Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

You know, it's funny. The the last five minutes that we wait before we start are always the quietest. Kind of feel like we should have like some Mozart or, you know, like elevator just kind of maybe Jeopardy. I'd argue that

I'd argue after we start recording All right, Andrew, whenever you're ready. Good to go. Perfect. All right, we'll go ahead and call this Tula City Planning Commission meeting to order this Wednesday, May 13th, 2026, at the hour 700 p.m. here in city council chambers. Uh, if you'll all please rise and repeat the pledge with me.

I pledge algiance 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. Always thank you for that. Uh there is has been a sign significant increase in fraudulent fishing requests using information from the public's notices that are issued concerning the applications being heard during the planning commission meetings. Uh Twilla City collects fees only at the time of application submittal. Twilla city will never ask for funds to be sent over wire transfers. Legitimate Twilla City emails always end with twilla city.gov. If you receive a request requiring you to pay additional fees for an application in an email that does not end in twillity.gov, gov after your application of course has been submitted. This is fraud. If you receive such a request, please contact Andrew or Miss England at the Tula City Community Development Center immediately. Do not pay those funds. Thank you for that. All right. Number two on our agenda tonight is a roll call. Commissioner Hammer

here. Commissioner Lynford here. Commissioner Proctor here. Commissioner Codova here. Commissioner Jensen here. Commissioner Anderson here.

I am Chairman Hamilton. I am also here. I'll also rec recognize commissioners um fairlo I'm sorry brain farts please excuse commissioner Sloan and our minute taker miss young recognize council member Gossit and staff members agard Hansen miss England and Mr. Johnson here tonight. Uh so please with our minutes taker here, please uh state your name before you speak so she can get our minutes correct. She's really good at what she does, but let's help her out as much as possible. Uh number three on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and a recommendation on a proposed text amendment to Twilla City Code, Title 7, Chapter 4, Off Street Parking Requirements regarding the establishment of specific parking and storage standards for auto automobile related commercial uses. Mr. Agar. Thank you, commissioners. This ordinance amendment uh you are all familiar with as it was originated from the planning commission itself. I'm getting a lot of feedback on this mic here. Um so the reason we have this ordinance amendment is to city code 7-4-4 does not provide any specific parking requirements for automobile related commercial uses. So when the code is silent on parking requirements, the code defers to the community community development director to establish appropriate parking requirement. On February 11th, 2026, the planning commission vote unanimously to direct staff to consider amendments to the city code and to establish clear parking standards for automobile related commercial uses. and Commissioner Lynford put together some uh preliminary code uh amendments and we did take those and and looked at those and

felt that the proposal was was sound. The general language proposed by the planning commission involves the the five points. uh it involves a purpose which is to establish the purpose for the ordinance and to distinguish ancillary temporary parking from main parking requirements. Number two, minimum off streetet parking requirements establishes the parking requirements for automobile service and repair auto parts supply and retail and automobile sales and rental businesses. And then number three, it includes a table which duplicates some of the information in paragraph two, but also includes some information regarding uh smaller cars and also some tow towing services. And then number four, vehicle storage and display areas are not counted towards parking compliance. and five requires a site plan delineating temporary vehicle storage associated with towing services which are associated with vehicular repair of businesses and requires those areas to be paved and screened. Now, in in looking at these proposed amendments, staff has recommended a couple of minor edits. Uh we would like to add the words repair and rental to the listed automobile related uses and remove paragraph two in favor of the proposed table. uh we feel that the the paragraph in the table really communicate the same thing so we could have one or the other. I did take this to the city council work session at the May 6th meeting and had a good discussion with our with our city council members concerning this proposal. They did raise some questions and they asked me to bring it back to the planning commission and and uh discuss some of these with you. Uh, number one is the ordinance requiring too much parking for auto parts retail businesses. And I would take that even further is with auto parts retail, do we need a specific parking requirement for auto parts as it just falls under

general retail? Um, number two or number three, excuse me, uh, does the new ordinance create unnecessary parking burdens for businesses locating on existing smaller parcels? Number four, does it serve the city better to provide staff and the planning commission with the flexibility necessary to accommodate smaller or non-conforming properties and their parking needs? And number five, how are service bays defined? Some service bays may have more than one auto lift or one workstation. So those are some of the questions the city council had in regards to uh this proposal. I was interested in the number four. Uh there is some beauty in having some flexibility. Uh for example, the the automobile repair business that we approved or that you approved a couple weeks ago. Uh under this proposal, they would have had to provide at least 12 park installs. It would have been very difficult for a business on a limited size property to do that. However, having the flexibility, we were able to tailor that conditional use approval in a way that that they could function. So, that was just one thing the council brought up. I thought that was an interesting point. Um, otherwise, uh, that's what's being requested and I'll turn the time back over to the planning commission. If you have any questions, try to answer them for you.

Perfect. Let's bring it back to the commission. That's the first question I would have had who I would have had. Was this going to be a tool to benefit you or is it going to hinder you more than anything? I think it's it's a tool that will benefit new development is a as far as existing lots and existing non-conforming lots. This could be problematic. Okay,

Mr. Chair, I have some Yes, Commissioner Anderson. And they parallel what the city council said pretty closely, I think. And I I went through this afternoon and this probably isn't exact, but just starting on the south end of Main Street and going down to a few auto businesses. Um I just kind of did some figures real quick. So that was one of my questions was retail establishments. We already have an existing parking code for those. Well, it's not specifically listed as parts retail, but

well, just retail in general. I don't see what the difference is myself. I don't see any difference. That was the point the council raised as well is like what's the difference between lumber retail and auto parts retail retail. So and then so um are you laughing at me? No I I I'm just there is a difference in retail because if I go in to Macy's I can plan on 30 minutes there. If I'm going in to get a auto part I better be in and out of there in 10 minutes or I'm not going to be happy.

