Call to order the planning commission meeting for Thursday, April 16th, 2026. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Mr. Passner, will you please take roll call? >> Commissioner Noblock >> here. >> Commissioner No >> here. >> Commissioner Treml >> here.
>> Commissioner Casey >> here. >> Commissioner Ron here. >> Chair Promokey >> here. Okay. So, our first order of business is to adopt this evening's agenda. Do we have a motion? >> So, moved. >> I'll second.
>> We have a first by Ronak and a second by Knoblock. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All opposed. Motion passes. Next, we need an approval of the minutes
from the March 19th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Um, Commissioner, are there any changes or corrections to be addressed? >> Chair Smokey, >> Mr. N or Commissioner Knoblock. >> On the minutes from the last meeting, the first second line says the meeting was called to order by Chair Schwarz and
he was absent. >> Yes, I note that as well. Can we >> and I question um you are the vice chair for the uh committee and it has you listed as chair promp which to my to my understanding of the
definition is I don't believe it's accurate for this meeting >> Mr. And there's five occurrences. So if if I am correct, then I think those need to be adjusted to vice chair rather than chair prom because Mary uh chair
um was made vice chair for the year. So she was available when chair Schwarz was not last meeting. So that's my only change to the minutes request. >> Mr. Bakonei, I mean It's fine. I think uh this was drafted
after Commissioner Schwarz resigned and so the person drafting him probably thought of it as chair pro Tim which you now are but at the time this meeting this prior meeting occurred you were still vice chair. >> Okay. So the it stands then that we should make the change to vice chair for
the minutes from the March 19th meeting. Okay. So we'll make the chair there's five locations you said. >> Yeah. five not including um members present. There's five uh references to chair prom. >> Perfect. >> Schmoki >> and then
>> in the minutes. >> Okay. And then just to clarify at the very opening um to correct that the planning commission meeting was called to order by vice chair Schwarz versus Chair Schwarz. I'm sorry versus chair Schwarz. >> Exactly. >> Thank you. Read it and talk at the same
time. Got it. >> Okay. I make a motion then that we approve the minutes of the March 19th, 2026 meeting with the uh noted corrections. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> First by Casey, second by no. All those
in favor? >> I. >> All opposed? >> Abstain. >> Motion passes with one abstension by Commissioner Treml. All right. This takes us to the first planning case um for the evening. planning case 26-7,
a conditional use permit, Mary T. Inc., Demar Assisted Living at 11777 Exxion Boulevard. Uh, just as a note, there will be a public hearing in this case as well. Mr. Patzner. >> Thank you, Madam Chair Prom, members of the planning commission. Um, so the item
I have before you tonight is a request for conditional use permit for Demar Assisted Living. This is an existing building at 11777 Exxon Boulevard. Um it's zoned and guided for moderate density residential with the southern part of the property um containing park
recreation and preserve uh zoning and conservancy guiding but the um the use is entirely on the part of the property that's zoned moderate density residential. So it's a property with it straddles two different zoning districts. Um this is an existing facility. So it was constructed as a
youth assisted living facility in 1985. um and then was decommissioned or not decommissioned but the it was it became a vacant building in 2020. Um sometime between 1985 when it was constructed as a youth assisted living facility and
2020 when it closed it transitioned to an adult assisted living facility. Um I just don't have the year that that transition happened pinned down. Um but at the time of its closing in 2020 it was an adult assisted living facility. Um
there was no CUP approved uh in 1985 when the original building was approved. Um to my understanding, a CUP would not have been required. Um the use of assisted living is a conditional use in the MDR zoning district. So a CUP would now be required for this. Um and because
the building closed in 2020, it's been closed for more than a year. Um thus a new CUP would be needed for the building to reopen. So essentially what the applicant is requesting to do is to reopen this building as a senior assisted living and memory care facility. Um
the uh the the site does just have one access onto Exxon Boulevard. Um and it is surrounded by uh residential uses on three sides. So there's uh town homes to the west, single family home to the east and one to the northeast. And then to the north across Exxon Boulevard is the
Chameleia Rose Assisted Living Facility. So there are other assisted living facilities in the area. Um so the applicant is looking to essentially reopen the site as a 12 unit assisted living facility focusing on memory care
patients. Um so the the current site is set up uh as a 9,500 or so square foot building um with 22 parking spaces and a fire turnaround on the south end of the parking spaces. There are two existing nonconformities on the site. So the way
that the MDR zoning district is set up um any institutional or assisted living use would need to meet the office zoning standards and the office district does require large setbacks or many adjacent um single family or multif family residential lots. Um so because this
building is required to meet the office standards um the building itself would have a 50- foot setback from the side lot line and the parking lot would have a 20 foot setback from the side lot line. um because the building and parking lot are already in place um have not been destroyed or or moved um this
is considered staff are considering this a continuation of an existing nonconformity. So because the applicant is not proposing to increase this nonconformity in any way um staff do not consider this uh existing non-conformity to be an issue um with the potential approval of a conditional use permit.
