Okay. Well, we'll go ahead and get started. We're going to be down a few things, but most of you probably don't really worry about that too much. So, we'll begin with our uh welcome to uh the April 22nd, 2026 City Mesa Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. So, we will also begin with our roll call here. So, chair erys is present. Vice chair Peterson >> here. >> Board member Pitcher >> here. >> Board member Montes >> here. >> Online. Board member Blakeman >> here. >> And board member Carpenter >> here. >> All right. Thank you. We do have quorum. We'll call the meeting to order. So, as part of the agenda today, we do have a consent agenda for uh this meeting and these items will not be discussed individually. So, all the items on consent will be considered routine to be acted on in one single motion. Um, I don't believe we've have anything else other than what I have cards for. Correct. >> Chairs board members. We do not. >> All right. So, we'll have Cassidy Welsh, principal planner, read the consent agenda today. >> Good afternoon, chair, members of the board. Items on the consent agenda. Item 2 A, the planning and zoning minutes from the April 8th, 2026 planning and zoning board meeting. Item 3A has been pulled off the consent agenda. Item 3B, Z25- Z00578, New Life Fellowship Hall Building, 6 acres located approximately 1,770 ft east of the northeast corner of West Broadway Road and South Dobson Road. Site plan review. This request will allow for an approximately 6,421 square foot place of worship. Item 3 Z or 3C Z25- Z00626 NT Mesa phase 10 173 acres located at the northeast corner of East Pos Road and the future South Krisman Road alignment council use permit major site plan modification and amending conditions of approvals number one and two of ordinance 5869. This request will allow for an approximately 2,257,581qt data center development. Staff recommendation is continuence to the May 13th May 13, 2026 planning and zoning board meeting. Those are the items on the consent agenda. >> All right. Thank you, Cassidy. So, with that, I will look for a motion to approve the consent agenda as read. >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> All right. And with that, we'll be doing a roll call vote. So, uh, Chairs votes yes. Vice Chair Peterson, >> yes. >> Thought I Okay, never mind. Board member Pitcher, >> yes. Board member Montes, >> yes. >> Board member Blakeman, >> yes. >> Board member Carpenter, >> yes. >> All right, with that, with all those present, it used unanimous to pass a consent agenda as read. With that, we will move over to our one item on the agenda to discuss, which is item 3A. And we'll begin with staff. >> Yeah, you're good to go. >> All right. Thank you chair and board members. This is KC25-0000635 for Ascension. Um this request is for a reszone from AG to RS15 P A to allow for a 47 single 47 lot single family residential subdivision. Uh the site is located at the northeast corner of Brown Road and 32nd. Um when evaluating a reszone, um staff does look at consistency between the general plan and the sub area plans. Uh the general plan place type here is rural residential with a sustained growth strategy. It's characterized by large lot single family residential developments um which is a principal land use. The site is also within the citrus sub area citrus sub area plan um which was evaluated as part of the reszone request as well. It was adopted with the intent for the area to develop as low density large lot housing zoned RS35. Uh the proposed density is not consistent with the citrus sub area plan. Um and staff has included condition one in the staff report um asking that the proposed project meet that density which is 1.24 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently zoned AG with that proposed RS15 P A overlay. Um here is the photo of the site as it currently exists. Uh the proposed project includes 47 lots. Um, typical lots are 22,500 square feet. With those northernmost lots being 25,000 square feet. Uh, that makes the density 1.27 dwelling units per acre. The proposed project would need to lose one lot in order to meet the RS35 density. Um, there's full access off of Brown Road as well as an exit only off of 32nd. Uh for the landscaping um plan, this the site does meet the landscaping requirements as provided in the citrus sub area plan. It includes an amenity space, a pocket park, and open space surrounding the community. Um and each individual lot will have landscaping for the citrus sub area plan as well. Um here are the pad standards requested by the development which were also listed into this in the staff report. Um the PAD overlays to permit flexibility in the application of the zoning standards where equivalent or superior standards can be shown. Um as stated the project does um exceed some of the RS15 standards including those minimum lot sizes, widths, and depths. Has a greater amount of landscaping than specified in the citrus sub area plan. Um they also have ena enhanced open space areas um and circulation connecting all of those spaces an enhanced entry feature um as well as trelluses enhancing the outer walls in the community overall. The applicants completed notification of property owners within 1,000 ft as well as HOAs and registered neighbors. Um they conducted an in-person neighborhood meeting October of 2025 where six residents attended. Um I believe we have more than the one blue cart for we have multiple blue cards. Um at this point um staff had received no other correspondence aside from that. Overall staff finds that the project complies with the 2050 Mesa general plan and meets the criteria