Yeah. Well, but I mean we already have. But anyways, so I just because and then the one you were talking about, the one that we approved a couple weeks ago or a month ago, whenever it was. Um I I figured that had three bays. Then it also in the code it was proposed for five minimum of five parking spaces for customers. So that would be 39 I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time. 14 spaces if I figured the way I I did the math and I could be wrong on that. But just behind them, the auto body shop, Rick Hall's Auto Body, he's been there for quite a while. I don't remember how many years, but about as long as I can remember. And I've never seen cars stacked or I've never seen myself a problem in the alley. And he has five bays. So that would make 15 extra parking spots plus five for customers. The way I read the code, that's a total of 20 spots. and he only has six parking spots cuz it's a tiny lot and I've never seen an issue there on that one and then Harris Lube up at the top a town by Gophers depending on how you look at the bays poss and that was another thing what defines a bay you know but it could be up to six bays they have that would be 18 parking spots plus five which is a total of 23 total parking spots they maybe have 12 on the site and I get my oil change there and I've never had a problem pulling in or anything. Um, Master Auto Care. Well, I'll go down just to get down to Jify Loop. That was the last one that I did. They have three bays cuz they're just pull three pullth through bays. So, that's nine spots plus five is 14. They have 12 parking spots. That's a semi- new development and there's never an issue there in my eyes. So, I think my feeling is it's a little bit I like it how it was. I think we need some leeway back and forth for certain sites. And I mean, if even if you had, in my opinion, if you had 30

bays at some of these place or 30 parking spots, there's some owners that are just going to fill it up no matter what they have. And there's some that are going to keep it clean. So I I think it's too restrictive, you know, and I know this doesn't retroactively go to the the companies that are already there, but if there's a labs for a year, then they wouldn't be able to open up again. And I, you know, we want to keep our buildings our commercial buildings full in in Tilla. So unless as of right now, I would forward a negative recommendation myself unless something seriously changed, but I don't I don't know that we need to change it. I I like it. I like the flexibility myself. So,

to kind of piggy back off of that though, you brought up some uh auto repair shops do not have that circulation going. They have piles of cars there. I think this is what we're trying to mitigate. And how do we do that? I I I understand that. This is probably too much, but somewhere in between. But I also think that I mean if you had 20 more than what the code said, some of them would still fill it up, you know, and what do you do about that? How do you write a code for that? So that's my feeling, Mr. Leaper.

Um, so I I was watching the the council work session while while I was at work. Um, and some of the the amendments that I would propose or corrections to what I currently have is the the one would be adding flexibility language. Something along the lines of the planning commission may modify required parking where unique parcel constraints, redevelopment conditions, share parking arrangements, or operational characteristics justify adjustments. That would still give the the commission to make those exceptions like we did um a week ago or sorry, two weeks ago in our last session. Um, one of one of the other amendments that I would make would be to clarify what a bay is because just for curiosity, I I work at a dealership in in the valley and I asked five of my co-workers, two from service and three from sales. And believe it or not, I got five different answers. Um, I I would put a definition to what a bay actually is. Um, for Jiffy Loop, door in, door out, one workspace, that that to me is a B. Um, when you go into like uh the the Tilla Motor Company, they have one garage door, but let's say they have 12 bays inside, I'm going to I would say that the bay itself is the door that you enter and exit from to work on a vehicle. Um, so that that would minimize some of the uh that that would clarify some of the the discrepancy there. The other thing that I I would agree with is is removing um auto parts and supply store, removing that language because that would fall

under general retail. The biggest concern that that this brought up was more along the lines of service repair facilities and um dealers coming out, not having lots completely stacked where there is no parking. Um so with that, I would say one parking space per bay when it comes to service. that would give the flexibility back and would be less constant on um those smaller shops as well as adding that flexibility language and defining what a bay is. Um again, the purpose of this uh amendment was simply to give a guideline um something that could be a backup enforcement because what we currently have isn't enforceable and it's really hard for um code enforcement to actually go that route. So this would give an alternative method to enforce the lots where they just pile cars on top of each other. And that was again kind of the basis and the purpose of this was was to provide that clarity and to provide some way to enforce and and keep our our city going in the direction we want both in growth and cleanliness. Um so after re reviewing the city council's work session those those would be the amendments that I would um propose at which point um I think that would appease quite a few people and then also restricting the language that says whichever um for automotive sales whichever is greater removing that language as well um and just saying that you know one customer parking space per 400 ft of gross flooring area in the sales area. Um, I think that would be sufficient as well because going down Main Street myself, I thought, you know, by ride enterprise, they got five five parking spots right up front. The owner takes one of them and then the rest is just lot for for

vehicles to sell. And this would be a strain on them as well. Um, so those would be the the proposed language changes and and corrections to this that I think would give back the the flexibility that um, city council as as well as the commission wants, but as well as having some sort of guideline that we we can follow and could be enforced in the future. I think it just gives both options at that point. Yeah.

And I do like the idea of consistency instead of, oh, you did this for one business, but you didn't do it for this business. So, if we have a consistent standard, that kind of helps us out a little bit, too. But, yeah, I agree with that. And I hope I didn't sound contentious with what I said. It's just

I'm I I think I've said it here before. I'm more for people's rights and you know not I I hate pigeon holeing and I always try to look further down the line the unintended consequences of things you know and I think everybody here does you know but and then sometimes I think a code could get written and but in 10 years you know Andrew might retire none of us might be here you know I pe people change and they read things differently as well you know and I think sometimes things get a little bit misconstrued and you know the next group of people or whatever and that could happen tomorrow for all we know. Yeah. Different perceptions and everything. Yep. I like it.

Sure. Yes. Commissioner Anderson.

So my military background wants me to have this all structured and go with this. But my realtor background says absolutely not. it's property rights and and when we start putting those restrictions in place, we start limiting those. And quite honestly, I really like having the ability to just do on a case-byase basis and looking at the at the specific parcel, the specific application. So that's why I had great discussion. Please add more. Let's keep talking about it. There's no contention here. Tell us your opinions. That's your job.

Yes, Commissioner L. So I I guess my question that I would ask everyone to think on then because if I remember correctly uh I want to say it was towards the end of January, early February, we had a cup come up where this was a kind of a huge concern cuz we didn't cuz it's in a residential area and um one of the conditions we had was that you know the lot had to be taken care of and be obscured but The concern with that was the initial application also had towing, but then um our concern was that we didn't want it as a wrecking yard. So, I guess my question would be this. Outside of maybe putting a better definition with with towing, how is there a way to give a guideline that would allow community development enforcement or code enforcement to actually enforce the properties that do pile up? because if that's what we're trying to prevent, I'm just I'm just trying to think out loud is if like I I understand the flexibility that that you're talking about and and property owners rights. Um which which is why I I would amend and add that flexibility language and bring it down a notch on what the parking is required. But simultaneously if we leave as is then we kind of still have that gap where it's not really enforcable.

Does that so that that's that's the only question that I would have like I understand your guys's perspectives on it. Makes a lot of sense. And I wonder Andrew what is the city's definition on a like a wrecking yard or what is it impound yard? I I don't even know the verbiage of that. We have two uses in our ordinance. We have an impound yard and we have an we have an auto automobile storage yard. Okay. There's also an auto wrecking yard. So there's actually three definitions. Those are uses that are only permissible in the industrial zoning district. Yeah.

And it's just basically when the focus of the business is exclusively storage of vehicles. That's what they do. They don't repair them. They just store them there. Yeah. So that that makes it kind of tough because it's like a slight overlap towing and repair, right?

