I'll call the meeting to order at 7 pm. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nation. >> All right. Do we have any changes to the agenda? >> There are changes to the agenda. All right. Anyone want to make approval? A motion to approve the agenda? >> I'll make a motion. >> Anyone want a second? So moved. All right. All in favor? >> I. All right. Public comment. I don't see anybody online here. Um announcements. >> Um one announcement is I know that you know because you're at the city council meeting, but Riching has been the city engineer for more than 20 years is stepping into a secondary role as he transitions towards retirement and Lucas now city. >> Welcome. >> Nice to meet you. >> Luke's been shadowing Rich at all of our meetings and so he's very much involved in what's going on behind the scenes anyways for the last year to two years. >> Yeah, I'm trying to think how long has been around there. >> Couple years. >> So, excellent. It'll be easy transition. >> Okay. All right. Approval of the minutes. Consider approval of the following minutes for November 25th, 2025. I didn't notice anything. I don't know if anybody else did. >> Did not. >> No. >> Anyone want to make a motion? >> I'll make a motion. >> Anyone want a second? >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> Okay. Public hearings. Um, consider amendments to title 11-25 of the city code concerning residential lot standards. >> PowerPoint, your mic. >> Um, yes, everybody's mic on. I had a heck of a time at the last meeting because or doing the minutes for the last meeting because of mics. So, um I haven't done minutes for a long time. So, now I know how important it is to keep the mics on. Um okay. Um starting my PowerPoint here. Uh researching minimum lot sizes has been one uh on the agenda for quite a while. Well, it was really first um introdu was first introduced at the October planning commission meeting where we reviewed um met council policies and influence on density, some research for builder and developer feedback, research of other city standards and the history of lot sizes in Elqu Market. That was at the October meeting. At that time, the commission expressed support for reducing lot standards in the R2 district and providing more flexibility where R2 zoning would be allowed. At the November planning commission meeting, um draft ordinance was presented um one that was exclusively uh what I just described and then an additional one that also um provided a reduction in lot standards in the R3 district. That one was a little more um you know controversial at this um with the planning commission. So that is you know taken off the table tonight. The planning commission at that November meeting did direct a public hearing on just the standards for the R2 district. So that is what is before you tonight. Um just outlining some of the changes. This is uh a change for the purpose of the district and this is where it really opens up where that R2 zoning district would be allowed. Um purpose of the district would be to provide single family dwelling units at relatively dense urban scale in areas of the community that do not contain unique physical features or environmentally sensitive areas. Um and then here are the proposed standards. Um the current standard is the lot area for R2 is 8,400 square feet. That would be reduced to 8125 square feet. Uh lot width is currently 70 feet would be reduced to 65 ft. Um the ordinance doesn't explicitly contain a lot depth currently. Um but if you just do the math uh with the 8,400 divided by 70 that is 120 foot lot depth. Um so there was some discussion about that at the last meeting of uh you know a range between 120 and 130 and uh we ended up publishing at 125 foot depth. Um the front setback is currently 30 would be reduced by this ordinance to 25 foot. Um side setback would remain at seven and then the front corner side setback for is for a corner lot would be reduced by 5t. The rear setback would remain at 30 feet. Um the changes just described are reflected here in this draft ordinance which um was published for the public hearing and is posted on the city's website. >> Hey Renee, I think there's a word missing on the last under the introduction. The last reduce the front corner lot setback from 25 to 20 should be lot side setback. corner lot side setback, not front under the first paragraph under the introduction on the packet. >> Um, okay. I'm not following you. Can you just help me again? >> The first page of the packet of the agenda you're on >> under introduction and there's all the bullet points. The last bullet point in the first one. >> Okay. read it how it says it on the packet. It does not say what it says up on the other thing. >> Okay. I don't have the packet up, but I getting >> Okay. >> Um, sorry about that. >> That again. So, you're saying in the memo Sure. Where it says front slashc corner. >> Yes. Okay. Corner side set back. >> Yeah, it's >> the word >> corners. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'm following you. >> Yeah. >> But I think Yeah, we're It's on the If it's for a corner lot, it would be >> I know. I'm just saying that if you're going to have this >> for the city council or >> Yeah. >> Gotcha. >> Just make the note. Okay, makes sense. Um, then this is just a future land use map. So, we're talking about the areas that would be depicted in light yellow. Uh, they could be considered for R2 zoning depending on the site characteristics. Oops. And this is just a a zoning map. Um you can see the amount of orange on this map. There's a lot of PUDS that have been approved in the um at least the la that last 10 years that a lot of them have been u 65 to 70 foot lot width. So hopefully going forward that would uh this amendment may reduce the need for this number of think that was the intent. And the requested action uh by the planning commission is to hold the public hearing regarding the draft ordinance amendment and provide a recommendation to the city council. That's all I have. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, I will open the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Um, there's one online or here. Um, but if anybody wants to comment, please feel free to have to ask three times. Um, so if anyone wants to comment, um, please raise your hand or come and stand at the podium. ask again if anybody wants to comment. Okay, I will close the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Okay, commissioners, do you have any thoughts? Well, I appreciate the research that has gone into this because it looks like you did reach out to developers. You also contacted other cities to compare. Um, so thank you. So, I think that was uh very well done. >> Thank you. >> I have one question. Yeah. >> Um >> did you ever hear back from like New Prague or other towns yet? >> I did hear back from New Prague. Um and trying to remember the other ones that were missing. There was one I never was a a Carver. I was never able I I researched their quote online but I wanted to you know follow up and actually speaking with the community development directors >> and those are the two I think in the initial round of research um that I that wasn't available but let me if you can give me a minute I can >> sure thank you >> um find So it doesn't matter that the 120 is not listed in there from the previous. >> No, it >> because you would strike it out anyway. So >> we would add it. >> Yeah. Or we Well, we >> under C here or under your lot area width setback under the other >> and propose we're proposing to add it. >> Yep. to make it, you know, a little more m mandatory to have that lot depth. I mean, it might be >> No, everything else you had the cross one except for that one >> because it didn't currently exist in the code. >> Oh, >> there wasn't a minimum lot depth in the code. >> Square footage. >> There was a minimum square footage and a minimum width. >> Oh, you know, but say there was a lot that they went wider on, then they could go shallower on the depth. >> Oh, I see. So now we're going to have a minimum. >> Yes. >> Is that needed, do you think, or >> um It's up to you. If you if there was a lot that uh went a little light wider, they could go shallower in depth >> because we had it out of there for a reason in the past. I'm guessing I'm >> I've seen it both ways in other cities ordinances and and you know when I was doing my research it's one thing that some cities have minimum lot depth and some don't. It was >> a little bit all over the board. >> Okay. >> Are we worried about developers coming in and wanting to develop like micro lots? I'm just trying to figure out what we were trying to do then or what the previous planning commission was trying to do then with removing that. >> I don't think the developers usually go >> bigger than the minimum. I mean, if they got a width minimum, then that just dictates what their >> depth will be. So, I don't know if it's needed. I guess why we probably had >> Yeah. And if you want to take it out, that's completely >> I don't think we had it before at all. Right. We didn't. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> It was out for a long time. So, I don't think it mattered in the It was just the dimensions of the lot >> and the setbacks. >> Yeah. Yeah. And if you want to leave it out, that's perfectly fine. >> So, if there was a lot that was a little bit wider, you know, maybe they're on a curve. >> Like you say on a quarter when they got like some coming off the side, you know, maybe they do a weird, you know, I think it's probably better to because they might front it and then they have to front it the other way and then, you know, Sure. >> kind of makes it harder. >> Yep. We can take that out a few. I think some >> well my hope is it make it easier for staff to process these request. So yes >> I mean it's one less thing that we would have to look at but um we'd be looking at the area and they uh when a developer submits the preliminary plot they usually have the square footage of every lot and then the lot width at the building setback line. That's how where we measure the lot with that. >> Um I'm still getting to Nicole's question. >> You might see that control for end of a house back. >> Yeah. I'm thinking like space between the that butt up back to back. >> Yeah. >> So, there's more green space rather than house upon house. >> Okay. Um I'm going to just read you my notes from the discussion with planning director Ken Anditch from the city of New Prague. He noted that they are currently working on updating their minimum lot standards. They currently have a draft ordinance. This would have been uh in November. Um they're uh so they have very similar districts to us. Are there are one district minimum lot size 8300 square feet and minimum lot width 60 ft 7 foot side setbacks. There are two district minimum lot size 7500 square feet minimum lot width 55 ft 7 foot sideyards. Then R3 minimum lot size 6200 minimum lot width 50 feet 7 foot side setbacks all with front setbacks of 25. Um and then they also allow single family detached in their high density um R4 district. We don't allow single family detached in our