e e e e e e e e e e e e okay I think everyone's ready uh we can call to order our study session we have one item on the agenda here this evening and that is to discuss the regular meeting agenda um I see on the regular meeting we have consent agenda has Dr 2479 up 24-44 and UP24 d45 Po popstroke and then on the non-consent uh is GP 2403 Pony Lane and z415 pony Lane um is there anyone that believes that there should be any movement in these I know that staff notified me there's likely some public in attendance that wishes to speak on Pony Lane so I don't believe we will move that one uh is everyone okay with the pop stroke okay very good then great discussion I will adjourn the study session and uh we'll be back in five minutes for the regular meeting thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay everyone it's 6 o'clock now thank you all for joining me for the study session we are now going to call to order the regular meeting the first order of business will be the Pledge of Allegiance please rise and join in with me thank you very much Eva could we get a roll call please please commissioner lion commissioner H here commissioner D Gina here commissioner Gage commissioner Davis here commissioner Simon here commissioner Anderson yeah Vice chairman Fay here chairman Mt here we have a quarum thank you Eva okay so on to item number two which is the approval of the agenda I believe we will be leaving it as is so I will entertain a motion chair we need a motion to not do anything I'll uh make a motion to approve the agenda is written written we have a motion from I'll second that and we have Motion in a second everybody please cast your vote motion carries 70 next on the agenda Communications Communications from pardon me Communications from citizens at this time members of the public May comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the town the commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda therefore pursuant the state law action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter responding to any criticism or scheduling the matter for further consideration I currently don't have any cards are there any citizens here wishing to speak on items not on the agenda tonight okay not seeing any we will move on to item number four which is the report from Council liaison on current events and we have our new Council gon uh just crowned last night as a new council member Monty Lions so welcome and uh thank you for joining us and we're looking forward to it sir thank you very much um I don't have anything to bring tonight I've only been a councilman for 24 hours so but I'm looking forward to working with everybody thank you thank you very much councilman it's great to have you here okay we'll move now on to the public hearing consent all items listed below are considered the public hearing consent calendar the commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing no person request the item to be removed from the current calendar it's such if such a request is made the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion this evening the consent calendar has one item number five D r24 d79 popstroke up 24-44 popstroke and UP24 d45 popstroke I do not have any comment cards but I will once again just clarify is there anyone here that wish to speak on this item okay very good then with that I will entertain a motion on the consent agenda Mr chairman I would make a motion to approve the consent agenda as written thank you Vice chair we have a motion for approval do I have a second I second it second by commissioner hang all please cast your vote motion carries okay public hearing non-consent uh and and before I read this Spiel if anyone is here wishing to speak on Pony Lane there are common cards in the back there little yellow cards and there's pencils that you can fill out um if you would please fill one of those out and bring it up to the staff uh to your right over there uh they can bring it to me I just wanted I I I thought you may be here for that so I wanted to direct you public hearing non-consent non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by separate motion during the public hearings anyone wishing to comment in support or in opposition to a public hearing item May may do so if you wish to comment on a public hearing item you must fill out a public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to be heard once the hearing is closed there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of the commission we'll move into one item that we have is item number six and we'll have a presentation first by staff and then the public comment will open so you can take your time filling out those cards but please bring them up then uh we have item number six GP 24-3 Pony Lane and Z24 D15 Pony Lane and Miss Kristen dine thank you right good evening commission the cases I have for you tonight are for a conventional rezoning and a general plan Amendment for a residential area uh this did to study session before you last month the site is located on Lindsay Road South of Galviston adjacent to South Valley Junior High seen here outlined in red the applicant is proposing to rezone this property from SF 43 to sf35 and the request tonight is for a minor General plan amendment to increase the allowed density on the parcel from 0 to one dwelling units per acre to one to two dwelling units per acre and to reone the property from SF 43 to sf35 the site is approximately seven acres and the applicant has been working with staff to overcome development concerns for approximately two years access to the site will be taken from Lindsay Road previous conversations have been held between staff and the applicant about the possibility of adding an access point from Pony Lane um the road just to the South but there are significant constraints with access in that location due to a historical uh irrigation canal that runs along the property um so with that the only access will be from Lindsay Road not from Pony Lane uh the image scen here is the most recent concept