So I I don't know how to clean that up, but it makes sense what you're saying. And and part of the discussion that we had when this was first brought up was the difficulty of enforcing this because in order to enforce what we currently have, it would be a code enforcement officer having to walk up and be like, "All right, I saw this car here last month." like it it it puts a lot more strain and and maybe unnecessary burden on our code enforcement officer to be able to pinpoint well how long has this car been here? How long has this car been here? Can we see the repair orders for these? And and so that's where this what I proposed um was a hybrid adaptation from um Cedar City's current uh code, West Valley and Salt Lake's current codes. Um, I tried to water it down because we are not those cities. Um, they're a little bit more they're even more restrictive than the way I wrote it. Um, but I mean, if we're looking for flexibility and and maybe just a bare minimum form to enforce, then I think something similar along these lines should be there, even if it's watered down. Because at some point if someone's stacking cars back to back where there's no visible way to move a vehicle because it's blocked in, then having something similar to this, it's a lot easier for a code enforcement officer to be like, "All right, this is the size of the the parcel. You got 15 cars more than what you should. What's going on?" And that that kind of brings in a gateway to enforce this this concern.

Yeah. So, I guess would we want even more flexibility? I mean, one one stall per bay I think is pretty flexible as as is. Yeah, I think

um that makes sense to me. One stall per bay. But I also wonder too just the difference between an auto repair store and like a Jify Lube. you know, it's still automotive service, but at Jifiloo, people don't get out of their car unless they're already in the bay. They, you know, get it's almost like a drive-thru. So, but I get I mean, three stalls, so that'd be eight total, right? Yeah. At a minimum, because you're five, I think that's reasonable. Something like that to me. Well, and if needs be, if the concern is specifically um if if the concern now with with the proposal that I that of the changes that I've suggested is more geared towards, you know, in-n-out shops such as um Jify Lube or uh the the U-Haul lube up here by Gophers. Um I mean realistically we can take this a step further to better define um the use and put automobile service excluding lube only locations. Um the the bigger concern is when vehicles go in and they need a transmission.

Yeah. Um, for for example, my wife's car has been in um after her transmission going out, we've been without a car for 46 days now, and it's bounced between two locations. Um, the first one is sat for 3 weeks simply because they were waiting on parts and waiting on insurance. So that that's that's partly there's there's the understanding that certain parts are going to take time, but the prevention that we want is we don't want a car sitting for 6 months. That that was the only time I've seen that situation was only a handful of times during co and that was just because of import export.

Yeah. and adding the flexibility with to the planning commission to you know on smaller parcels or or as develop redevelopment conditions exist that that still does give us the flexibility to make those exceptions with with cup based on facts and not based on bias. So, I think that that flexibility language still both protects the commission, but also still gives us the the flexibility that both city council and and it sounds like the commission would want.

Excellent discussion. Yes, I think we're getting closer. Not there yet. Oh, yeah. I know there's a few things in the regulations that say people can ask for variances and stuff from either the planning commission or the city council and things like that. I've never been a part of that, I don't believe. So, I'm not sure how that works and how that works for staff. I mean, also, I think we want to make staff's job easy as as can be. You know, what works best for them as well. Men are one code enforcer as well. Got to keep him in mind. Yeah,

you could you could easily insert language in there about the PL giving the planning commission authority to to grant variances or exceptions to certain parking parking issues. That's you could also set some standards and perhaps delegate delegate that authority to staff. Yeah. Is it defined and how is it defined? What is like the terms of parking? Um I mean you have temporary parking, you have longerterm parking. No, the ordinance doesn't define what is considered temporary parking.

And is that something that we would want to look into adding or consider? The problem with codifying that when you when you get into temporary versus permanent parking, we don't have the staff to monitor that. And how do you besides marking down license plates everywhere you go? Marking the tires in itself. That one that one is problematic for us. And that's where it kind of comes back to that same concern of well, how do you know how long that car has been waiting for repair?

Mhm. And so the the purpose of this would be more so that businesses aren't biting off more than they're they can chew, not stacking cars and waiting 6 months. And that that's that's kind of the whole part part of the purpose of this is just to have a door for code enforcement to actually open because right now in order to to do anything with any lot that that's stacking cars, we don't have anything that gives code enforcement really a leg to stand.

So I have a question about the code enforcement. I'm not super up on how that works. So what does anybody remember the last auto shut where Main Street Garage used to be? I don't know the name of the new place, but how many parking spots did we say they needed? 11, I believe. The one we just did two weeks ago, 11. We approved 11. One, uh, it was 10 and then one extra for the owner cuz he parks his truck out front. Okay. So, 11 spots. So, if he has 13 cars there, like right now, which he doesn't cuz I drove by, but if he did, could code enforcement go write him a ticket? Is there a mechanism in the code for that? or is that just for basically the site plan type of approval?

If he's in violation of the conditions on his that you granted for his conditional use permit, he can enforce that. Okay. But the difference is he doesn't drive around looking for those things. Yeah. He really responds more to complaints from the general public. So if somebody calls and says, "Look, they're parking way too many cars there at that business." we will go investigate it, see if there is a violation. Rarely does he drive by and go, "The got too many cars there. I'm going to sight them." That makes sense. Usually code reform responds to complaints or hazardous situations.

Okay. So, if it wasn't uh it wasn't if it was written in the code and it wasn't a condition, can he does that make sense? because I understand that it's a condition that they have to abide by because we admit condition because we had a finding a fact that there's only you know but if we changed it and this is actually in the code like one parking spot per whatever and somebody complains that there's not one parking spot per bay is that something he could write a ticket for?

From my perspective there isn't any difference between what the code requires and what a conditional use permit authorizes the same. We're going to enforce it the same way. Okay, that was a that makes sense. So, Andrew, when he goes out on a complaint investigating a conditional use permit, does he have the stipulations that we put in place for that conditional use permit? Sure.

Absolutely. um on the code um one's one one parking spot for 400 square feet of retail space. How how easy is that to enforce and why? Now that is one where we would enforce primarily during the site plan review approval. Um, honestly, this this kind of issue, the the the one parking space per square footage, I've never been involved in enforcing that except during site plan review. So,

based on your experience with site plan review, do you think that that wording adding one parking stall to 400 ft of gross uh sales area, is that too restrictive? Is is the verbiage of adding square feet in there as a descriptor or a guideline? Is that too restrictive based on your experience? I don't think it is. I really don't. That's That's not a That's not an honorous parking standard in my opinion. Anna, what do you think? I agree with you.