in chapter 22 for a planned area development overlay and we're recommending approval with conditions. >> All right. Thank you Emily. I don't think there's any new questions for staff is there from the board. >> And I can't see the online. I don't think so. >> Nope. >> Then the question I don't think as far as unless the applicant has anything further. I don't think we would not maybe I don't think we need the full presentation but if you want to add anything unless anyone on the board >> just so you guys are aware. Oh yeah, if you put something up >> here. >> Oh, perfect. >> So, >> you have flashcards or something or >> um I I can work on that. >> We can see everything that was shared with us obviously on on here, but it's not up there. Chair, members of the board, uh we had a good discussion in study session about our position on it. If I need to go through it again for purposes of this meeting, I'm more than happy to. But we would reiterate our request to eliminate condition number one uh which is uh would effectively cap us at 1.24 and we would lose a lot. We're certainly appreciative of staff working with us on this. We're um grateful for their support in every other aspect uh of this case. And so with that, I can um keep going or I can sit down and answer any additional questions. I don't think there's any questions that No, nothing here. We do have some blue cards. So, how about we go with that? We'll start there and allow you to come back off for that response. Does that make sense? Okay. >> So, with that, then we'll go ahead and open up our public meeting portion of this item. And so, what I'll do here is I'm going to call up the the names that have provided uh cards for us today that like to speak. So, a couple things for that. Please, when you come up to to the front here, just uh state your name and address for the record for us. And then we ask you all to try to keep it within three minutes each if possible as we get through. And uh if I mispronounce your name really badly, I apologize. I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. So we'll begin uh with Michael Stokes. >> Yeah, that that was pretty easy. It would be really bad if I mess that up. >> My my name is Mike Stokes. We live at 1301 North LMA Vista. So, my backyard backs up to 32nd Street, which will be on the west side, excuse me, of the new development. First, we're very grateful for what's going into the neighborhood. I'm glad it's singlestory homes. My request though is that there is an exit on 32nd Street and we met, we came to the meeting back in October and made this request, but I've not heard any response back. Um, there's an exit out of the new development that will go on to 32nd Street. There's seven homes in the Kensington development that exists today along 32nd Street. And 32nd Street is not a through road. You have to when you get to the north side of it, you wind through the neighborhood. I've requested that they make that exit on the east side on Myar. If you put the exit on the east side of Myiramar, you don't have any homes along Myiramar. you have a church parking lot until halfway up so it doesn't impact any homes in the area. So that's my request and I think you can just flip the drawing, exit out of Myiramar instead of 32nd Street and it would be it would be very palatable to those of us that already live in the neighborhood. Thanks. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Stokes. Appreciate you coming. Next, I have Joyce Stokes. I'm I'm getting away with easy ones today. >> Hi. >> Hi, >> Joyce Stokes. Um, can you guys remember the map? >> Yeah. Okay. >> We have it in front of us as well. >> If they put the exit only um the exit on the 32nd Street, it exits right exactly behind my house. Exactly. Um, I've talked to my four neighbors that are from Brown to my house and they all agree with me that this is not good. We don't want this on 32nd. Um, hardly anybody goes up and down that street because it just winds into our neighborhood. You know what I mean? So, we don't have a lot of traffic and my house is, you know, right there. It's exactly where the exit is. If you put it on the other side, the church parking lot is empty 99% of the time. And so, it wouldn't bother anybody going up there. There is an entrance another 50 feet or whatever yards past that that goes into a neighborhood towards the east that if you put the gate exit right there, it impacts one home and it's about four times farther away from the road than my home and it's on an angle. So, it's their swimming pool and then their house so it wouldn't the traffic wouldn't bother them. And then they continue up and then they go into another gated community. So that's an already an access road that people use. Does that make sense? >> Um I don't want it right behind my house. That's And like like my husband said, it'd be easy just to flip the little exit to the other side. There's already two entrances. There's already a um turn lane right there going into the Myiar, I think is what it's called. Okay. If you'd lived at my house, you would want the same thing. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mrs. Stokes. We appreciate you being here. >> Um, next up, I have Ryan Smith. These names are all look at the one. My name is Ryan Smith. I live at 3105 East Huber, which is just northwest of this uh proposed location. Um, as far as the location, have no issues really with the proposal as is generally speaking. However, there are three points I wanted to cover. Um, the first and foremost from this drawing here, it we want from Val Vista all the way to at least the canal westbound on Brown Road, there are designated right-hand turn lanes for the church, for Myiramar, for um, Arco that goes into the Kensington neighborhood. That is all maintained. We want the continuation of that through this through this development here for both their entrance and the 32nd northbound. I cannot clearly tell from this spec here. It almost looks like they're cheating further into Brown Road and there would not be a designated deceleration right-hand turn lane. Brown Road is 45 mph. There's a high school just down the road from there. Traffic moves pretty quick for safety and especially with them having a gated community there. If anything backs up, they will want that right-hand turn lane. So, it would fit from from Val Vista for more than almost 3/4 of a mile with that setup of everybody having designated right-hand turn lanes. So, that's a big point I want to have clarified because we cannot tell. It looks like they're kind of cheating that they might do it or it might just be a big bike lane, which is not a proper right-hand turn lane. Um, the second thing, as was mentioned, want to see the exit on Myiramar for many of the reasons that they stated. Um, once again, it doesn't take anything but just flip the image and they can just plat it down and still keep going. Um, the third thing is want 32nd Street to be a no parking zone. So, if they have excess capacity for people for whatever, if they can't fit them all in their area, I don't want parking up and down 32nd. We want to maintain that as an art arterial um use um because nobody from the Kensington area ever parks up and down on 32nd as is. So that's all I wanted to just have addressed. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Smith. >> And then Leita Smith. >> Hi, Nita Smith. 3105 East Huber Street, Mesa. Um, most of the talking points have been addressed. I appreciate that. I'm a resident of Kensington Groves neighborhood and I've lived there for more than 20 years. My concern is again for the deceleration and the designated right-hand turn lanes from those comm community um for westbound ground road from Val Vista to the canal as it has already been established and it is designated there for the for the living word church for the um Myiramar entrance and for the Arco entrance into Kensington Grove. Those are all designated and have a deceleration lane set aside. Um, and I again would request that there be no exit onto 32nd Street. Um, if by chance there is an approval for that, then with an exception for the SRP substation, please consider designating and posting no parking on that street, 32nd Street, because it does not is not wide enough to facilitate two-way traffic and parking. And I would ask, was there a traffic study done on 32nd Street? I do disagree. I do like Joyce, but I disagree with her that it is pretty heavily traveled because I go there often myself and there is often traffic even coming north from the Groves subdivision on the south side of Brown. They do come through our neighborhood and if there's a traffic tie up for any reason at Mountain View, it does come through our neighborhood and snake through over to Lindsay. So, I would suggest that um recommend that they do a traffic study and see and then keep that exit onto the Myiramar and um other than that um I do appreciate them keeping single stories and it is a lovely community with just those exemptions. Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Smith. Appreciate that. All right, we'll go ahead and invite the applicant back up if he's ready to go. Chair, I want to make sure you you guys can't see what's on here. >> That's great. No, I don't think >> we can see right now. There is a presentation on screen. >> You can see you you can see >> Oh, I can see. >> So, only >> apparently just myself. >> So, I'm seeing your site plan right now. >> You're seeing the aerial >> the aerial site plan. >> Just want to make sure. chair, if I could, you guys have your um iPads with you because you should be able to pull up the presentation from that. >> It's up on now. >> Okay. >> It's a >> So we Yes, we see the aerial. >> So, all right. Perfect. This is as as good a discussion and then I can zoom in on the site plan. So, chair, members of the board, uh with respect to um I'll kind of address these starting with Brown Road and then working my way north. So in terms of Brown Road, as you are well aware, um this application is reviewed and thoroughly vetted not only by the planning department but traffic staff as well. Um not only traffic staff but engineering as well and they are the ones that uh dictate uh the uh improvements that we are to make to Brown Road and to 32nd Street. I know that along Brown Road we are required to dedicate additional rideway and Brown Road kind of goes a little wonky in places because of the various dedications and everything that's occurred on there. But I do know that we are providing 65 ft of rideway which I believe lines up at least with our subdivision to the west. Um with respect to a turn lane into Brown Road, um we did submit a traffic generation statement. um that is usually kind of the first step analysis to determining if there is enough traffic generated that warrants us looking at other ways and things of mitigation. And so through the course of that review, there was never any discussion about putting a right turn delane uh from Brown Road into this community because we don't meet the warrants. We don't meet the threshold to be able to do that. Uh, and again, I know that's a little bit kind of outside the scope of zoning and what we're talking about today, but nevertheless wanted to be responsive um to those neighbors