um R4 district. So that was what was uh it had been through the planning commission for review um but it had hadn't been adopted yet. >> Okay. >> In November it may may now be >> okay. And they didn't say anything about the lot depth. >> No. >> Okay. >> They didn't I don't uh believe that they have a lot a minimum lot depth in New Prague. >> Okay. Um, I did speak with uh I think the other ones were re in the original report except I was never able to get a hold of Carver's community development director. If there's any cities that you'd specifically like me to review the discussions with the staff. I can do that. >> Yeah. Is that nice? >> They decided to have the commissioners better computers than staff. >> I mean, you guys use it every day. >> Yes. >> So much so I lost it. I wish I did. >> Okay. >> Any other questions or comments? Thank you, Rene. >> I think that's good. Well, I can make a motion if you would like to approve it with the lot depth removed. Everybody ready? >> I I second that removing the lot depth and then therefore the square footage. >> It just relates back to it. >> Correct. >> So making the recommendation to the city council to remove the lot depth. Yes. To that page. >> Um and then >> what's the minimum width >> the So this would be 85. Y so it be 65 front yard 25 >> seven 20 >> total square footage 81 and 25 >> so making the >> it didn't change >> okay so make the recommendation to the city council to approve um the city code concerning residential lot standards ards to how it's written, but remove letter C locked up depth. >> Does that make sense? >> All right, everyone in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay. Okay. And then um I didn't want to confuse it with a discussion on the R2 district. Um but there was some uh request by the commission to perhaps get some informal feedback regarding further reducing lot standards in the R3 district. That's our medium density district that currently allows a 60 foot wide single family detach lot. And um we brought this up at the last city council meeting. Um asked for input. didn't get a lot of strong support or opposition. They just said they were open to planning commission's recommendations. So, >> I I don't know if that helps at all, but at least at least you know that there is not I think at this point a strong opposition or strong support. It seemed just kind of middle of the road. >> Yeah. >> And Nicole was at the meeting. So I >> I wish there were more people to comment on that discussion. I think that would have been helpful just to get um more public >> or the public >> back people I've t I mean there were they were there but they didn't comment really on it. Um that would have been helpful I feel just talking with other people in the community >> they are for growth but however they like the green space they don't want >> all the giant houses on small lots >> which seems to be the trend. >> Um so there's a lot of mixed feelings there. >> Um and then again what is for proposing but that's not us to determine. Um, yeah. I just wish there was more people that >> like community members to give more info and their input. >> Yeah, >> we're here to reflect what, you know, we live here. The builders don't live here. >> Right. >> So, we have to look at this community. They just >> throw up buildings and >> Yeah. >> leave, >> right? >> And make all the money. >> Yeah. Um, and there might be opportunity for that this year because, you know, we're intending to embark on the community outreach for the 2050 comprehensive plan. >> Okay. >> And could be a good opportunity to maybe ask that question. >> That's a really good suggestion. >> Yeah. I think our suggestion right now, at least in the next couple of months, is maybe just put a pin in this. Sure. >> We have um some development applications that are coming in that we'll need to concentrate on. And um I think that's a good suggestion is maybe um our idea was to go out and do public engagement and maybe do it more focused on um maybe this time we're going out and getting feedback on parks >> and this time we're getting feedback on transportation and this session we're getting feedback on housing and maybe provide um examples and surveys specifically that would include that topic area. That's a good idea. Um, yeah, I would I would like more transparency with the community because I feel like >> not that we haven't been transparent, but I feel like they feel like there isn't transparency and then then there's like this controversial >> um >> things that don't need to happen. Um, so I feel like if we get more info from them and then they feel heard >> and we can take into consideration when we're making these recommendations. >> I agree with you. Um, and historically from what I've seen is we could invite people and ask them to come but if they don't come >> I agree >> they don't come. And um, >> I think we've done a good job though really in the past with like our last comp plan. I swear we had less we did not have less than five open houses and they were very well advertised and then when Niagara came up it's like well your opportunity was two years ago we had already talked about this and I feel like the Niagara thing um I feel like that might that drive and how that happened and all you know all the feelings with that might strike some more discussion around Um just because before that it was just kind of >> you know us doing our thing and quiet and then that really boosted people's >> interest >> interest and paying attention. >> I agree with you. We've done a good job with being transparent