She's not disagreeing with me because I'm her boss. She She actually has her own opinion. So, she knows I'm very opinionated. She has she has good opinions about things. It's a good thing. We like it. Well, Gray, this doesn't sound like something we could uh move forward with today. I don't think so. Um, what are you guys thinking? I Is there any I I would I would make a motion to um I can't think of the word now. I've talked too much already. It's all gone. You want to table this? Table it. Yes. I I would do that if everybody is done talking. kind of clean up the language with what we discussed closer to what if everybody's okay with that.

You want to do it on a time frame basis or when Andrew has it ready for us? I think whenever it's ready. Whenever it's ready. Yeah, we can do that. Is that lenient enough but not too lenient for you? Sure. That it won't linger on for seven years. No, you're on top of it. I'm not worried about that. All right. So, I have a motion from Commissioner Anderson or Commissioner Jensen to table this particular item. And I will second until we get some more language cleaned up. Commission, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I did notice this as a public hearing. Oh, yes, you are correct. So, we may want to just open the public hearing. And let's do that. All right. Let's go ahead and open the public hearing for this particular item.

We got one person out there and he's shaking his head at me. Okay, with no one approaching, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and move back to our motion from Commissioner Jensen to go ahead and table this particular item for more language clean up in the ordinance itself. Uh, with everything we've discussed tonight, um, is there anything else we need to add to that before we take this to the for vote? I don't think so. Chair?

Yes. Outside of the five areas of the language that has already been uh discussed, are there any other concerns with language that is currently in? Uh I ask cuz I'm the one that originally wrote this. So if I'm cleaning up language, I just want to make sure that I'm hitting all the points that that we're aware of at at this time. As as far as I can think, I mean, well, everything we've talked about, it's all I can those are my concerns. Any question? We may have more concerns when it comes back too. So, Commissioner, are you cleaning up the language or is staff cleaning up the language? I was thinking we could tag team on it. He can work on it and I can work on it. We can come together on that. Okay. Of

course, Mr. Johnson's always involved because this is code. So, we want Okay. But I'll be involved. I I appreciate you clarifying. I guess I assumed. So, yeah, it's good. All right. I've got a motion to table this from Commissioner Jensen and a second from Commissioner Anderson. Is there any discussion before we take this to a vote? All right. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Lynford, I. Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Cordova, I. Commissioner Jensen, hi. Commissioner Anderson, hi. I am Chairman Hamilton, I also vote I. That one is tabled until a further meeting to clean up some language on that one.

All right. Good discussion. Great. I love it. Um, moves us on to number four on our agenda tonight is a public hearing and a recommendation on a proposed text amendment to Tula City Code 7-11A-17 design standards, wall and fences regarding an exception to the current fencing requirements when a new multifamily residential project is constructed adjacent to an existing single family residential development where fencing has already been installed. Mr. Agar.

Thank you, commissioners. So this text amendment application is an actual application by Brett Levelvel representing Ledger Cove. If you're familiar with Ledger Cove, it is the project uh just north of Thousand North and east of 600 West that is under construction. U you'll also notice that there is some excavating going on the corner. The Holiday Oil will be beginning construction as well, just for your information. Ledger Cove is a little further east of that and they've encountered a situation where the the fencing requirement as required by code is coming into conflict with the existing fencing that some of the residents have installed. I don't see the applicant here, so I can just explain what they're asking for. I can't explain the applicant's perspective, but we might as well just go ahead and proceed. When multifamily residential is adjacent to single family or commercial zoning, a solid fence with equally spaced columns or peers is required. Columns or peers being brick or stone and any the other kind of masonry. Usually the spacing is 8 to 10 ft. Sometimes a fence on the adjacent development has already been installed and does not meet the columns or peers requirement. And when this happens, does this eliminate the fencing requirement for the new multifamily development? The problem we have is currently the ordinance does not provide any mechanism whereby the fencing situation can be addressed. And so what usually happens is developers end up constructing a fence next to an existing fence. That can create problems for us. Number one, a fence within a fence is a relatively useless situation and a waste of resources and money. Number two, that space between that fence collects weeds and garbage and I'm going to say invasive trees. Box elders and Siberian elms like to they blow in there in the wind and they grow and they are hard to get out when

you can't get to the base of those things. Um the areas been the area between the fencing is impossible to maintain and it results in haphazard fencing and a lack of cohesiveness in fencing appearances. So, the developer submitted this application, paid the fee, and they proposed the language. This is a brief synopsis of what they're proposing, but the actual language was provided in your in your staff report. I gave you two documents. One of them has the current ordinance, then the amendments proposed by the applicant, and then there's some edits from the staff as well. But basically what they're asking for is they'd like to have the ordinance provide an exception that can be granted by the city council. According this is the applicant's proposal relieving relieving the applicant of the vertical columns or peers requirement. The proposed ordinance will set criteria where an exception may be granted involving A the subject property line has fencing that has already been installed previously by the adjacent owners. B. The fencing is not visible from major public roadways. C. The proposed fencing is consistent with the city's development standards and the standards of the surrounding development. D. The modification creates a more cohesive and uniform appearance, incorporating adjacent fencing. And E demonstrates the addition of columns or peers would create conflict with adjacent fencing. And F approval of such exception shall be by the city council. Some of the edits from staff is staff would prefer the planning commission be granted authority to hear and grant the exception rather than the city council. Uh this is an administrative role that should be borne by the planning commission. Uh Anna did suggest today before the meeting that this could actually be an exception that's granted by the staff if the planning commission wanted to grant that authority. If they meet the if they meet the criteria,

staff could grant that. So that that's something the commission can consider as well. and then add transportation master plan as the determining authority of what is a major arterial or collector road. We want to make sure that we we follow our plans in regards to those roads. So that's that's what's being requested. I I think the proposal is sound. We have had these situations arise many times and it would be nice to have something in the code that would allow us some flexibility to address these to avoid these double fencing situations. Um, that's pretty much the gist of the application. I can I can't speak for what the applicant's intentions were. He did provide a document that listed that and I think I'm pretty close to what they what they're looking for. So, I think it's pretty self-explanatory. It's it's it's I like it. Um, but like I said, I I like how we probably should grant either the planning commission or staff because we're the ones looking at those site plans, uh, not the city council. were the ones granting all of this anyway. So, that would be my suggestion as well. These two bullet points are perfect, but I would almost push it towards staff because they're the ones really looking at this.

Yeah. Yeah. And the question should be and Anna made a really good point. I mean, do we want to clog up your time with something like that where staff can look through that criteria and and deal with that at administrative level? That's up to you guys. Make sure it complies. Up to you guys. I it makes perfect sense to me too. No reason to put up two fences in the same spot basically and you know and I'm fine with I think it'd be good if staff doesn't mind doing it. I think it'd be fine for them to do it. If it was on the planning commission myself personally I'd like the applicant to supply pictures so everybody can see like exactly what they're talking about just so nobody tries to abuse it, you know.