comments about um Brown Road. With respect to the um access on 32nd or Myiramar, um you kind of can't see it on this picture, but um as you look at it, we we looked at it both ways. We looked at it on Myiramar. We looked it on 32nd and and through talking uh and I I don't think I'm mistaken about this, but in talking with transportation and engineering um the way the site slopes and everything, um 32nd Street is is a local road um designed to take local traffic. Uh and we are improving the eastern half of 32nd Street. Uh so it's not as if we're putting the subdivision in and not making our half streetet improvements. Those will go in. And so, um, because of that, 32nd Street will widen, but it is a public, uh, road, um, that does connect to a greater, larger, um, local road network. When we look at Myiramar on the east, um, that's effectively a dead end culde-sac road. Um, the dead ends into the, uh, Legends um, subdivision that is to the north. So doesn't have the extensive network that as we looked at it and moving traffic through the area to the extent that people are going to go north on here. Um 32nd is the the better location for that again exit only. Our primary access is off of of Brown Road and we believe that that's where a majority of people are going to come. But I will tell you that on the east west side of 32nd Street and I confirmed it by looking at the aerial again. And I know I drive past the site, but obviously there are six foot high walls uh for those backyards. Um there's landscaping that runs along there. Uh and so um you know, I think it'd be a different situation if I had, you know, a 3-ft high wall, uh which is what is customary for screening headlights, um as opposed to it. But again, when we're talking about um you know, these this these number of lots, this type of development, not a huge traffic generator, we do not anticipate that the cars that will exit out of 32nd will be um detrimental or significantly negatively impact uh those homeowners um really along the west side of 32nd Street. So, it is something that we did look at um and and talk with others about and everyone kind of concluded that that 32nd Street uh exit only was a more appropriate location. Um I believe those were kind of the the main high points relative um to the uh neighbors comments. If if I missed something or if there's additional things that we need to talk about, um feel free to let me know and and I'll do my best to respond. I I think there was a question about parking along 32nd. >> Yeah. Oh, thank you. Uh, chair, board member, pitcher, a 32nd street is a public road. Uh, and that will be subject to the city's requirements for public road. I do not anticipate I don't I don't think there's no parking signs out there today because it is public rideway. It is designed to be a local road. um and don't know that I've heard any discussions as we've gone through it about no parking being placed on that public roadway. >> Any other questions for the uh applicant here from the board? >> Chair, can can staff just clarify on the parking? Of >> course. Um what if the planning and zoning board would like what we can do is we can go back and we can uh just talk to our transportation team um because there is a process that they have to go through before they put no parking. um signs up on a street um just to let the planning and zoning board know that you know we've heard the residents and it's something we can go back and talk to our transportation team about. >> Thank you. Yeah. So for those that it is that's a city process not necessarily on these guys. So okay um any online board member Blakeman board member Montes any questions for the applicant for either of you? >> I do not have any questions. >> No I'm good. Thank you for the explanation. >> Okay. I think we're good. I think you do have questions for staff, however, right? >> Yes, please. >> The uh so so traffic review, just confirming traffic reviewed this the the right turn lanes are typically based on on amount of traffic. This is only 47 lots. So I I'm assuming it doesn't trigger any of those thresholds. Is that accurate? >> Chair Vice Chair Peterson, that would be correct. >> Okay. And then um on on the does does staff during the the process or the development did did whether it's staff or transportation have um any thoughts or preferences on which side that the the secondary exit the exit only is placed on? >> Chair vice chair Peterson. So I during the discussion I was going back through through previous comments. I don't see and this is also a thing that we can discuss with transportation and and maybe follow up with with the citizens before council. Uh but it looks like the um right-of-way improvements are required on all three streets. But I think just due to the configuration of 32nd Street continuing on whereas Myiar um does not. I I would venture a guess that that was the impetus behind 32nd and not Myiramar, but we can confirm and and have more conversations with transportation. >> Yeah. >> Gotcha. And and there there is some credence too that it that the the street network distributes more on the on the the west side than the east side, right? That was explained before. >> They're typically in situations like that, they typically want to have the two options versus the one, right? So they're going to pick the this that side that has the two options for egress versus the on the other side. >> Okay. >> Anything else? Okay. >> No, not yet. >> So, anything else from staff on this side? No. Board member Blakeman, board member Montess, you guys are good for questions. >> We're fine. Thank you. >> I'm good. >> We're