'll also have a public hearing section um later too if you'd like to speak during that one there. We will open a public another public comment period during this matter of the actual plans that I just wanted to mention. She can proceed. Yeah, please proceed. Um, so a few things I noticed. [Music] Um, so the swells that are going um out, they're going into the end of the area, which I'm not too certain, but that's appropriate. I mean, if we have run off from um anything, I don't think it's supposed to go into weapons. Um and the other thing is is the road that is now um even with Park that particular road gets a lot of traffic. People take it to go through to Harris and it has a lot of people going really fast. So um my concern is people connecting to that. There's a turning out right that it's not connected to, but it's the in this way that it is connected to that's going to result in people, you know, they're going to turn and not it's it's a weird angle because you have two different ways of traffic because that is a a boulevard that's right there. So um my concern is that it hasn't been fully uh that particular

addition um and all for now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Public hearing 2025-09 application from Leavonia Builders for a final plan unit development and reszoning at 865 North Ann Arbor Street, Selen, Michigan 48176, parcel 18-13-36-301-00001. Um, in our packet we had a memo dated August 5th, 2025 from community development director Atkin. Uh we additionally received a uh engineering report from OM adviserss uh dated August 12th, 2025 um community development. Sure. Mr. Atkin, please proceed. Thank you. Uh so, excuse me. I I started the review off stating that this isn't under the current PUD ordinance just based on timing when this was submitted and it was uh the same standards and regulations from the March one that was approved March 28 23 are applied here that were applied in the preliminary the final so the current standards do not apply uh on this one so it is a 6.58 net acres 7.3 uh Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the preliminary. On September 11th, city council voted to approve the preliminary with 10 conditions. On October 7th, those 10 conditions are mentioned throughout the report and some I will touch on. Uh others I'll leave to engineering to discuss. Um there the setback uh between the building five and uh the two solid buildings there was reduced excuse me

the original one had 40 ft. It's down to 36.2 feet. The table on there still says 40 uh 4 feet. So that just as a correction needs to be made. Um the standard is 50 ft. Um and then there's also the deviation from only eight units per floor, but that was approved in the preliminary site plan. Uh building number three has nine on it. Um so that uh that correction needs to be made. Uh one and one of the other conditions was to uh confirm the parking spaces needed. Those were also corrected. Uh and show the calculations are shown on sheet three. site access and circulation. Um I'll let engineering discuss this. Um one comment that I do want to make though is uh and it addresses some of the comments that were made from the public is going out of the southern access point there uh to put in the same type of sign that is on Harbor Street that only turn left or right at certain times of the day. it's called out in the traffic study there. Um, safety pathways. Um, again commenting on what was said earlier, moving that sidewalk closer to North Ann Arbor on the plans, there was a line in there on one side. I couldn't identify what that line was, whether it's a storm because there's storm uh utilities at each end on along North Ann Arbor Street. Um, no, there was a different one. You can see it on, but on one side of that line is the sidewalk and the other side is the trees. If those were to be flip-flopped, if there is a utility either existing or uh possibly going in there, just to flip-flop those will still provide

enough space that'll be outside of the rideway. So that 7 foot wide easement that goes along with it would also have to be shifted over. Um there were side interior sidewalks along um the southern two buildings there not on the south side but um to the west of the ones at front uh north Ann Arbor Street there's interior sidewalks added 5 foot wide and um landscaping it meets the uh ordinance standards that were approved also uh lighting three lamp post uh we just need to see some details for those. I I don't anticipate they're going to be real tall, but three throughout. They're all on the main drive there. Um elevations, uh the applicant brought color renderings and the materials tonight. He's going to speak on that. And uh the 3D modeling uh that was requested, I don't understand what the necessity of was was for that. Um so I determined that that was not needed at this point uh for for this um it's never been required before. So they'll require it now um when it's not even in the PUD. I just told him not to worry about that. So that was done it through our department. Um fire chief did look at this. one of his main uh concerns was the fire hydrant, an additional fire hydrant, and putting a turnaround down at the west end of uh building five. Um there is a turnaround that was installed there along the utility road. And this also contributes to uh that 40 foot distance between the two buildings being shortened down to 34 to accommodate for that um with because the topography

drops off significantly back on that side. um development agreement. It's not necessary at this point. Those are generally left for multi-phase projects. Uh this is a singlephase project. It's I don't see it, you know, lasting a long time. Um and typically when the PUB final plan is approved, that is your agreement that this is what's going to be uh what the developer and the city are sticking to. In case anything changes half there's no throughout the course of development that uh uh they can't make their own changes, we can't make changes without them knowing. And he also had to uh submit an affidavit to the county register of deeds outlining that any changes made would be agreed upon between both parties. So one or the other can't do it without permission. Um so in the last page there are a few things that I mentioned in there. Uh just some revisions for the dimensions. Um uh possible sign moving a sidewalk. Um also in installation of some cross markings for a crosswalk across uh Selene Waterworks that where the two sidewalks will meet. um the trail easement uh along the west side of the property um for the extension and then the detail for the lamp and some signs, but other than that um it meets the intent of section 10 of the ordinance. uh nothing significantly has changed uh from the preliminary to the final and so uh I'm of belief that a recommendation to city council uh for approval of the final plan and the reasonzoning uh made