Or we get a short bus and Andrew takes us on a field trip. Yeah. Commissioner Lynford. So, what I understand the purpose of of this amendment, but what I'm I'm a little foggy on is is and maybe I just missed it. What options does this provide them to just not put up any fencing on the side at all or to put up um fencing that is that is equivalent to it? Like if they already have vinyl fencing, they would just continue with vinyl at that point. Yes. They would just they would install fencing that matches the existing fencing. Okay. So chain closely matches it. So chain link they would do chain.

I went and looked at this property and it's you can see where most of it vinyl fencing down through there and I can see that it is would piece in where they need enclose the people's backyard for them and then the fencing would be continuous and serve the same purpose. So with chain link, it would be the same. They would just for a new development, they'd put chain link if it was on the rearment of the property. Never chain link. No, I think chain link would be a situation where the exception would not be granted because

the the ordinance is requiring solid fencing. And so um that would be a situation where we'd have to work with the developer to resolve it. But in but in that situation down there, if they just basically filled in basically built the back fence for some of these people, it'd be continuous. It would solve a problem very easily. Yeah. And I think that would be where staff or us, whoever would decide like at that time like, oh yeah, that's not going to work. It's chain link. We're not going to put in more chain links. That has to be sight obscuring fencing. Correct. Commissioner Hammer's got a point. I I have a couple comments. Good.

Um, so the I did see that there is at least one homeowner who has not property owner owner who has not put in their fencing. Um, so the developer would just go in and put in the fencing on somebody else's property and then who maintains the fence if it gets broken or it gets graffiti? Like at that point, who owns the fence? Okay? cuz those homeowners have installed that fence and to them that's their fence and and and I I I would just think that they that they would I wouldn't want to share my fence that I spent thousands of dollars on and then have people break it or hang on it or do different things

or the wind blow it down. Yeah. Or the wind blow it down. They just don't. And that's my fence. And I I would I mean, they're going to get the benefit of thousands of dollars that these homeowners have put in. And I'm not opposed to I have neighbors in my very on my street who have double fences. Good fences make good neighbors. So, I'm not opposed to two fences. I just don't think that is a problem. Actually, I don't know. Did the homeowners receive letters about this? From what the developer explained to me as they approached they approached the homeowners

all of them because it it said many of them and it said and one of the and the language was they were um they didn't want what did they say they were hesitant to take down their fences but was it ever proposed to them they can keep their fence to include to keep their backyard and then a new fence would come in they were resistant to removing their fences. I wouldn't want to move mine either. I'd want my f my backyard enclosed to be my backyard. So, I don't like this.

But then again, it's at an expense for the homeowner as well when we're already requiring developers to put them in. But we don't know when a developer like when those homeowners put their fences in. I'm sure at some point they thought somebody might live back there sometime. But for right now, I'm enclosing my backyard. And one obviously chose not to enclose their backyard. So that brings up some valid concern. And it could just be the reason of maybe they thought at some point the developer developer will put in a fence that'll be good enough for me. I don't have to spend money on that.

And that's a valid concern for me, too. as a developer going to reimburse that homeowner for that side of the fence that they put up. You put up a fence now with two homeowners, you both pay for it usually, right? That should be how it goes cuz it's both of your fence, right? If the fence gets damaged by wind or whatever, at what point does the devel developer say that's your fence, you take care of that property line will tell you, they'll answer

it's already on their property line. It's going to be on the homeowners. And what if they say, "Well, people that live in your multifamily development are the ones who ruined it." And they say, "Prove it." I mean, I think we're opening a can of worms. I'm not sure we that I'm comfortable opening. I'm I like double fences. That's theirs and this is mine. My opinion.

No, it's good. So, could there be added language that requires the developer to get approval from any homeowners before adding to a fence? So, if a fence is not previously there, then they would come and say, "Hey, we will put this up if you agree." And then if there is a concern or a dispute over that, then it would come before the planning commission. If there's no dispute or problem with it, staff could handle it. That way, the case by case could still continue as needed. Is that an option? That way, the homeowners have a say before someone just puts that up.

You could require them to submit an affidavit from the adjacent property owners. And actually, I think it should be reversed or both of them. Pardon me.

Or both. Fence or no fence. Get permission. No, I don't need permission from you to do something on my property. That's those property rights. But if I'm if I'm not putting up a fence and that fence now becomes kind of like Commissioner Hammer's concern, kind of joint. I think that we should get permission from that property owner to not have to put up a fence.

I think just adding and I think maybe I misworded, but just adding the language that would require both the property owner and the developer to be on the same page. And if they're not, then it would be brought up at a commission level for for a site plan review or or however else we need to review that. But if if a if a homeowner turns around and goes, "Oh, you're going to put up a fence for me? Cool. I'll let you do that." And the developer says, "Yeah, I'll throw it up so that I'm within code." then I think that they should be able to have that agreement if if they so desire, but also to prevent anyone from being forced into something, having having that agreement as part of it. And if they're if they cannot find a resolution or agreement to that fence, then it be brought up for higher review at that time because then it just gives the flexibility one direction or another. It gives it gives homeowners the right to say no, but it also gives them the opportunity to say, "Sure, you can throw out more vinyl." That's cool. Cuz it kind of goes back to to what the chair was saying is my neighbors and I we have the agreement that when we're ready, we're just going to go havsies on on vinyl and continue up on the side easements. Mind you, that discussion was two years ago and nothing's been done. But that that understanding is already there. And I don't think that a developer should just have a way to either not do it or just forcefully do it without there being some kind of review, but also give them the option that if a homeowner's in favor, then they can. I think with Commissioner Hammer's comments, I didn't really think about it that way before. And I could see some, you know, if people are putting the

fence just inside their property line, you know, and the next guy doesn't want so they the developer has to match it in just outside cuz he won't let them on their property. It could zigzag. There could be a big can of worms, you know, but I don't know. I I I don't know what the solution is either. You know, if it's just if it was two single family neighborhoods or, you know, single family homes back to each other and this person put in a fence, then they build a house. I mean, they're not required. It's still a shared fence, you know, even though this person paid for it. That's kind of the same thing. I don't know that the city or our codes can get involved with that.

Yeah. And we can't really like fix everything, you know, like depending on who broke it. Like I paid for it, they broke it. That's really not in our realm. That's a civil matter between them. You know, we can't fix all of that. Creating that if we additionally, what happens when that homeowner sells their home and moves on and the wind takes out the fence? So now, who is responsible for putting up their fence?