plan which shows four Lots however the rezoning is being requested as a preemptive measure to allow the three larger Lots the possibility of a split in the future if their future owners choose to do so as currently zoned six oversized Lots would fit on the site at roughly 49,000 square feet whereas allowing a down zoning to sf35 would allow for one additional lot in the size of those seven Lots at approximately 41,000 ft and I would like to note that this plan is just a concept plan with this being a conventional rezoning there is not a development plan that's being um approved with the rezoning this evening this is just to give you a visual context of what the applicant intends to do with the site the surrounding area is zoned SF 43 but it does include a variety of lot sizes I've highlighted three Parcels in the area that are currently under 43,000 square ft which is what is required in the SF 43 zoning District they range in size from approximately 39,000 to 41,000 ft rezoning the subject parcel to sf35 would allow the lot sizes to be more in lined with these existing Lots in the immediate area including the two lots that would be on either side of that access road immediately adjacent to the property and as a comparison a similar case was approved in 2022 just north of this property access to the property is nearly identical and the resoning from sf35 to I'm sorry sf4 3 to sf35 was approved a neighborhood meeting was held for this site on October 28th there were 14 neighbors and attendance who voiced opposition to the project the reasons for their opposition were largely due to density and access the possibility of an access point from Pony Lane was a large concern and I would like to reiterate that there will not be an access point from Pony Lane only from Lindsay Road and um the applicant has also noted that they've been working with the residents of the two lots on either side of the access drive to address their questions and concerns um and the applicant has explained to staff that um those neighbors are no longer opposed to the project um staff hasn't heard from those residents personally but that's just a note from the applicant and with that staff does recommend an approval recommendation to Town Council of z415 and GP 2403 Pony Lane and and I am available for your questions thank you very much does anyone have any questions for Kristen at this time commissioner Davis thank you chair um Kristen as far as future process when they decide to move forward it looks like they have enough Lots they're going to need to process a preliminary plat um if they move forward with that many Lots is that correct so chairman mon commissioner Davis um I know okay yes I apologize I I don't remember if the cutout was four or five of the lots to be a minor subdivision um so it could it will require a pre-play it looks like we're proposing a future private Street as well so I was curious if then I assume it looks like those two houses along Lindsay have Side Access into theirs off of that future possible tract so I assume they'll be somehow shared in that subdivision in the future is as far as being party to that and getting cross access through that because their access isn't off a Lindsay Road correct so the access well not direct it's like through that track is that correct okay I just wanted to confirm I was see that right okay thank you thank you commissioner Davis anyone else Vice chair I see your mic is hot are you waiting to no I giving her head signals no okay um Kristen is the applicant here that wish to speak at all they are here if you if you'd like to come up and and say anything please uh go ahead hit the uh button on the front there good evening thank you for your consideration of this approach my name is Nathan Finch with the cross Law Firm I present dark am the owner of the property and the only thing I want to say is to address commissioner Davis's question uh the access for those two Parcels uh in front of this property is currently via easement across property owned by my client and that their access would continue they wouldn't be a part of any HOA or anything else that is a part of anything that was developed on the the back parcel because they already own it and they probably wouldn't want to be part of an HOA if they couldn't help it but part of this would provide an hway that would maintain the the road and the access so I I don't know if that was okay but that that was all wish to say's in great job thank you sir may I please add something yes please Kristen sorry not to trying to interrupt the process um I misspoke earlier there will not be a pre-ot the cut off is five Lots so at five lots a pre-ot would be required at four Lots it is not so if those three larger Lots were to come in in the future and request a split it would just be a minor land division that would go straight to our engineering department and the the private roadway tra would be established during final plan okay thank you all right any other questions or okay I have two comment cards uh the first one is Britney Palin and and uh she's opposed the item and wishes to speak her comment is I'm not in favor of this motion as it does not maintain the quality of the neighborhood britty please come up and just state your name again and you know town you live in which is obvious I know but uh and then three minutes thank you okay my name is Britney palan I live in the city of Gilbert just down the street um from this proposed uh division change um so I if you can't tell I'm growing my family right now I purposely bought my house to grow my family in these nice large Lots that are within this neighborhood um and so the proposed plan to allow smaller Lots within this neighborhood does not keep with the style of the neighborhood I know that three lots were pulled up but you can see the vast majority of the Lots around this are not a smaller lot um the ones below it are you know in the 2 acre size ones right adjacent to it are multiple Acres it's the style of the neighborhood it's a farm and agricultural Community there