and if at all possible that would be put on the next council meeting which is Monday the 11th no I'm sorry not the 11th the 18th Thank you. And uh would engineering like to make any comments about the memo received? Sure. I can walk through very quickly. Um especially because I know this came came to you very recently. Um and the first part of the memo touches on traffic, which I imagine is where there are going to be the most questions. So, we can kind of come back to that. Um, but the that's under the um comments for planning commission consideration. Um, the second section, comments for final construction plans. I just very briefly want to touch on those. Um, these were pretty minor issues and things that we would just want to see cleaned up before a pre-construction meeting. Um we are asking to see that there is a maintenance agreement between um uh the development and the water treatment plant just to make sure that everyone is in agreement on how that portion of the road is going to get maintained. Um and we'd want that to get worked out for the most part before a precon meeting just in case they want to see like a thicker cross-section or something like that so that there are no surprises for anybody down the road. Um, we also noted that the proposed trees along the western side of Ridgewater Drive are are pretty close to the proposed water mane. Um, and I know, you know, when these things get drawn up in CAD, you know, you've got your icon for the tree and you've got your line type for the water mane and it's hard to know in reality how, you know, close these things are going to be, but um, we're just trying to think of of, you know, preventing future issues and roots in

the line. um there's not a ton of green space there anyway. Um and if it's possible to shift the utility closer to the road or to shift the trees closer to the houses. I know people don't like trees close to their house and people don't like utilities in the pavement. So it's not like there's a great spot for it, but just trying to avoid future tree root issues. Um uh asking that the city's standard details be included in the final set. That's it's kind of an admin thing. Um the the next comment is about the storm water um going in on the south side of the site. Um there are a couple catch basins going in. Um on the plans they're referred to as crossings number nine and number eight. Um and they're going to cross the existing water man and an existing raw water line. And it looks like the storm is going in about 5t deep. Um, and we don't know exactly how deep the existing water mane or the existing raw water line are, but it might be kind of tight. Um, and in the past when Seline DPW has come across situations like this, if it's less than a foot and a half, generally they're amendable to doing something like a concrete saddle just to make sure that um, you know, there's not going to be interference between the storm and the utility. Um, so we're just asking if there's a specific call out for crossing 8 and 9 that says, "Hey, you know, when you open this up, when we see really how close it's going to be, we just want to make sure the DPW is is informed and um can be kind of part of that decision-m process so that again, just so there's no surprises for anybody. Um, and the very last of the of the boring comments, um, there are a few

ADA, uh, pedestrian ramps where the cross slope is greater than 1.8%. It's not by a ton, but it's just something that we check and something that, um, is a fairly easy fix with the final grading, but, we wanted to note it um, since we saw it. Um, and then for the traffic, uh, I'll see see if I can pull this up here. N A G. This might take just a moment, but I figured between trying to describe north and south and the two different entrances and left and right, it would be it would certainly help me to at least be looking at something. [Applause] It lets me do it, great. And if it doesn't, then I'll I'll do my best with just my words. All right. Looks like it won't let me. Um, if we uh on sheet three in the plan set, um, the top entrance, the north entrance off of Seline Waterworks Road. Um, it was noted in the Fishbck report that Yeah, sure. I've got it in here. Great. It's the one PowerPoint. Um, in the Fishbach report, they had recommended to restrict left turns during peak hours um into the site from the north. Um, we had our traffic team

take a look at um both the plans and this traffic analysis by Fishbach. Um, and essentially our our traffic engineer, uh, who's a professional traffic operations engineer, it's a it's a specific certification, so I'm I'm definitely the messenger in this case and not the expert. Um, but took a look at this and said, you know, basically anytime you've got a left turn that's restricted during peak hours, people blow past it and it's best just to restrict it at all times. Ah, perfect. Thank you. Excellent. appreciate it. Thanks. Yeah. So, on the plans right now, it's it's this entrance on the north. Um and has the hours listed below it. Similarly for the southern connection, I guess so. See? Okay, that works. We'll do this way. Um uh south there's there's another restriction that was recommended by both Fishbck and backed up by um OM. Um but I think this is just a typo in the plans. Um that's got the the westbound exit from Harper Street. This detail in the plans also includes that peak hours restriction. Um but the report itself just says don't do it, just restrict it at all times. and OM agrees that um that red arrow that's shown is the undesirable movement that they're trying to restrict. Um so that's just it's a minor an extremely minor thing to clean up. But um when OM took a look at this traffic report, they agreed with the conclusions that if you look at the number of units um and