Or one of those elm trees grows up between and pushes them both over like whose tree was that to cut down? And believe it or not, the property line between two fences. We get these kind of problems all the time through code enforcement and our response is always that's a civil matter. Work it out amongst yourselves. What's being asked for here is a mechanism whereby an exception can be considered. And we don't want to get into the he said she said offensing because that's just not

it's it's a nightmare and there's no there's no resolution to it. But the applicant is just asking for a mechanism to come and ask for an exception. We can always say no. So, I like the idea of having the property owners involved and providing an affidavit or something that indicates they're in favor of it or opposed to it. But, uh, yeah, we don't want to get involved in fencing disputes. Yeah.

So, I do have a question. Um, currently in these situations, who is responsible for maintaining the the property that's kind of in between that would have the weeds? That's the problem with a double fence. It's hard to get in there and maintain it. So, kind of hard to say who's responsible for it, too. Probably, I would imagine. Yep. Andrew, are are commercial developments required to address fencing during notification periods of the surrounding homeowners?

Commercial? No. There is no ordinance mandate for fencing. The only fencing for commercial to residential the only code the only place where the code mentions it is if it needs to go to planning commission the planning commission can address it. Let me rephrase that then for for like this kind of development um where the developer is coming in to to do that. Is there requirement for notification from neighbors? No. Okay.

I wonder if we do something I don't know commissioner hammer be more comfortable if the planning commission then we could talk about all this. I personally I trust staff to do it. Um, and I think maybe a noticing like with a conditional use permit, maybe they just have to notice all the neighbors, but that would maybe be to where they'd have to come to a planning commission meeting, the neighbors if they didn't want to do it or didn't want them to mess with their fence or something and then talk about it. that might be a benefit of the planning commission being the ones that give the uh variance or whatever you want to call it because that way they have to notice the property owners that it's going to affect and they have a chance to come in and say like hey I don't want to do that like I don't want you to mess with my fence or what I don't know

yeah there's got to be something but I I get your I get your point commissioner Lford go ahead

out of curiosity Andrew If we wanted to table this, could we table this until the applicant was able to come in and answer some of these questions? Cuz I'm the the train of thought that that we're kind of going down. I think a lot of the the person that can give those answers as far as what they're envisioning is is the applicant. And so I guess my question would be could we table this until the applicant is available to answer these questions? And secondly, if the applicant is not able to come in at any given time, is would it just remain tabled or would this be something that we would just move forward and with having as many concerns and questions? Would this be something that we would just kind of close out if if the applicant is unable to attend? Well, it is a legislative item and so you do have some flexibility there. It is an application that they paid $2,000 for. And so if we're going to table it pending the applicant arrive, I would like I would prefer we make it time-specific. And if he doesn't do that in that time, then we forward it with a negative recommendation. It needs it needs to be closed out one way or the other. So, absolutely, you can table it until the applicant comes, but I don't recommend an indefinite tableabling because a large amount of money was involved in the application.

Didn't the applicant know that we were talking about this tonight? He had the opportunity to be here. Okay. And hopefully he's listening on YouTube or can come back and listen to this again and see all of our comments and hopefully address them. But, but additionally, this is a public hearing as well. Mhm. And I don't see any. But do the neighbors know? But were they notified? Guarantee they were. Ordinance amendments are notified in a different way. We don't send out notifications to the neighboring property owners because an ordinance amen amendment affects the entire city. So we post them at city hall and the state's noticing website and other locations. So they don't get they don't get the direct mailing. Gotcha.

For not for ordinance amendments. I would think a lot of them probably don't know that we're talking about this then would be my guess cuz if it was in my backyard I probably wouldn't know. I don't read those things just to be honest. Yeah. If I had told the developer don't tear down my fence then I've spoken like I'm done with that. Yeah. I wouldn't think I need to come to a meeting and say

I don't want him using my fence. I just also wonder what what questions would you want the developer to um answer cuz I have a lot of questions and but I I don't know that he I mean he would have specific ones to this but we can't just think it's not just specific to this situation. This is citywide until we change it again. So it's it's a lot bigger than just this situation. So I don't know that or waiting for the developer to say his piece. I mean it's good to give them their their time to speak if they want but I I think it's more than for me it's more than just listening to the developer. I don't know if he would be able to answer any of my long-term questions.

Like to reiterate also Andrew said this is a tool in their toolbox. We can always say no. Yeah. And that would be up to whoever we decide to put this on, either us or the the staff, but we can say no.

Yeah. and that that that is in there. So, well, I'll just try to move it forward maybe. I I think my opinion if we I think it's okay for staff to do it. Personally, I think we give them the discretion. Um, and then also to put something in there to where they have to notify the property owners to where they could come talk to staff, you know, at least give them their opinion. I would mind it coming to the planning and zoning if you guys wanted to do it that way. But I'm good with that either way, but I think that they should notify the property owners it's going to affect just like they did with the cup a mail mail out, you know, and if we put something like I I would forward a positive recommendation with those parameters myself. You guys can go ahead and keep discussing. Okay.

Is that going to be your motion? Then we got to do a Is that anybody else? We got to do a public hearing first. Mr. Mr. Chairman, we need to open public hearing first. Yep. So, let's go ahead and do that before we have any other further discussion. And we'll we'll take that as a side note for now. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. If you'd like to speak to this item, please approach the podium. State your name for the record. Write your name for the record. Sing a song for Commissioner Hammer. I don't know why I'm picking on you tonight, but I am. All right. I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Is there any other further discussion that we thought of during that lengthy public hearing? Okay. Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Anderson.

I think that it should stay with the planning commission. I'm just thinking that in terms of review, that kind of thing, but the notification going forward, the only I don't know if it'd be easier for staff to do it themselves or to bring it to us. I think it might be, like I said, good for us. That way they can come down, say their piece, it's on record, you know, and what we decide. It's easier for us to take. I I would assume I mean I'm sure Andrew and I I'm sure they have thick skin by now. All the people I have to deal with, but there's a bunch of us up here. We can take it. They're not attacking any one of us instead of going to Andrew's office and yelling at me, you know, or Anna. I don't Yeah, they'll be picking on Anna.

Anna. So, they'll be yelling at Anna, you know. So, it might be easier that way. I don't know. matters. Um, also, you know, if it does become contentious, because I do like the idea of notifying the neighboring properties that would be affected. Um, and if we have any requests to bring it to a public hearing, then we can do it at that time. Or if things come up where you believe that planning commission should be a part of the decision making process, we can also do that too. So yeah,

I have one question about the public noticing. So when when they notice like for conditionally, is it go to the property owner on file or to the house? That goes to the property owner. Okay. Y So if it's renting it, property owner lives in California, it goes to California. They're the ones that get the Okay. So is there a way that we could put this so it's staff determined unless it is contentious, then we can bring it to a hearing. Is there language we can put in there for that or does that muddy it up? That muddies it up because how do we determine contentious? I think the best thing to do would be just to let the city planner determine when there's that issue or if they just request to ple or if they just request it, leave the opportunity to request it.