and throwing it out there and it is we can't >> right >> make them come but and with Niagara too though the trend is you know NDAs right away from the beginning. So that's the other part that we struggled with and I know staff did too and that's the trend moving forward. So >> correct. Um >> we didn't sign any NDAs. >> Oh you didn't for >> it's there's suggestions out there that we may have but we did not. >> You didn't. Okay. And even if a city would sign an NDA, they're still subject to Minnesota statute regarding public public data. So we would have to disclose it anyways, >> right? >> I just feel like it would be a good thing >> build some more cohesion with the community members. >> Yeah, I'm hearing what you're saying. It's it's good. >> I would do more uh Facebook posts on the like the neighborhood pages. People tend to be pretty vocal on there. So, >> it's easier and it's >> to be vocal on >> people are more confident. >> Yeah. So, >> whether good or bad, >> how would you do the sizing though? I mean, would you share like >> this area was designed with this size? This area was designed with, you know, I mean, so they can >> if they live there, they know what their lot sizes are. I mean, people wouldn't know. They wouldn't have a clue, you know. I mean, that's Oh, yeah. My house is on my lot. That's all I know. So, >> yeah. No, I Yeah. >> Or give them comparisons to like I was just over in Carver >> looking at the stuff there and there the 65 lot sizes and give them what they need to see. >> And I think aerial views would be helpful >> and like street views too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think people are visual so I don't think they can grasp a concept of do you would you support a 50 foot lot. They need to see a picture, >> an aerial view of like how close the houses will be and then maybe a >> both a street view and an aerial view. Yeah, >> I think that'd be >> you're going to get pretty vocal people if they're 50 and 55 60 foot lots. >> I feel the same, but I don't want to speak for everybody. So, >> but I think that if they all have the same setback on the sides, I mean, it's going to be what it is. I mean, if you got a 7 foot side setback, does it change much on those or was a seven foot on those proposed? >> Uh, some cities are at five five foot side setback. >> Um, we haven't suggested that as staff. >> I mean, it's currently we would propose it at seven or show it at seven or, you know, I mean, it's >> it's not much different than a wider lot with a wider house. is just a deeper house, you know? I mean, it's visually I don't think you would notice much what how close they are together because it would be the same distance apart. It's just a longer house compared to a deeper house. >> That's what I see. So, >> okay. >> Some people like all garage, the house behind the garage. >> Some people don't want yard. >> Yeah. So, >> no mowing. >> Exactly. So I >> say be a 5,000 foot lot like many of >> Okay. >> Okay. So we did make uh made a motion on that. Uh we're ready to move on. I think >> general business um discuss and adopt planning commission goals and priorities for 2026. >> Sounds good. I put together a small presentation. I don't attempt to share it, but my internet is barely working. So, we'll see how this goes. All right, cool. So, uh the planning commission goals and priorities is something we discuss every year to determine what the commission wants to focus on. Um that is either something measurable or achievable within the calendar year. Um, so this slide shows the commission's 2025 goals and priorities. Uh, some items that were identified last year included reviewing the 2040 comp plan, reviewing various pieces of the zoning and subdivision ordinance, uh, the continued review of tools that foster housing affordability and diversity, um, along with educational modules that we didn't get to because we had so much development going on. Uh, the following goals and priorities have been identified by staff for 2026. Um the first being obtain public input for the 2050 comp plan. Continue to improve our zoning and subdivision ordinance including the tower and antenna ordinance, sexually oriented use regulations. Um we want to define and regulate data centers, secondary driveway access standards, exteriors exterior building materials and landscape buffer and screening requirements. Um and of course the continued review of tools that foster housing affordability and diversity. Um, so at this time I would ask the commission to discuss and add or remove goals or priorities that you see fit and then formally adopt them. >> Okay. Thank you. I think the list looks really good. Um, I remember talking about this list. So, do others have anything they want to add or focus on? >> Have we run into the driveway thing more than the one time or >> No. >> No. Um, a lot of these things in application we've noticed that maybe there's a discrepancy in the city code or that one in particular, it could have been interpret that our code we felt could have been interpreted two ways. Half of our staff interpreted one way, half of our staff interpreted a different way. So just kind of cleaning a lot of these are just cleaning things up that are existing um with the exception of the data centers. >> Do you feel like that one's going to be kind of a big one? >> Yeah. I don't I think it'll be easy >> uh to write standards for and in fact I believe that we're covered anyways because um any user that uses more than I think 10,000 gallons of water a day has to have a special agreement with the city council. >> So I think that >> I just think of what's happening in other cities right now. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> It's fair. What I hear you saying is we'd catch that even on the preliminary application. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. If today, so we have land in Park I35, for example, that is zoned um industrial and today we the we would have to classify it as a warehousing and distribution center. It's just a data warehousing and distribution center, which is a permitted use today in that I1 zoning district, but they need to go to city council to get permission to use excess water and enter into a formal agreement with them. And quite honestly, we don't have the water today. >> Yeah, I was thinking about that too because of Niagara and >> Yeah. So we would we would have to deny them today. >> Sure. Okay. >> I think the list looks good. So I'm willing to adopt the list as written. >> Do you want a motion or what are you looking for? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. I'll move the motion. >> All right. I will second. All in favor? >> I Okay. Thank you. All right. Miscellaneous 2025 planning commissioner report accomplishment. >> Sounds good. I'll just breeze through the memo you guys had in your packet. Um so the next few slides will review the work we accomplished last year. Um beginning with the adopted ordinance amendments. Um we made a variety of changes to our code including fences, cannabis, accessory structures, and street standards. Um, we also adopted our recreational or we also discussed our recreational vehicle ordinance, minimum lot sizes, and other miscellaneous city code cleanup items. And we also identified a bunch that we want to look forward to in November as well. Um, and we reviewed multiple land use applications. So, um, we approved the resoning of Park I 35, resoning of 641 main. We approved PUD and preliminary plat for Boulder Point 8th edition. approved PUD preliminary and final plan for Highlands at Eagle View and I think we're expecting to see maybe a second edition soon. Um concept plan review for Dakota second edition and a concept plan review for Eagle Views Elementary which we recently received a preliminary plat application on that I believe we intend to bring to the planning commission next month. >> The Boulder Point 8th edition supposed to be Boulder Heights. >> No, Boulder Point ETH edition is it's a two house >> plat next to the clubhouse or >> Oh yeah, >> the one with the pool. But we will be getting you you will probably be seeing something for Boulder Heights this year as well. >> Did that move forward or I don't >> Yeah, we uh we've received a application for concept plan review just last week for the uh the extension to the south is called Boulder Heights South and that will be on February commission meeting. >> Were you asking about Boulder Point? >> Boulder Point. >> Yeah. >> Moving forward. >> Yeah, it was approved by the city council. The hasn't been filed yet, but has been approved. >> So, I I read on the Facebook about court or the 35 interchange. >> Yeah, I guess that's an announcement we >> that's 2028 construction. >> Uh 2030 is our funding year >> keeps getting um Luke can probably talk more about that, but it will take us all of that to design it and get everything in place and we need to find the rest of the money. Um, but we're in the game now. It's a really good start. And Scott County has a transportation sales tax that they've had for the last 10 to 15 years. It's been quite a while. Um, that project will Scott County will participate with their sales tax dollars and then we'll continue applying for other grants for the remainder of the gap. How much do does the city responsible for? >> Um well, none except um the project will chase back to the intersections of city streets for instance. Maybe the street going into the industrial park if there needs to be anything there or on the east or the west side of the interchange there's the future access to the Adelman property. Um you know Maybe if there's development there or anything that needs to be the city needs to uh set up that intersection. There might be some costs that are our responsibility, but that has not been defined at all. >> You're making it sound scary like it's half the bail. >> Yeah, Luke can probably talk more about it, but it's going to be a drag. >> I think that'll all get hashed out as you continue this process. We got a joint through all the players in the game here all that out. There's a lot of back and forth. So 2030 might seem a long ways away, but in terms of a product of this scope, it's really not. Things will have to start moving here quick in terms of of a product of this magnitude. So first thing is, you know, getting those first dollars in the in the in the door are huge because nobody wants to be the first because they don't want to have their money sitting there and not know if something's going to happen. But once once people start committing money, it starts funning it typically because people want to be part of a project to see it done. So that's the hardest funding is the first one the door from there typically will follow suit. We're hopeful that so critical point right now is is more just getting everybody on the same page and then starting on design is the critical point now is is starting to progress that to understand what the product costs the costs are what do we need for funding that kind of stuff. >> We really don't know the total project costs right now. I mean, in our in our heads, we have a range, but until