the number of trips that are generated during the peak hours in the morning and the peak hours in the afternoon, it's not enough to meet that threshold that requires a traffic impact study. Um now that said you know we don't have any uh any data from you know say Selene Waterworks Road to have you know like a traffic count for that road. Um also the caveat of you know you folks know your city and you know what is coming down the road um both metaphorically and literally if there's going to be more traffic anticipated in the future. Um but based on kind of just going by the book and by the the size of this development, the conclusions in the traffic analysis um are are largely backed up by by industry standards. Um there is one typo in the final calc sheet that I think was actually one of the public comments addressed it. If there are any questions on that one, we can can speak to it as well. But um overall this this site either meets already or has the potential to meet all the requirements all the engineering requirements for the city of Seline. Do you know um and this was a question that was addressed in the public um from one of the comments. I understand am I understand PMP but what is WD? Is that whole day? Is that weekend day? Yeah. my understanding and I've got it not going to show on here but um based on the appendix I think that that is uh weekday um but that's just based on that page six of the of the report so it's expecting 374

total trips being generated by the site throughout a week day that's that's my interpretation of it. Correct. When I spoke with uh the gentleman from Fishbach, that is per day and that does those numbers include AM and PM peak hour trips. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the planning commission? Yes, Dean. Um addressing that one real quick. So, we're saying that the calculations what are are correct? Did OM validate those calculations which were indicating that they were incorrect? He did the the one typo is in the total weekday trips um in the summary, but it's the it's those peak hour trips are what trigger kind of what needs to happen. Um whether both the level of analysis and the type of of traffic measures that are are appropriate and the the AM and the PM peak hour calculations are valid. Yeah. nothing that would impact what we're seeing in total observations. Yeah. Okay. We'll talk about other things later. Um, one of the comments on here was talking about recommending that the streets be built to our city standards. Um, I would like to understand that there was a comment made by one of the statements. Is this the pavement cross-section that I believe it talked about the dry. It talked about ridge dry being commission. doesn't meet city standards. I thought I'd have to go back and find it now, but there was comment about that. I'd like to have maybe discuss that from well, it' be on Monday's meeting. There there was an engineering comment from a previous from the last review that asked them to do a cross-section that met the city's standards even though it's going to be private. Um, it

was a recommendation and they did beef up the cross-section. No, it's in the It's in it's in the report. Um it's only it's in O channel's report. Um yeah and this was the in appendex. Yes. So that was the cross-section has been modified for the thickness of the pavement to be to handle a little bit more than Yeah. I want to clarify that that whole road does match because we've seen where in our shopping centers and everywhere else they're not handling it and they're falling apart. So, I want to make sure they're at the right standards that we accept because other private roads we've done that before, too. Right. Yeah. They're now at I want to say it's inch and a half and then 3 in and then 10. Let me pull that up real quick. They are proposing Yeah. an inch and a half HMA 5E wearing course and then 3inch HMA 3C leveling course on 10 in of 21A a and that is um per the current city of Seline standards that's the cross-section for local okay for local street yeah it said in there recommend I just wanted to make sure it was actually yeah they got it and it's I mean not that anyone and we we always we try to go at least four inches so that when you do like the mill and overlay, you've got enough to to shave it down and put it back. Um, so they're at four and a half. So there's even a little bit of buffer there as well. Um, looking at these, all these have been addressed to our city engineer. Has she reviewed this at this point in time or are these memos just addressed to her? Reviewed by Tesa? Yeah. Um, she received the memo and we any actual confirmation she's looked at these and repeated back to us. I have not been in contact with Tesa since since sending this memo out, so I'm not sure if she has or has not.

I'd like clarification on that to make sure that our city engineer has actually reviewed these. Um, when we talked in one section about development agreements, it you know, you said we didn't need to do a full full development agreement. My only concern is we know this isn't a giant development but looking at what's happening right now in terms of all developments and everything. Um would it not be fortuitous up to us to do something to some degree or is it are there not minimum restriction minimum requirements that we would want to have in place to make sure that this development does there will still be the shity and performance bonds that will have to go for. So we have an actual development agreement outlining what's been agreed to. It's in the final site. Okay. Thank you. Um, oh, lighting and I know I feel like we're missing some things of these for a final site plan because we've had some other things when we've looked in the past. And so when you mentioned lighting, there was polls and everything. Is there going to be lighting? How will that be reviewed when it's on the buildings? We had a concern when we were doing the other project on Monroe Street. Lighting on the outside of the building 24/7, all of that. Yeah, traditionally if it's wallpack lighting or residential, um, you know, they're just basic lamps. Uh, that's why I wanted to see a detail of the length the street lamps to see how tall they are. If they're 8 foot, it's not going to put out a whole lot of light that's going to spread over into neighboring properties. Um, if they're standard 15, 18 foot tall street lights, then we'll require a phototric plant just to show that it doesn't bleed over. Okay. So some of these things I'm asking may be administrative but I've seen them in past performing things that have come forward to us. So um and I would like to understand was there any formal conversation between DTE and the city or the developer regarding that power line that goes across because we had asked for that to be investigated. I believe Danny you had he had