Yeah. Yeah. And everybody's good with that. That way both kind of involved staff handles it unless there's an issue that we need to look at. I'm okay with that. And when if it came to the planning commission, do we mitigate it to death to make it work so we always approve it or do we deny it like a conditional use permit? Yeah, cuz I don't think it should, come to us and we have to mitigate the heck out of it to make it work. That's a dang good question. Because what if we have a room full of people who don't want it and the ones who did want it stayed home, it just looks contentious,

but it's not going to be a conditional use permit. So, we don't have to mitigate it. We don't have to. That's my That's the way I see it. We can just be like, "No, it's not going to work in this situation." Correct. Or do we have to have You'll have those criteria and you could take that request and you can weigh it against those criteria. If it doesn't meet those criteria, denied. Yeah, six bullet points in there. So, yeah, you don't have to get involved with mitigating who's going to maintain the fence. It's just you follow that criteria and then grant the exception. It can be as easy and or as complicated as you want it to be. We want it easy. You see,

we like it easy. I just have a hard time getting behind this without like like I understand that this would affect citywide but where this is being brought up to a specific development area. I understand how our notification system works. But you know they brought up an interesting point. How many of those homeowners that this was brought up from that site actually know that this is being discussed? And I don't know without reasonable notification and and some sort of a agreement between the developer and and property owner. I I just don't know that I would move this forward. I think that there's still a lot of I I think after 25 minutes of us discussing this and there still being some reservations and concerns that I I just don't know that I would

Yeah. I I think if if I understand you're right and I could be off base here, but like we're not deciding if he can do this now. We're just deciding if he can come and ask to do this later and we're just sending the recommendation to city council. They get to make that final decision. So I just think with those six bullet points that that there should be some requirement that addresses notification to communities.

Yeah, there there has to be some form of proof that they they have reached out to the property owners and what the answer was from there before I think it should ever come before the planning commission. I think that that should just be a requirement before it comes to a public hearing or even before it comes before us in that in that light. That's an easy fix. You put a you put another bullet point in there. The all affected property property owners submit an affidavit approving or rejecting the proposal.

Yeah, I think that's Can I ask one more question? Absolutely. What other areas in the city has this would this have been affected by? I didn't word that very well. Do you know what I mean? What other areas would this affect? Well, has it come up before when um single family homes have already been there and we've put multifamily next to it and they've had to put in their fencing. How many other times has it come up other than this? Has anybody ever asked for variance before? I've I've dealt with developers calling and saying, "What do I do? They're refusing to let me move their They they're refusing to let me connect to their fence." Um,

yeah. No doubt. And basically I've told them you need to build a fence next to the fence and the ordinance is is set. You have to do it. So you've done it a handful of times. Yeah. It happens quite often. Yeah. I mean it seemed it seems to me like it's getting more clear because if somebody's like, "No, you can't connect to my fence." Then it's like, "Well, then no, you can't do it." Cuz it is their fence like you said, Commissioner Hammer, right? They can't do it, then they can't do it. But they I have no problem with them asking and trying to get everybody on board. And if they do, good for them. If everybody's happy with it. But if they're not, then they're not and they just have to put up another fence.

If they get permission from the property owner, would that even come back to staff to meet those other six requirements or would that just kind of solve the issue altogether? Well, we have to pass this. Well, so they can do that. you would need to come back because there's a requirement for masonry columns and peers and that's that's the problem they're encountering is they're approaching property owners and they're saying look we want to replace your fence with some masonry peers in a new fence and the property owners are saying no you're not touching my fence so what they want to do is an exception so they can connect that fence into the existing fence and not have the masonry repair so it would still need to come back and you guys can still deny that request as Well,

sure. Yeah. If it doesn't meet the standards, sure. I almost like all of that. Any other discussion? So, I I heard earlier we had a motion to uh move a positive recommendation if we added the following conditions. This is staff determined and then they need to communicate and get an affidavit from the property owner. Is that correct? The only two and they can ask for uh a hearing like to come in front of the planning commission if they want to. I don't think we need that in code or do we need that in there? Is that just normal?

I don't think it would hurt to have it in there that if the applicant wants to go to the port planning commission, they may request it with the understanding that we're not here to mitigate this issue. The property owner says no, that means no. Build a fence around it. Yeah, I think that that is clear to me. Is it clear to everybody else? It is clear to me. I don't That leaves it in the hand of the property owner. Agree. What we want, isn't it? Yeah. That suffice you in your thoughts? No. That's okay. You still seeing a can of worms? Yep. That's okay. It's getting messy. Um chair, I have one more question.

Okay. um where where the public hearing was open and closed. If an individual of the public has a comment or question following the closure of a public hearing, can you reopen that? Sir, do you have a comment or question? I've seen your arm come up about six times now. So, chair, just commission. Okay. Opening the public hearing back up again to hear. Yes, sir. Yes. One person in the room tonight. Oh, we'll go ahead and open that public hearing back up again. If you please state your name for the record, write your name.

My name's Richard. I al also have a property in Lee County, Florida. We come across stuff like this all the time. If you want a code variation, you do notify all the surrounding properties that are going to be affected by it. So, say you got a height limit of 30 and your blueprints come out to 33 ft and you want a variation to do that 33 ft house. You notify the surroundings. They know, hey, here's a date. You can show up. If you have an objection, bring your objection. If you don't show up, we're going to move forward with it. And that's how they treat it. Like in Lee County, you guys are trying to cure cancer when you should be trying to fix the flu. You're trying to create like a nation, a citywide ordinance instead of just addressing the one. Why not just make it when you have a commercial next to a residential revert to residential standards? You know, why have two separate standards for fences when you have where you're letting them build next to each other? Why are there two separate rules?

Why aren't they just allowed to go vinyl? Well, why do you need pillars and all that stuff? That's what's in code right now. You don't need And it's more sturdy. Well, it's code. It's code. Yeah, but it's going to look hideous. And we do have the variances for other things that are 30 ft tall. So, we Yeah, but I'm saying though, you guys that that variance should be on a That's why they're paying the $2,000 fee is to have a case by case mitigation of their problem, not to create new rules every time there's one of these applications put in. Oh, we're going to make another standard, another standard, another standard. Just like with the parking thing. I mean, you guys are going to make it impossible to have a business, you know, if you look at it. No, we're not. We're working through it all.