we do the design, uh, we're not going to know. >> Is it going to be like same similar what we saw in the past? >> We believe so. >> Okay. >> The diverging diamond. Is that what we're looking at? >> We believe so. >> Yes, most likely. And then, you know, as you work through those early process too, that's where you're kind of hashing out to where are the ways that you Okay, we we anticipate this kind of funding. where can you make adjustments here or there maybe to make more economical or we have more money than we need maybe we we can make it bigger. I don't you know there there's there's multiple things that play into it but generally yeah that's the the general concept but in terms of also like how you phase a construction of a project there's a lot of stuff that goes into that that plays into cost as well. Have you um have you observed or had conversations on community feedback if people are looking forward to it or >> I haven't heard anything yet. >> We're looking forward to it though. >> I'm sure a lot of people are looking forward to >> that intersection is hard to traverse in the morning and then coming home >> exiting from the south. >> Left is terrible. >> Wait. Yes, >> sometimes you go to the roundabout and come back. >> Yes, I've done that a few times. >> A big emphasis of the city will be for is access in the interimm while that thing is being constructed. >> That's what I'm wondering. What are >> the highest priorities that we'll probably be pushing as we're whoever is leading at that point is making sure that can't just take the whole bridge down as it is now and >> right we can't separate the city for several years. So there'll be a lot of thought into that as well. Well, you could, but then we'd be it'd be nice if Beard was paved to 86 to get around that way. >> That's a trouble. The nearest interchanges are five miles, right? So, there's a lot of consideration >> to pave that. Put the new on and off ramp at 86 and 35. >> There you go. Okay. Casey's got a plan. >> You would be so close to that one. >> I know. Cut my commute down. Can you go out the back way or No, that road is not there yet. >> Which one? >> To the dirt road. >> It's never going to be there. No. >> Right. >> Uh >> I thought they were going to all excited it got paved and there's a fence there. >> I thought they were going to develop south of there, weren't they? That's what you were talking about. >> That concept plan. >> Um we have a proposal from Bolton and Mink to help us do a transportation study on beard and what the future of beard is. We're working with Scott County and Rice County um because where it comes into beard or into 86 now beard and 86 intersect there's some sight distance issues or um some grade issues approaching that intersection. >> Yes. >> So before we just pave it with this next development to the south we need to know if that's the best alignment or not and bank is helping us. >> Gotcha. Is that house going away on the corner? >> No, that's not owned by the developer. By somebody else, >> that's owned by my son's in-laws. >> Did they just buy it or are they just selling? >> No. >> So, it was for sale recently. I think it's sold. >> Oh, that old school house. Are you talking about >> I was looking I was looking at that old school house and I was like, "No, I'm too close to the development." >> So, it's a cool house. >> Beautiful. Yeah, when it went on the market, because I get alerts when things go on the market. So, when it went on the market, I called KJ Walk to see if they wanted to incorporate the property development. >> Yeah, that would be a realignment issue. I mean, too, that property is part of that issue in the future. >> Right. So the question is, is Beard going to stay, and you'll learn more about this at the next month's meeting, but is Beard going to stay where it is, or is it going to get realigned through the new development to the south and come out on 86 at a different point? Just going to go away. >> Oh, like just continue that Oxford that goes Yeah. >> Yeah. But we don't want to Ox Oxford wasn't designed as a collector. It's only um wide. I think there's a lot of houses in that area. So, Oxford goes straight south. We think it would become like a collector street and cause >> harm to the Yeah. Too much too much traffic in an area that wasn't designed for it. So, we're not advocating for that. We're not considering that right now. Any other updates? >> I don't think so. I think we touched on uh the concept plan that will be at the next meeting. We do have our zoning and preliminary plat on Meadows out by the school and the interchange funding. >> I guess one other update would be we're still in the search for a new community development director. Um the application window closes next Friday. >> No luck so far >> and no applications yet. So, we'll see. >> Okay. We'll >> see how that goes. >> Our third round of advertising. >> Who is that replacing? >> Renee. She's trying to retire. >> Retiring. >> Well, >> just kidding. I have some planning. So, I'll just take a more secondary role for as long as it makes sense. >> Nice. >> And then somebody else will All right, good luck. >> Thanks. Spread the word. >> Yeah. So, we posted on LinkedIn and Facebook >> APA website. >> Yeah, >> indeed. I don't know what >> it's definitely not a thing. I'm still surprised they have papers. So you have >> they have them. >> Anybody else anything? No. Anyone want to make a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion. >> Anyone want a second? I'll second. Right. >> All in favor? I. >> All right. meeting at 7:42