are horses outside there's pigs and there's chickens and it's just a very very lovely area to raise a family and have kids and to have someone come in and try to propose a change that seems just to try and fit in one extra lot these Lots like they had even mentioned in their plan are very similar to the size of the lot of the neighborhood and so to try and squeeze in potentially one additional lot just seems to be honest that they're trying to just weas away in an extra lot to be able to sell um when in the initial plan if you take a look at it just sliding that area over on one of the Lots would create equal lots that would be within the the zoning of our current area um and like I've yeah I think that's pretty much all I want to say is that it just doesn't keep with the style of neighborhood neighbors are around uh that area are buying into that neighborhood for that specific reason and it does change the style and I think for the City of Gilbert when we take a look at these kind of plans Gilbert's quaint and it's beautiful in these like nice pockets and I think if we continue to change for density you're going to start to lose that that Gilbert that's reason why so many people are moving to Gilbert so um that's all I really have to say thank you for your time thank you very much Britney okay oh there we go a few more next up I have Perry cenis and uh he's opposed to the item Perry please come up state your name in uh three minutes sir thank you my name is Perry kastanis and I live at 2139 South 141st Street and pleasure to be able to present a a um comment to the commission um my wife and I have been residents of Gilbert for more than 25 years we moved uh a full half mile to get to the property we currently live on which is an acre lot to uh to retire on and to enjoy the last of our Lives we've been watching this neighborhood for many years and when an opportunity came up to purchase the home we currently live in we jumped on it because of the value that it is and I'm here to Echo the words that Britney said that it is a quality of life it's a style of life that we purposely spent really good money on to live on not to have it shortcutted into smaller Lots um it was mentioned earlier that uh a proposal just north of this lot also previously owned by Glenn Guthrie was um recently rezoned into SF 35s from 43 um that met with opposition as well and unfortunately the uh I think the Commission in the Town Council ignored the request of the surrounding Neighbors which were several to um to um to stop that change and U regrettably that went through and now it's used as precedent for continued change and if that's the way it's going to be there's really no reason to have these types of meetings to have public opinion if we're simply going to rely on presidents we need to think about the quality of life that myself and my fellow neighbors have purchased the quality of life that we hope to enjoy the quality of life that others might be interested in in pursuing and understand that that shouldn't just be rubber stamped by something that was run through the middle of the night and the Press actually for that other property happened during Co when no one was available for comment so if you look back historically over the approval process you'll see that one lot was subdivided during the covid days that became precedent for the last seven or 11 lot piece and now guess what here we are again singing the same sad song squeezing neighbors onto smaller Lots there's plenty of places to build the developer had the opportunity and knew the rules when he purchased the property he understood what the requirements were when he purchased the property and now he's coming to change it and I don't think that's fair I don't think that's right and I strongly oppose this thank you for your time thank you very much sir next up we have Mark and Terry Grant opposed to the item and I don't know if you wish to speak or just wanted to have that entered okay thank you sir and then Janelle tinger who is opposed the item and comment is the access to Lindsay is already dangerous and you do wish to speak okay please go ahead thank you very much I speak for my husband and myself we've lived at 2169 for 25 years um we built our home my husband built it himself back then uh we uh we're a big part of the building of the other homes in the neighborhood so we've seen all this change um so we do oppose it I see that our lot you have circled in red does that mean it's indicates it's uh one acre which I would disagree with it's more than one acre I had it circled because it shows us 40,000 and some change on our parcel Maps I would disagree with that maybe it's not accurate we're an acre and a quarter so um with that said my I agree with my neighbors as far as the at the lot sizes and why we built there I have a concern with Lindsay Road it's already extremely dangerous to enter into Lindsay Road um there's a junior high school there that the kids walk down the sidewalk home a lot of parents pick their kids up on Pony Lane which they shouldn't but they do it's already a very dangerous situation and to have more cars pulling in and out of a place where there's it's really already difficult to access Lindsay Road and with the junior high right there um it's just an accident waiting to happen so I oppose it for those reasons thank you very much thank you very much Janelle okay uh just one more last if there's anyone else that did wish to speak just want to confirm that everyone has a chance to okay then I will close the public comment and bring it back up here to the dis and oh I didn't know if that happened during the same okay I the applicant if you wished you could have any comments um in in a rebuttal or in a response to the um citizen comment if you wish I just want to make one statement for clarity sake um when this property was acquired the rules that are in place now were not in place then they went into place weeks after the property was acquired and so the rules that it's being developed under are different rules than when the