okay. All right. with that then the we will close the uh public hearing portion of this and we can open it up for discussion and I so let me actually reiterate this too I think that kind of we've discussed some of these items as well I think we're we we do need to get back to the the question of the 1.24 versus 1.27 27. That's the the other big one that we need to discuss as a board. >> Go ahead, Troy. I know you. >> Yeah. So maybe I'll just share some thoughts on that on the starting on the density the um as as we discussed a little bit in study session the the citrus overlay has in my opinion run its course and and I get why it was there and I mean that that's uh the I yeah and and the I don't know that the one extra lot, the 03 delta, sets a dangerous precedent for a for future land coming forward because for the fact that there's really nothing bigger than 10 acres out there residential wise that it that it's going to be a factor on. Um, I I I do like the the requirement or the agreement that the lots on the the north end be limited to single story as was um discussed. And so maybe condition one is there a and that's appropriate to condition that those lot X through Y be single story. Is that accurate from legal? >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, so, so maybe a solution there would be to replace condition one with a condition that lots 40 through 47 um are single story and that way that's that agreement's locked in. That's already >> Oh, it it is a >> double. >> I didn't think I saw >> they said that earlier, but >> um Chair's uh vice chair Peterson. No, that is um not one of the listed conditions. >> Okay, gotcha. Um, as far as the the egress point and the the traffic coming out in in looking at this, the I I I see and hear the that the the sensitivity for where those points are from the public and appreciate those comments that have come through. the um I I think we talked through the the the traffic doesn't warrant right turn lanes, del lanes or acceleration lanes on Brown Road. Um and the 32nd street parking there is is a separate process through the transportation department and transportation advisory board. Um the so so then that really gives which which side the the egress only point should be on. Um the just looking at some thoughts the the south half of the project is going to predominantly call it half and probably the east half of the project is predominantly going to come down to the main entry. And so it it's o over half of the project that will tend to to uh eress through the main entry rather than that secondary entry. Um >> that's just egress only on that one. >> Yeah. Yep. Yep. Correct. And um and yeah, all all entrance is through Brown Road. um whether it goes on on the side or the other. I I I see the discussion that that street distribution, the distribution network on the the objectively on the west side does give um people the opportunity to go north or south where on the other side it doesn't because it's a dead end culde-sac. Um, and I I I would assume that uh transportation department in assessing it that that's probably where where they were leaning with it as well. I I get that you don't want cars coming towards the back fence. Um it it it is a street that's been there and and um I I don't see that putting it swapping it to the east side results in a net overall better situation than leaving it on the west side. And that's my opinion. >> Thank you board member Peterson or Vice Chair Peterson, sorry. Anything for you guys on this side? No, I Evan, I I just think we need to check and make sure that that those northern lots, you know, being single story is on the conditions. I don't I don't see it on what we've got, but maybe it got added. >> You said it wasn't. >> Actually, thank you, uh, chairs, um, board member pincher. So, there is as part of the P A table, what we restricted was the height of of detached structures okay >> in in the rear yards, not the height of the primary structures. >> Okay. And and so chairs and board, we'd like clarification from the planning and zoning board before we're done on whether or not you'd like to added an additional condition to limit the height for the primary and detached structures on those lots. >> Gotcha. >> Further discussion. >> Board member uh Blakeman, board member Montes, do you guys have anything that you'd like to bring up on this one? >> I don't have anything. Me either. Thank you. >> Hang out. >> Yeah. If if if you don't mind, Jamie, being a traffic expert, any anything traffic-wise on this that would any opinions on on that discussion? >> Sure. Um the fact that the development is so few units, I mean, I know that there it so at the end of the day, it it's not generating a significant amount of traffic. Um, it's I'm going to probably guess it's well below 100 peak hour trips. That's usually the main threshold any other city holds for considering something kind of being insignificant, right? Just kind of minimal ad. And so this development definitely would fall in that category. Mesa has even higher limits where they're not only look not asking for traffic studies that have 100 peak hour trips, but they're looking for ones that have 300. So basically, Mesa recognizes that until you hit about 300 Pak trips, it's not a major impact to the roadway network. So even in terms of del lanes, all of that, all those warrant criterias and everything, um they don't start triggering much more than what you see here. Gotcha. Thanks. And and any thoughts on the uh which side the the egress only um point is, east or west? I think I would I trust the process that the applicant has gone through with the city and the discussions that they've had. Um, and which I'm, you know, we don't know all that's gone behind the scenes, but I certainly think that we trust that process and I think it's fine. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay. Anything else on that? Okay. Um, >> take I mean once you're done talking I can take a crack on. >> Okay, cool. Um, well I just I think the only thing I would add to this is um on the the density um I think that I know that the staff has has kind of taken a stance on this and I I completely understand that. That was where my first thought was on this. We've been consistent. I think to the points that we've talked about some of these kind of sun setting that's was something to consider. More importantly to me on that was the location where we are literally in the bottom left corner of of the subdist and and so I thought to myself that this is the most last significant you know piece of property that's going to be developed this way. Um, and so I was more inclined to kind of uh allow the the density as as they've designed it at this point because of that. So that's kind of where I've been landing on this. Um, the other conditions I think the traffic I I completely understand that my teenagers drove up and down that road a lot when we live right back there. So I know that road quite well. My two sons best friends are in those areas. I think they spent more time in Kensington Groves than my own house sometimes. So we know that really well and I I completely understand that. I I do think that it's it's a very low density development. I do think this is a great development. I I'm not kidding you. Just a few weeks ago, I was talking with my wife about wondering when that was going to something would happen. You have probably been well aware it's been needed to happen for quite some time. Um so with those things, I I I understand why traffic would have gone the way that they did. I think that I don't know if there's a condition that needs to be added or anything about going back to traffic to talk about no parking signs. I don't think we can do that. That's >> and board. I would what I would say is that that's something we can do and as we go back, you know, to work with the staff, but I don't think because it's not a requirement for the zoning. >> Yeah, it's not for these. Yeah, totally. >> So, we wouldn't add it here. So with that being said, I think and then the lastly the um so that would take parking and the those types of things. I think the other one is um I do think that we should add the condition on the primary on the back side. I think so if we if you're going to go with um making a motion here, Troy, I think that we want to add that condition >> for the single >> for the single. So chair uh for both primary >> airs and board I think rather than a condition of approval what we'll do is modify the a condition to or ask staff to modify the p a requirements to the heights because that's where the heights are located. Is that correct Evan? >> Yeah. >> Um thank you Mary. So we could do it either way. I think we could just do it as a condition of approval too that says you know these these specific lots are limited to single story. >> Okay. Okay, let me do it. That's that's fine. So, basically uh amend the P A requirements that allow right now can there's inconsistency. So, we're saying on lots 40 through 47 both primary and secondary structures all limited to single story. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Are you going to be able to do that? you want me to. And then I think the this the other one would be just for clarity sake here. Uh I'm not sure how the board is, but I think I know which Troy if you're going to be making a motion here. Um it's number one, correct? That has the U density. Are you comfortable? So we're we're Okay, I'll just be quiet. >> You can go ahead. You good? >> All right. I will uh make a motion to approve item 3A 025-0000635 ascension 40 acres located at the northeast corner of East Brown Road and North 32nd Street reszone from agricultural to single residence 15 with the planned area development overlay. This request will allow for 47 lot single residence development. And this is uh what the recommendation is. Approval with conditions with the modifications of condition number one being deleted regarding the the um density requirement. and then to um modify the P A chart to restrict lots 40 through 47 to be singlestory only for the main unit. >> All right. Thank you for that motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay. So, we'll go ahead and do a vote again through roll call. Uh chair errors, yes. Vice Chair Peterson, >> yes. >> Board member Pitcher, >> yes. Board member Montes. >> Yes. >> Board member Blakeman. >> Yes. >> Board member Carpenter. >> Yes. >> All right. With that unanimous uh item 3A passes >> with those stipulations is added. >> Remind neighbors that that city council still. >> Oh yeah. >> Thank you. So that is a good just a one quick reminder for you guys. This obviously will now move on to city council where that official this Okay. Getting some thumbs up. All right. Anything else from staff that we should discuss? No additional update. Thank you. >> Okay. With that, I'll look for a motion to adjurnn. >> So motion. >> And there's a second. >> Second. >> You get that? Second. >> Do we need to roll call this or can we just do verbal? Okay. Roll call. >> Oh, verbal's good. All right. All in favor? >> I. >> Yes. >> Waiting for Jamie's no, but I didn't hear it. So, I think we're unanimous. >> We are ajourned. Thank you, everyone. She doesn't have that many left.