conversation with DTM. We'll let him talk speak to that. Okay. I like that. Um just check my list. Okay. And I'll talk about the other items when we go to after the applicant speaks. Yes. Two two very quick uh comments, Madam Chair. Um I'll move expeditiously. Um Mr. Aken, this is primarily for the um the public's benefit because I've been I've received a number of phone calls, inquiries, and and and comments from citizens. Can you readress or can you address excuse me again and be very clear on this? Um the fire department um including the chief and his subordinates have reviewed this. They believe that the final uh site plan as presented this evening is appropriate and sufficient and that they would be able to respond with the um corresponding equipment and personnel in the event of a fire or medical emergency. That is correct. Uh the fire chief uh compared the site plan to the comments that were issued back in September. They have preliminary and I'm trying to find his email now, but he said that all his comments and concerns have been addressed. Okay, very good. And then I of course like like all of my colleagues on the planning commission, we appreciate the comments that we've received from those who attended in person this evening and those who who wrote in. Um, a a comment was made on on multiple occasions earlier this evening about landscaping, about making a suggestion that the developer work in good faith with the adjacent property owner to pay for and to install um additional screening or vegetation on their property. I don't believe that um there's any precedent for that, but but perhaps you can correct me if I'm wrong. There is no precedent for that. Um, now with the road on the south there, the access drive, um, I I believe u, Danny and the the city attorney have been working through some paperwork to for

access or maintenance or something. I'll let him speak to that. Um, so technically that's not part of this development or part of his property. Um, so I think that would be up to him at this point if he wanted to install uh additional landscape. I know there is existing tree line down there on the neighboring property. I don't know what that consists of, what the vegetation is. It's mature. It's tall. Um, and it won't be touched as part of as part of this development. But as our policy and standards are written today, per your earlier comments, the landscaping plan as proposed meets our our requirements. That is correct. That's all I had. Thank you, Madam Chair. Additional questions or comments? Um I did have a question that came up from public uh comments previously and from my own. Um, does community development um or engineering see an issue with the Cascade Point and the Ridgewood developments uh not lining up at the intersection? Um, if I I know from the the general geometrics of that intersection, while a T it's also still on a hill, um there's plenty of entrances that are there. Uh it looks like the traffic that was uh discussed um previously is only from the internal site. Um and it looked like we had asked for more of a traffic study, which I would have assumed meant tube counts uh on Ann Arbor Seline Road. And while uh this specific development might not tip the scales, um it might happen real soon uh with uh the schools updates and uh additional development that might be coming plus general uh additions of cars. Uh do you have any any comments

about first and foremost uh lining up the two entrances to the Cascade Point development and then also about the traffic study or should that go more to the developer? I believe my I'm sorry my computer locked up and just opened back up. There was some discussion of that in the driveway evaluation um about how there's those two in particular set and I believe uh the only option to move that drive would be closer to um in our Seline Road. It it would affect the layout of the development and the units uh because if it went to the west the grade drops off significantly right there. So it's the way it's all laid out right now. It's I guess on paper is the only way it can be done. So with 120 ft from the intersection, um that is for a 25 mph road design there where we know directly to the west it increases to 40 miles an hour. Um is that correct? Yeah. Um, you know, and in this case, I feel like it's important to note that I'm not a a traffic engineer. I'm definitely more of a Swiss Army knife than a specialty blade. Um, and so I'm I'm definitely the the messenger in in this case. Um, and when OHM's traffic department looked at this. Um, and I specifically asked about the driveways because I know this has come up before and there have been doubts. Um, and you know, by the book they said that this would be acceptable. However, they did, you know, the caveat was that, you know, we don't have traffic count data for Seline Waterworks Road and that, you know, if basically basically acknowledging that, you know, this site is not in a bubble that there there might be external factors that are not,

you know, the the size and scale of this development didn't tip it past that threshold to require a larger study. But, you know, basically acknowledging that, you know, you folks know your city. Um, and I know in previous letters what was asked for was a full TIS, was a traffic impact study. Um, so I guess I don't know. I guess I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too. But basically, they said, you know, textbook answer is it's okay. Real world answer is it it may be wise to have traffic count data on Selen Waterworks if if folks are very concerned. Sure. If I may, um, it was my understanding we were doing something on North Ann Arbor Street. That's why I asked for the engineering review because apparently someone's trying to propose a roundabout at Betta and um, North Ann Arbor Street in a historic district, which that's another issue. But we did something related to that. So that information should be available. I would think that that would have some traffic study information that was just done a year and a half ago or last fall. That is good to know. Not so we may need to address that. Yeah. Any additional comments from planning commission members? There's no additional comments. Madam Chair, I move to acknowledge receipt of the memo dated August the 5th from community development director Aken. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh applicant developer comments limited to 10 minutes. [Applause] Good evening, commissioners. Danny Barry with Builders. I'm the the general contractor on the project, not the owner. So, I can give you some answers to some of these things, but some of them I will have to go back to my client. Um, regarding I'll start with the easy one, the landscaping on the other side of the Seline Waterworks road, I'm sorry,