property was acquired which is just to clarify in terms of that and not complaining just clarity that was it unless any any further questions for for me okay thank does anyone have any more questions for the applicant before okay I guess I do uh in buying that property was it contingent upon that those changes happening or were those changes made and you didn't know they were happening because you make it sound like it was something that came after the fact and you weren't aware of it uh that that is in fact the case when the property was acquired uh the my client spent some time with the town of Gilbert to understand the process and was told a certain thing and soon after the acquisition the uh changes came into place that are requiring it to have a a dedicated roadway and pieces like that that that is essentially taking away available land this this is a seven this is a greater than seven acre parcel that the intention was to have the ability to to have it is with the density that's being proposed currently but with the requirement for the dedicated roadway and the reason why it's been a couple of years with planning staff is to navigate how to make this process work and this is where the process has landed us and so it's it isn't a in any way a complaint it was just a Clarity that that at the time the property acquired the rules that exist now requiring the dedicated roadway therefore taking away from the available square footage to for for the loss to allow it to be within the zoning of of of SF 43 that that change occurred and and this is the navigation to resolve that change okay Kristen I notice you came to the podium likely with something to say uh chairman M I was going to elaborate on the change as well but I think Nathan covered it unless anyone has questions I have a question commissioner Davis please thank you um is that change partially because of the lack of access on Pony Lane no so that change is universal throughout any development that comes in now the roadways need to be a designated track or dedicated RightWay they can't be part of the Lots themselves okay um and when we did the preapp that wasn't a common that was made at the time it was put into effect later okay before they formally submit for a lot split and was Pony Lane ever a considered access because of that drainage Channel because it looks like some of the Lots out there are certainly accessing across it but expensive staff had asked for it for a secondary access point for more convenience um but when I I believe Tom worked with the applicant more than I did because they went through a big chunk of engineering review before they came back to planning for this rezoning um and the canal had it's some sort of a historic canal and to develop over it is there are a lot of Hoops that would need to be jumped through I'm familiar with that thank you okay thanks for that information that does help me in understanding that that private Drive was required and that that did take property out of the size of these Lots because of the size of the property it seemed like there would have been a way to develop it in some way but hearing about that historic Channel there that helps also thank you uh commissioner Simon yeah just quick question um Kristen in the packet the site plan is not in there so I'm assuming we're not looking at that at all yes so chairman mon commissioner Simon that is correct this is just the rezoning because it's conventional the site plan and development plan aren't part of the review process um that would be during the platting okay but conceptually the conversation has been around four four Lots yes on the Seven Acres with the ability to possibly divide three of those lots into two additional Lots that's been my understanding unless Nathan would like to elaborate and just for absolute Clarity that conceptual lot plan has been submitted through engineering as that exactly and my client is maximizing the value is able to get for those two acre lots to where a subsequent owner would see the value there where they could choose to in the future subdivide but he's not doing any of that subdividing okay thank you so Kristen um just so for my own clarification then under the current zoning with the new rules what what is the major difference here that then cuz I was I guess they would have to have the access would it just be that they'd have to bring in a roadway with a culdesac and just have it split into thirds like under the current Zone like what what could that look like I want to just make sure I'm understanding the differential um that we're weighing because I'm hearing like we want one acre lots but then I'm seeing that the lots that we're proposing are larger than that and so I want to make sure that I'm understanding um where the rub is within that if I can at all so chairman M with this conceptual plan which is the the working plan that is likely to go to final planning when it gets to that point if it's approved um lot four is at 41,000 Square F feet Lots one two and three are all roughly 82 to 85,000 each of those lots do have the ability I'm sorry each of those lots do meet the requirements to be split to an sf35 with widths depths Square footages they they do have that ability and meet those requirements if those owners were to choose to do so with sf35 not SF 43 if it were to remain SF 43 they would not be able to split them but they would three times they would still have to meet all setbacks for sf35 so depending on where they put those houses coming in you're really limiting yourself okay thank you okay and if I could say one thing in further response to that chairman uh the before the rules requiring the road to be dedicated at it would have looked exactly like this okay except that land that is now dedicated Road would have been part of the square footage of each of the lots and therefore they would have complied with the existing zoning okay all right any other questions just commissioner Wong yeah just a quick question so let's say later on they come in want to split three would they still