Well, but just seeing some of the stuff that's discussed is like they're just making more and more and more regulations. Like that's why we got in the problem we're in today. We need less and less regulations and we need more rights put back in the property owners, the people that own their businesses and stuff to determine. I went to the mayor to try to get permission for the pawn shop guy to store our visas behind his lot, and she was blatantly against it. He can make an extra $2,000 a month of income, which he pays taxes on towards the city, just to store RVs in his 10,000 foot warehouse that's currently sitting empty. But they won't let them. Yeah, that's not what we're addressing here tonight. So, no, but I'm saying though, like little stuff like that. They're regulating the hell out of businesses where it's getting impossible to even have a business. We're still getting off track here. We're focused on

So, with the fencing thing is like deal with it case by case. Notify the neighbors, have have served notices served to the neighbors as part of the $2,000 application fee that they have. Have them require notification to the surrounding properties. And if there is an objection, then you got a problem. If there's not an objection, there's no problem. Perfect. So, I mean, making more ordinances and making more rules on the books, I don't think solves anything. It just creates more more puzzles and mazes to try to navigate. So, notify the neighbors. We do it all the time down in Florida and it's case by case. You have a public hearing. people show up if they're objected to it and it's just the surrounding properties that would be affected by what you're doing at that property. So that's what I would recommend is treating as an individual symptom, not trying to create some across the books rule that's just going to make more mess down the road for the next project that happens to come across like she said neighbors that don't want it whatever. So I mean it's an easy solution and we're just making it more complicated I think as a city. So,

what was your last name, Richard? Strip. Thank you.

I will go ahead and close the public hearing since there is nobody else in here. Bring it back to the commission for further discussion or movement.

We have that first kind of motion. You want to keep with that one? Okay.

So, what I'm what we're looking at here is Commissioner Jensen has a motion to forward a positive recommendation with the conditions added that this will be a staff detriment uh decision. Uh uh communicate with the property owners, get an affidavit from the property owners to make sure that they're they're they want to comply with this and that they can request a hearing if they disagree with the decisions made and we can hear it here uh with the understanding that we're not here to mitigate this issue. If the property owner doesn't want it, then simply the property owner doesn't want it. So, um I'm hoping staff can handle that. They've handled it for this long, they can probably continue to handle it that way. Is that going to be okay verbage wise for you guys? And legally, we're good. Matt,

I I think that covers it. I think I think we'll we know what uh what the motion is. Perfect. Um I just want to add one thing to that. um with the notice of them being able to give a public hearing if they disagree with a decision, do we want to put a time frame on that? Cuz if they if we say within 14 days or 10 business days, that gives them time to file that file that public hearing before they just construct. They can't construct without the affidavit anyway. So,

they can't do anything until the property owner gives them the go-ahhead to do it. On that point, I will note for this isn't the same thing, but for administrative hearings, we do have a 10-day deadline to to get in some kind of a request for appeal. This wouldn't exactly be an appeal, but that that is a thought that is in other parts fall under all of that anyway. Yeah, because cuz you mentioned the request to make a public hearing if they disagreed with a decision. So, is that the the decision? Is that the property owner? It's giving them the opportunity to request a hearing. It's not saying that they have to or they need to. If, like I said, if that property owner says, "No, you're not touching my fence," then we are not touch. Nobody's touching their fence. Okay?

They will not tie into it. They will build around it. I think that's what I'm understanding from everybody. That's my understand. We're leaving the property rights in the property owner's hands, right? I will second that motion. Okay. And I got a second from Commissioner Cordova. I know this is a long discussion. Any other discussion before we take this to a vote? I like it. Okay. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? Nay. Commissioner Lynford, nay. Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Cordova, I. Commissioner Jensen, hi. Commissioner Anderson, nay.

You guys are killing me tonight. You know what I love about this though? We're not the final say. we can send this up to the city council. I will vote yay. So, this one is a positive recommendation with those three conditions added to it. Uh heading up to the city council for their determination. I don't get paid the big bucks like you guys do. No, that's great discussions, great topics tonight. I appreciate you guys for doing all of that. Um there is no contentious in here. We are here to serve our community. Uh we are all business owners in here, most of us or entrepreneurs. Uh we all have different backgrounds, so everybody's keeping an eye out for everybody and I greatly appreciate that. Always keeping the property owners in mind. Uh moving this to number five is our city council reports.

I'm going to be lazy tonight because his uh microphone was whistling the whole time. So I'm going to hang out over here. I'm going to pull Councilman Hansen. I'm going to hang out up here.

That's okay. So, uh, some of the good news I saw today that you probably everybody knows about, but, uh, I thought I'd pass that on was the determination that they're not going to move forward with a stop light at the bottom of Skyline in Main Street. So, that's kind of a a fun one that meant everybody's voices were heard, you know, when they were able to fill out that paperwork um, right over here that night that uh, UD do came. I didn't think that was going to happen. I thought they're just going to blow through and do what they want to do. But uh uh good for everybody that uh let their voice be heard. Uh the other funny thing I was thinking about tonight was I was thinking, man, it would have been really cool if all of you guys lived in Gley, Colorado, and were on the planning commission cuz in 1996, I went to Gley, Colorado to do a grease monkey and a hogy yogi teriyak sticks. And the grease monkey had 10 bike racks, a rack for 10 bikes. And I said to the guy, "You guys changing oil on bikes or what?" And he says, "It's required by the city. You have to have bike racks for 10." So I was sitting there thinking, man, you guys would have taken care of that tonight. So, but it makes you realize how many funny things can come up and and really the power's in your hands to make that determination of whether it's needed or not. So, it's fun to watch you guys and uh that's all I've got.

Got any questions for Council Member Coset? Just a comment. Yes. I just want you to know in 96 I was 2 years old. Councilman, thanks a lot. You're welcome. This is not my real hair color. I dye it this color. I was terrorizing everybody on the road. I was 16. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Appreciate the kind words as well. Uh, this moves us on to number six on our agenda is a review and a decision on our April 22nd, 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Hopefully, we got a chance to read those. Are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? I move that we adopt or miss presented.

Okay. Okay, I got a motion to approve from Commissioner Proctor. Do I have a second? I'll second. And a second from Commissioner Lynford. Commissioner Hammer, how do you vote? I. Commissioner Lynford, I. Commissioner Proctor, I. Commissioner Cordova, I. Commissioner Jensen, hi. Commissioner Anderson, hi. I am Chairman Hamilton. I also vote I. Those pass seven to zero. Moves us on to number seven. I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Thank you, Commissioner Lynford. We are adjourned at 8:18 p.m.