the road across from Harbor. I don't know how thick the landscaping is there right now. I kind of can kill two birds with one stone. I could take those trees that MC had mentioned that are above the water man and I can move them over to there if that would be okay with planning commission. That would be something that I can do to fill in whatever areas there are since we don't want to put it over the water and as she said there's not a lot of room in front of um units to put that as far as that road in in general. the at our my attorney and the attorney for the city have been um worked through an arrangement for that and how it's going to be as it is part of our development. We are paving it. We are incurring all the costs of it. We are maintaining it up to the point that the pavement ends. The city has an easement to go in and out of it as much as they need to. And then from the pavement all the way down to the plant is their responsibility. So that's verbally acknowledged in writing. We just haven't executed the agreement. We're waiting on one last document here to to make it a formal agreement. Um the buildings haven't changed. I did bring the samples this time. I didn't have them last time of what we're going to do. Um stone will be on the building that's on I don't I I'm going to guess it's Ridgewater Drive that that street that runs down to um the water treatment plant. So that building has stone in the front brick in the belt and then the ranch unit and the twotory unit will be using the brownish brick with that siding and the black roof. Those are your your color combinations on the buildings. Um, I don't have anything else to say. If there's any other questions you guys

have for me, be happy to answer them. Thank you very much. Questions for Danny. Good. Thank you, Mr. Fra. I mean there are questions that have we've just asked engineering, we've just asked community development, you've and you've heard from the audience um about the traffic that's being generated from the site about the which isn't much, but the question that was originally asked was about a full TIS um for this general area and the contributing um traffic from the site. Is there any reason that that wasn't that that didn't come to fruition or Well, my assumption is and I say that because my engineer handled the the fishback study. It wasn't me directly. Um when they evaluated it, came to the same conclusion that OM did that it it meets everything within the numbers that it has that it said, okay, we don't need to go any further because it's within that parameter already. I can tell you I've been doing this for 38 years. I have never had development regardless of I had the same comments when I did the 16 units across the street. I can do five, I can do 500. Traffic is always an issue at every single development, but cities and communities continue to grow and they deal with it and they understand that yeah, maybe I don't know what's going on or potentially going down down the street that a traffic light might be a situation that occurs in 10 years or 5 years, but we follow everything that we have to based on what the cities and the counties and the states require us to do. And if we're in those parameters, then that's all we're asked to do. It's not that we're trying to skirt it, but if we don't trigger it, then why would we go on and do another step if we don't meet the threshold to get to that step?

I I think and that is a valid point. I I understand. Um at the last meeting that we had for the preliminary PUD, um we had an audience that was very similar to this. Um we've had um and that was a comment previously. It is at probably one of the busiest non US12 intersections in the city of Seline. And I think that for peace of mind having tube counters in north south Ann Arbor on either side of this and on waterworks would have given people a lot of peace of mind just in general. And that's just the comment I'm making as an engineer who did traffic for a very long time. So I I I'm just asking why it wasn't done if it was requested in preliminary and also requested now. I I I understand what you have done. So thank you. Additional comments. Uh the sidewalk trying to relocate the sidewalk on North Ann Arbor Street. Are you amunable to that? I'm hoping. Well, I mean if we have to, we have to. The reason why we didn't was because we wanted to eliminate storm sewer and have a a drainage natural drainage course instead. That's why it is the way it is. So you can't see it on well I don't know what set of planes you have but if you were to look at the cross-section you would see that it is a swale that runs through there. So the water will go on there versus going in a pipe and then for me based on and unfortunately just the rainstorm that we had this less than a couple weeks ago the amount of flooding we had in the city and having swelles I would much rather have a storm drain there. But as you look at your other development on on the other corner that sidewalk runs exactly that same way. And I don't know how the storm drains were managed on that side. Well it's it's different because those are rear yards versus front yard. Right. Okay.

So, um I think the site is I'd almost like rather to see the green space between the building than to have the green space necessarily be in the Oh, what others? I'll confirm that with the engineer but I know that that was our main thing was and then we also have DTE that's going through that area as well to service the front buildings. Okay. I was thinking those lines had been moved at some point. Oh, you guys asked about the power lines. Yes. Yes. So, um, before Colleen left, her and I spoke about that and she had gotten a number and and please excuse me if I'm wrong, but it was either 125,000 or 250,000 to move,000. Obviously that the feasibility to do that is that's a big number and I didn't know at that time moving it would make it more beneficial for you in order to even relocate the buildings further back to I don't think it would have because if you if you were to shift everything down a little bit now we encroach on or would encroach on wetland with the pond okay in the flood plane but we're very this site is and I do mean this sincerely is the hardest site I've ever had to work all over my years. There's so many challenges to this piece of property and you know Oh, no. I I agree because of the ang because of the steepness of it and the water and everything else. Um, one other thing um and I was going to ask did you run into any wells on there county there you No, there was I know they had water and sewer there, but there might have been an abandoned well on that. So, we need to septic in and water. So, we abandoned or terminated the water at the main And then we pumped and smashed the second thing that they were not going to use. Okay. And the count okay is the county but I mean did the county confirm there is no abandoned well on there? We had a whole well survey done at one time and I wanted to make sure that that well was capped on that property. I would only assume that it was capped