access using the the track as an access is there any possibility they going to use py uh so chairman M commissioner hang no um so Pony Lane is there is no access off of pony Lane okay for for any of them okay thank you kind of a Bas please commissioner carry on thank you um the velers kind of subdividing that 7 acre parcel into four he's not building homes on those he's going to sell those lots individually to potential homeowners the way is that correct one of the the parcels the developer is is going to build a home for himself on which one is that uh parcel number three or Lot number three so that lot's probably going to stay I can't read it like 84,000 Square ft unless he's going to subdivide it ahead of time it well it depends where he builds his house and a lot of fact there there's a good chance that someone that buys those other two lots might want that square footage so these Lots could be larger than what's surrounding well for clarity these lots are substantially larger right but in order to to have lot four be a buildable lot because his intention is to also build a home on lot four that would be then ultimately for sale this rezoning is necessary to make to to make all those puzzle pieces fit in place those the Lots one and two are substantially more valuable if a sub owner could resell them but it's also a very difficult thing to find if somebody wanted two acres to build a pretty impressive house on that you there's not a lot of two acre Parcels available in a neighborhood with dedicated streets and all these sorts of things so it's a it's a end user question more than anything for those you really don't know which way this is going to go then I it it it's up to the the the folks who subsequently buy the property okay thank you okay all questions are uh good then okay thank you very much thank you Kristen I I will now close the public comment officially and bring it up to the Das for discussion does anybody want to kick us off commissioner Davis why not thank you chair um I guess where I land on it is if that roadway was able to be you know part of the Lots then each of these Lots would meet the requirements um and the same number of homes on 7 acre parcel would get to be built um also the fact that it's an internal Street I feel like it has less impact on the neighborhood than if they were accessing on Pony Lane I can understand the concern that this is going to feel maybe a little different because there's going to maybe be a wall across there or something along those lines I'm not sure what they're going to do with their fencing but hopefully they'll maintain the character of the area but I can understand that it's commensurate with what's happening in there because they have to have that private drive through the middle so it I guess I don't have big concerns with it based on that right you know and that's where for me you know when you get into the character of the area and I look at the fact that they don't have they don't have a lot of the autonomy that was was granted to the other lots that are within the area for Access and that makes it it's difficult to have an Apples to Apples to saying you know and and my personal belief is if this was coming in with a you know we're going to split this into 12 lots that would be egregiously off putting but the idea that they all seem to be quite large yet um and and an appearance in my opinion to the same as the closest ones to it where they're all going to have to be accessing right off of that roadway um it it doesn't seem as major um especially because the precedent of the roadway but anyone else other comments you'd like to make or discussion we can have here commissioner Simon thank you um so I think I'm in line with what you're saying uh chair I believe I mean if you're looking at this and you've got 7 Acres if it was divided down I think they said that there'd be 49,000 Square ft which is over an acre per lot um if you divided it down into what this is allowing but we're going to have three in essence two acre lots and a one point something um I would I I I would be more comfortable if the site plan came with the use permit um or the rezoning I guess but I don't I don't I don't know that I I I mean I understand what the the neighborhood is saying and and I don't want to dismiss that because I do feel like there I mean the the term rubber stamp was thrown out and I don't feel like there's a rubber stamp going on here um however I do feel like we need to look at you know this piece of property and I've seen smaller pieces of property come to this commission asking for 12 to 14 parcels and the fact that we're not seeing that is quite refreshing honestly and I don't think you're going to get anybody come in and try to develop this with only three Parcels on that so I I I would be more comfortable if there was a way to lock in to make sure hey yeah we're going to have four Parcels on this and that's it but I don't feel that that's fair um with the way that the the new I guess zoning is on this so I I think I think for this I am going to vote in favor of it however I mean there is there's a little bit of anxiety with regards to I I I would hope that whoever purchases those Parcels sees the value and the size of them and does not subdivide them down yeah you know and and I I also will just add Al that the idea that there's no access to Pony Lane if the developer had come in and said I want to make make this exactly like the area they are not allowed to you just can't based on the current laws that exist they couldn't have it split long way and access Pony Lane um and so you know it doesn't seem as though it's a massive ask comparatively I mean outside of the one 560 there that is gorgeous and massive much bigger than my stamp lot that I live on but it what we're dealing with isn't going to be totally tiny and when it comes to the property rights it's like I I have to also lean into the individual that owns the land their ability to build within this seven and a half acres um does not seem to be nearly the same as it was in the