when they tapped into the city water. Yeah, that's the assumption that it's been many years. Okay. I can ask Kirk if he knows if there is one there. We'll just make that as one of the conditions or recommendation on that one. Um, yeah, my only concern was with the sidewalk and talking that Thank you for answering the question on the DTE. Um, at this point that's all I have. Thank you. Any additional questions for the developer? Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Madam Chair, I would uh move to open the public hearing at 7:56, affording the uh our guest this evening another opportunity to speak to this issue and raise any questions or concerns. I'll second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. All public comments to be heard. A limit of three minutes per person. [Applause] First and foremost, I just want to put it out there that the science community right now is really aware that the 100redyear flood planes that they've mapped out prior to climate change and the drastic changes in rain and downpour. They're not certain if those flood planes will be accurate. This is putting a lot of homes, new homes, new residents in the flood plane area that will probably expand over the next 50 to 100 years. So, just put that out there right now. Um, I know the fire department did okay this, but given that that building is extremely tall and if people block any part of that one road or if anything happens to the power lines, are they accessible in their current form to reach that height? Do we have the

resources? I know we don't have the ladders. There's not many in this area that can assist with that. If they're in use, what happens? Um, it's just part of the fire department's resources that I'm concerned about. And I'm just, uh, throwing out there, there's a lot of don't park in the street. This is a fire hydrant signs on that road that's inward on the community. Um, if people ignore those because there's limited parking for guests, if anyone has a party, graduation party, these are just common things that happen when you have families around. Where are those people going to park if they can't park on the street? Is it going to cause blockages of those important structures? There's not much room for gas parking. I don't see it in the plan. I see that they've taken an account of the residents, but I don't see guest parking as in in the plans and that will not only put people off possibly to Ann Arbor Street, but it might also put them on Harper, which right now people use that very frequently. Another thing is Seline Water Road. Um, you're right. We would have felt a lot better having a traffic study done there because we don't know the frequency of people using that. Um, that increases the possibility of accidents that that's a really big unknown right there and it is a very very busy street. And if people don't want to deal with the Harper situation where they have that weird left turn or weird weird right turn, they'll probably go to that side of the the neighborhood um right across the road. And there's

also a house where the Seline right now Seline Waterworks goes right into their driveway. Are they no longer allowed to pull out of the driveway backwards? Um thank you. Okay. Um I'm not typically one to comment uh but there are 26 guest spaces uh both uh there two two three bays um on the north to south road then there's a larger bay and then a set of bays that is on the east to west road. So there are 26 parking spaces for guest parking and two per per home. So I just there are and we had asked the question to be done. People should have safety at the forefront of this. Thank you. Thank you. Um just mentioning public safety. Um at a city council meeting I mentioned that there was no um caution tape around the property as they're taking down things there. still haven't seen it and just feel better if it was up because you know people wandering on the property just trying to cross right there because there's no sidewalk. It it just raises the risk. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Jack Sims. I live at 878 North Ann Arbor Street. And uh uh I guess lightning does strike because we live right across from Seline Waterworks Road that Seline Waterworks Road would go right into our property. It is my understanding based on the diagrams that we've seen tonight that the only traffic controls proposed or talked about at

this point are the possibility of restricting left turns from Harper restrict restricting left turns out of the new road and restricting left turns into waterworks. If that is so we approve and that I have nothing else to say. If however there is plans for a traffic light which a number of people have mentioned a traffic light anywhere near our house makes it impossible for us to get out. I mean we have a double the time now. Uh and so therefore I don't want to be labor the point. I just let you know that if we stick with the plane as as I heard it we totally approve but if we if you do not then we vement dis. Thank you. Hello, I'm Irene Frinker, resident of Selene, and I just have a couple detailed questions. First, I wondered if there is a proposed starting date for this project and a proposed ending date. I didn't quite hear that information. You want me to answer? Whoever could help. Irene, we don't generally do a back and forth during public comment, but if you want to state all of your questions, we'll do our best to address them during the subsequent discussion. All right. Well, that was one question. When might this start and then end? I thought I heard potentially a 30month building period. I just wanted to know what might be. Also, I from a previous meeting, I believe it was proposed that these would be rental units, and I wondered if there had been a decision on that, either rentals or condos at this

point. And also, uh, the pricing of the units, would they be at the Seline market value either for the rental prices or the condo prices? Those were my questions. Thank you. Make sure there's no additional comments. Madam Chair, if there are no additional citizen comments uh from those present in the audience this evening, uh I would move to close the public hearing at 8:04. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh addition. Sure. Um there were some questions that had come up um that wasn't covered in the memo. Um what would be the duration of construction for this? Um if you'd like to come up and speak. Uh additionally, the proposed start and end dates. We plan on starting as soon as we get our permits from the state. We're waiting for water and sewer. I have the county uh soil erosion. Um, we should in the next couple weeks have our county drain and then we're just waiting for sewer and water. Um, with that in mind, I anticipate we will probably have those permits by late September. And once we start the horizontal, if we can get it paved this year, if that gives us the time to get it paved, we'll start our vertical in January. Realistically, we should be 12 to 18 months at the most from that once we start going vertical. And they're still rental units, Mr. Barry. Yes, they are. And they are market rate. Okay. They're actually more going to be I don't know the exact numbers, but I know they're talking higher than what I am next door. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, additional questions and comments

from the planning commission members? Yes. Um number of the things that we've been talking about. I mean I am I agree with the individual speaking about traffic and concerns there. I mean a bigger concern is that the city I was hoping was going to evaluate traffic in this intersection as part of a bigger look at it because we know we have concerns at waterworks in the future and on North Ann Arbor Street at this point in time. That's kind of why I was hoping the engineer city engineer had evaluated that but appears it hasn't happened. um that would have asked answered maybe some more questions. It's probably something that the city is going to have to do, but I agree there's probably the flow of traffic in this one development isn't going to impact all of it from a perspective. Able to pull some data from SAMCOG's website. Um the most recent they have for Seline Waterworks Road is 2023 and they have a count of 630 average annual daily trips and that's I closed it down I believe but that was a that was taken [Music] August 9th and 10th of 2023. and the average was 630 two years ago and not understanding how that complies with everything that's happening out there. I can't do that. That would have to be an answer that's comes from our city engineer just for solid number. And can I just interject? And August is a really awful time to take traffic in that area. And I just I would like to note that there is one also for uh Ann Arbor at the same intersection, Ann Arbor Street, excuse me. And this is from

June 10th and 11th this year. And the average annual daily trip is 10,535. Mhm. And I believe that was right around the time school is out. I I'm not for sure. It's right after school is out. So, in agreeing with the individuals from the audience, there's something that needs to be done more than an assessment. And part of that is this whole evaluation that we're doing at North Ant Arbor Street and it's not going to be solved at this point with this development. But it's but what we're trying to do is at least addressing those issues. Um and one of the things who I mean I thought the city controlled the majority of water works to some degree. Isn't the tra isn't the speed somebody said it was 40 miles an hour. We could address that issue too in terms of Yeah. The report from Fishbach stated uh 40 to 45 miles an hour. Yeah. So that's something I think the city needs to look at and waterworks road is posted 40 miles. Yeah. Because we own that bridge. So maybe we need to evaluate that as part of the traffic concerns issues. Um one of the things when we're talking about the uh landscaping and such, I'm not exactly sure where we're moving those trees from. We're still going to have landscaping on North An Street. Correct. Correct. All right. So, those trees are the ones that are on that internal road that would be relocated to along that fence line. If there's can be an easement worked out with Breen Village and correct on the south side of that access current access road because I would like to see maybe the gateway plan applied to that to a little bit or something even a fence along that road to give that kind of a distinction and maybe the city should be looking at completing its portion of the road to the water plant. Um, we already addressed the issue with development agreement. I the sidewalk. I still think the swelles are not what we really have ever done on Michigan on Ann Arbor Street. Um, I think we should

probably put in the storm sewers that are drains that way. So, it's consistent. So, the sidewalk can go where it is. I mean, oh could talk about it, but that is a city that's a city street. It's not a uh county uh road. So um there there is one point that I wanted to communicate from conversations with the DPW about this exact kind of arrangement there. Um so there's a water mane running on that west side. Um and they were concerned with the with the way that the site the site just slopes right down to the to the to the creek there. um that they wanted to have they wanted to have some kind of soil between the water man and the homes in case of a break um so that there would be something that could you know at least on paper convey some of that water before it just went right into the to the homes Ann Arbor Street or on the drive into on Arbor Seline Road. Yeah. Not saying that that's what has to happen. That's just a concern that DPW staff expressed. The other thing too, um, speaking of sidewalk along that we probably should have a future deferral related to sidewalk along Waterworks Road that we should have done with Lair Farms that didn't get done properly or correctly that eventually that property that the length of sidewalk along Waterworks Road should be considered at some point if it isn't in there now. It only goes to past a little bit past the driveway. it doesn't follow the entire um door side of the uh property. Yeah, there was something with the topography in there, I believe. Well, we need to address that going in the future. So, something needs to be addressed with the homeowners or whatever that at some point when the city requires it, they're responsible for it. Yes. Okay. Yep. I see what you said. Um then the other questions I was just

wondering that the individuals mentioned water quality. We know our water quality is good. It's in the distribution system that's being addressed by engineer. Hopefully, we've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on engineering studies that that will be resolved at some point. Um, and the other one I think was the concern related to well the landscape. So, we addressed that. That's all my questions and comments. Thank you. Oh, wait. I do. That's right. One more. the left and right-hand turn issues. Are they talking just as you come out of the development or going into the development on Waterworks Road? On on Waterworks Road, it is It's weird when you look at it. It says no left hand when it had the picture on there, but I would see where you wouldn't want to have a lefthand turn into the uh development. That's what it is. If you're on Waterworks Road and you're heading west and you want to turn left to go south into the development, they're saying that you should not do. Um the Fishbach report said don't do that during peak hours. OM is saying just don't do that just ever. Um and then the left and right that is um if you're on Harbor Street also going to the west um they're saying that you should only turn left or right onto Ann Arbor that you shouldn't try to like jog across and go and go straight into the straight. And that's the other point I would agree that both they should not be allowed to go across either side. So, it should be no lefthand turns or left hand and right-hand turn only on both sides of that drive headed east and west. Yeah. I mean, coming if you're leaving the development and you're going to the east, it's a straight shot. It lines up with Harper Street, the traffic