area to try to keep that same thing so with that you know I mean anyone else with comments or if you want to make a motion you know and the other part I guess wanted to add also is that what we're dealing with here is a zoning change not a design review or or any of that and so the the simple question that we're being posed is can I get these four Lots so that I can actually develop this and to me the answer on that one isn't that uh isn't that far off from what it currently is we'll all quit talking may I please Vice chair I I'm I'm sorry I don't remember everyone's names but the the very first Speaker I I you you kind of made a point that's rattled around and um and S my head the Britney thank you um that that really this is just trying to get one more parcel in here and I mean I think there is some truth to that that they could do what they're doing right now with the existing zoning other than maybe that one parcel is just a hair short but that's that's an easy fix other than they want to be able to split later and end up with seven Parcels there is there is something to be said for that um that that does seem to be probably one of the number based on actions not words that does seem to be one of the major goals of the end State here and and that part does seem to go against um what's what's being proposed here on the other hand um that there's this is kind of now I'm sorry I tend to do this a lot where I talk both sides of of of things if we were going the argument is not that um I want the argument is one of this is changing in such a way that it's going to undermine the fundamental character of the neighborhood or or some some standard of along those lines and I I just have a hard time seeing going from 44,000 foot lots to 38,000 foot Lots or or give or take whatever it is that that that's a big enough change to undermine the the character of the neighborhood particularly again with the road not coming out on Pony Lane but going directly out onto Lindsay and and I don't think it's I mean you're seven or eight Lots just the the traffic contribution onto Lindsay is Trivial um so I I I do think that there is a degree of We're just trying to squeeze an extra lot in here I don't know that the geometry is so the last property that we talked about the the precedent one with that there was a geometry problem on that one that that squeezed out some of their Lots but I don't think that's really true here um but I I I don't know I just have a hard time seeing that this is enough of a change to to undermine the rural nature of the lot we're not talking about town homes or apartments we're talking about slightly smaller lots and and I did pull up the parcel map that the the the parcels and red are under an acre um but probably some of the other ones are too I didn't pull up all of them but um so I'm not sure that to me this is a big enough change to to Warrant undermining the neighborhood's character okay any other comments or else if somebody wants to make a motion either in favor or against um please feel free uh say Madam chairman chairman Mt I would like I'd make a motion to approve item six gp2 24-3 at Pony Lane and Z24 T15 has written we have a motion from the vice chair do I have a second I'll second commissioner Davis with the second any more discussion prior to voting from commission yeah commissioner Anderson uh this is just our word to the citizens uh so what we're doing right now all we're really doing is making a recommendation towards City Council in case you're not familiar with the whole process so there there another layer that you be able to voice your opinions and concerns uh before it actually becomes a full approval so I just uh wanted to get that out there in case some people were not familiar with the process thank you commissioner any other discussion okay please cast your vote when available motion carries 61 thank you administrative items administrative items are for the commission's discussion and action it is to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on any administrative item persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to address the commission may or may not accept public comment the only item that we currently have here item number seven is the Planning Commission meeting minutes and considering the approval of the minutes from the study session regular meeting from December 4th 2024 everybody's had a chance to review those is there anyone that has any changes uh required or a motion chairman M I would make I would move to approve item seven the Planning Commission meetings commission minutes without change okay we have a motion do I have a second I'll second it I commissioner Anderson gave me a p so we're going to give it to him okay everybody please cast your vote motion carries minutes approved I I tried to abstain a few months ago and I wasn't allowed to and he just gets to go and that's good enough sir okay moving on to Communications there is no executive session so we go to item number eight and that's a report from chairman and members of the commission on current events is there anyone that has anything they'd like to share about the current events well I'll just say from my perspective that having the Freshman councilman uh lions with us is a a very exciting change we had the now mayor as AR Le aison for the last few years uh so he has some big shoes to fill but uh I feel he'll do a great job and I'm excited to have you here sir so um other than that I don't have anything else and we will move to item number nine to the report from the planning services manager Eva on current events thank you chairman I would just like to Echo your sentiments and welcome our new liais on council member Alliance all right thank you very much no other items on the agenda I will entertain a motion to adjourn chairman Mt I make a I move to adjourn we have a motion for ajournal from the vice chairman do we have a second I'll second we have a second from commissioner deina please cast your vote motion carries meeting adjourned thank you all very much go