engineers said it's okay, you know, by the by the book that that is acceptable. Well, knowing people are going to be making left-hand turns right in there, I mean, we can make that decision. And that's a traffic call by our uh our traffic people. But at this point, I think it would be best not to have straight through going either direction. So yeah, this is Yeah, we've often learned that those kind of things have been crazy because I know even in Ann Arbor, the example of Vinewood coming across from Ferdon, it's not a right hand turn. They will not allow you to go straight across pull over. So um it's a safe way to do that. Okay. Thank you. Uh additional questions or comments? Um there has been great discussion tonight. We've had great comments from the public. Um but there um have been plenty of items that we have asked either for engineering uh city engineering to review or um questions with whether it be traffic which probably goes to engineering. Um the questions about the swale which would go to DPW. Um my recommendation moving forward would be to postpone to a date certain. Um with only four of us here, I don't feel that it that it would be the best option to send this to city council on Monday. Um just because there were a lot of open um open items. Uh there were questions from the engineering memo that came in that we received tonight. Uh there were recommendations on the um community development director's packet. Um that's just my thought, but I'd like to see what my colleagues I support. If I may, Madam Chair, um if it were Brian Marl making a decision in the in a vacuum, I'd probably be amendable to offering a a motion to approve with conditions. But out of respect for for my colleagues and noting as as you just

articulated that there's only four of us here tonight, we've got to uh unanimously agree to take any action. Um so I would be amendable to supporting uh a motion to postpone. Um but I do want to to continue to move expeditiously to get this proposal to city council sometime in the next um 60 days. So noting that we would like responses from our engineering department and DPW on issues that were previously noted. Um, is it am I correct that you also would like some additional analysis done reference traffic at the intersection of Waterworks and uh and Ann Arbor Street? Whether that would come from the SEMCOG numbers that were uh provided in June of 2025, August of 2023 for Selen Waterworks Road. um whether that be just to make sure from engineering. I don't know if it would come from the developers engineer or from our internal engineering uh the city's engineer um to look at that. I I think it would be who of us at this point in time to look at those numbers because once it's in, it's in. And I I I I would I would not feel comfortable saying right now to approve this with conditions until we had additional information moving forward. No, I understand and I respect the position. Um I as much as I hate to say it, I I do tend to agree with you. I I happen to be on the the the governing board for SAMCOG. I think SAMCOG does outstanding work and provides jurisdictions in Southeast Michigan with wonderful data. But your point is well taken that um while the numbers are relatively recent, they were um analyzed in 2023, collecting data in August is is not probably the the best time to to compile this sort of information in order for leg legislative bodies to make policy decisions in the future. So my hunch is that um yeah, there might be an opportunity to do to do a deeper dive on

that analysis in the report back at a subsequent meeting. I guess I'd ask a question then to Director um Atkin um noting the um the concerns and questions that some of my colleagues have, but also with the understanding that we'd like to move expeditiously on on on this project and get it before city council for them to review. Is it reasonable to suggest that all of these questions can be answered in the next 30 days and that a motion to postpone can be made to that first meeting in September? I depending on the level of traffic study, I I that's going to be the one that that might take a little bit more time. Uh I don't depending on what their schedule is or whomever does it. Um but the other questions I think can be taken care of pretty quickly. Okay, that's all I had, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I just agree with the mayor. Um we've done this before. We've hired the company to come in and do a quick assessment of traffic counts, which we could possibly do that if we can work with them. The chief of police has done it and um so has El Cole. So, I don't know if they can do it within a couple weeks, maybe. We just have to see. Uh I don't see why not, especially uh with school beginning next week. It's probably prime time to do it. Two weeks, the 25th. Yeah, the first week would be great to do it in September. You might have that available for the meeting. Two day two day standing. Okay. Um I'll support the motion if I make the motion. Sure. Okay. I would like to uh make the motion to postpone to a date certain of September 10th. Uh barring September 10th. um hoping to get the information um as requested by comm for community development and uh engineering review that was seconded by Gearb. Yes. Yep. Or alter the mayor if he wants to. No, it's all good. Council member Gerba can take the second. Can I make a

request of of our um our staff support that assuming the motion passes tonight and I have a reason to expect it will. Can we get an uh an invitation an email is an invitation of sorts. Can we get an email out to everybody on planning commission in the next 48 hours just to confirm that we will have a September 10th meeting and that obviously as is true with all of our boards and commissions. We want to try to emphasize attendance and participation as much as possible. Additional discussion on the motion to postpone to a date certain of September 10th, 2025. No. All those in favor? I. All those opposed motion passes. Uh no new business on the agenda. Um, is there a motion on the table to excuse the absences of Lefort, Heft, and Carol? I'll make that motion. Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Is there a motion to adjurnn at 8:21? Second. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much.