But I did just want to point this out. So, the applicant would be proposing to reopen the existing building and make a few changes to the site. The changes would be uh an 800 foot addition to the 9,500 foot building on the north side, the addition of a um stonemasonry trash
enclosure um which would be in place of two of the parking spots on the east side of the site and an additional covered entrance to the site. Um any uh site plan change building addition constituting more than 34% of the building or of the site would require
site plan review because what's being proposed uh constitutes less than 34%. Um this is something that would be able to be approved with just a building permit. However, the um ultimate plans for the site are relevant to the CUP request. So I am bringing it up here at the meeting. Um the applicant is
proposing to match the addition in terms of sighting and roofing color and materials to the existing building. Um so the proposed addition uh to the best of staff's understanding would meet all of the zoning requirements for the MDR zoning district. Um for assisted living,
a 12 unit assisted living facility would require 15 parking spaces at 1.2 spaces per unit. Um the site would have 20 parking spaces after the construction of the trash enclosure. So uh 20 spaces more than 15 spaces there is uh there
are enough parking spaces on site for an assisted living use. The applicant uh would also be uh rearranging the internal layout of the building. Um so the addition the 800 foot addition would be for mechanical, electrical and
laundry rooms um adjacent to the um uh existing mechanical IT and and staff meeting rooms. Um they would be setting it up with 12 individual rooms for memory care um patients and there would
be uh a communal dining room um kitchen uh laundry and tub rooms as well as staff rooms and the facility is proposed to be staffed uh for two two staff per shift generally on three eight hour shifts per day. So six staff per day
only two on site at a time. So, with that, staff are recommending approval of this conditional use permit request um based on the the findings listed in the packet, which I didn't go over in the presentation, but I'd be happy to discuss further if there are any questions about um and with the
conditions as listed. And these conditions are standard conditions for a conditional use permit. mostly just noted that the uh additions that will require building permits do need to meet applicable zoning applicable zoning code requirements and that at least 15 parking stalls must remain available for
guest and staff parking. Um this is uh a a public hearing uh is required for the C and this would be a a decision by the planning commission rather than a recommendation. Thank you. >> Thank you Mr. Passner. Commissioner, are there any questions for Mr. passen
before we would open a public hearing. >> I do have uh one clarifying question on the blueprint that shows the interior changes. Um I don't see where there's an entrance into that addition area. Um I'm assuming there is, but it just doesn't
make sense to me. So I just wondered if that needed to be um addressed or clarified. Uh, Commissioner Smokey, that is essentially just because this is a sketch and they they aren't actually this isn't the what will eventually be the building plan. The entrance will not be an exterior entrance. It's proposed
through one of the interior rooms. It's just not shown on this sketch. I don't know exactly where that entrance will be. Um, but my understanding is it will likely be either through the uh mech room or or the meeting room, but uh but I don't know for sure. And as this is an assisted living, I am presuming that
it's the the residents don't use the laundry room, right? So they don't need an access to it. It's the staff that would be using the laundry room. >> Correct. It would only be staff. >> Okay. Um I do have one other question u regarding the property itself. Then with
the addition of the um uh the trash um enclosure, um I did notice that there are lines, some lines that have been um identified in the parking lot right today. Um but there are some areas of it where there aren't clear definition of lines and I'm just curious, do we need
to as part of the cup make sure that certain things are um you know brought up to date at all? things like lining the the parking lot or it's and I didn't pay attention like if there's any issues with sidewalks or um anything else if
there's any conditions that need to be addressed. >> Commissioner Smokey, um I think that's a that's a very good point and I think it would be reasonable to add a condition onto the approval that um parking lot be striped uh conforming to city code requirements.
Um, normally as part of a building permit approval for an addition, that wouldn't necessarily trigger um, a requirement that, you know, the parking lot needs to be brought up to code right now or brought up to standards right now. But that could be included as a condition of approval, meaning that that parking lot would need to be restriped
and brought up to standards as part of this project. >> Okay. >> And anything else? It looked like the property to me looked like from a landscape perspective, it looks really nice. It doesn't I didn't see any issues with um things being um you know out of
um condition or whatever but um in terms of sidewalk or anything like that. Can we I was trying to come up with something a little bit more blanketed maybe not something so specific just to because we do for other cups we have addressed things that need to be brought up to code and I just wanted to raise
the question if there's anything that should be addressed here. Uh we can certainly add in the you know the striping of the parking lot if it's if you feel that that's uh necessary at this time. Like I said there is some striping. Um it's just not consistent and I don't want to you know open a can
of worms but I'm just trying to get some clarity. >> Chair. >> Yes Mr. Bakonei. So, we're talking about a cup, >> correct? >> And so, I would suggest that any conditions need to be tied to the
standard for determining if a CUP is appropriate here. And so, the question about the parking lines, >> um I I think we've addressed that in the packet here and I would suggest that um things about disrepair or non non
code following things, code violations, let's be simple. Sure. >> I don't think that is necessarily a CUP issue >> and I can totally accept that. I wanted to just make sure if there was like any safety issues um from the exterior point of view that I just wanted to make sure
we addressing that. So, we're good. I don't really need to we don't need to add a condition then. >> You certainly can, but it has to be tied to the standard in some way. >> All right, we'll discuss it then. Great. Thank you, Commission. Any other Commissioner Ronak?
Yes, in conjunction with your request, um, most of the stuff comes to us for approval. We don't seem to get into the planning of it, which is a discussion you just brought up about discussions about doing this, doing this, this. Um,
why don't we have more involvement in the planning rather than just approving what the city is bringing to us? Oh yes, >> Mr. Bakonei, >> Chair Schmolki, commissioners, uh, if
there's a bigger project where we think it is vital for you all to be involved ahead of the meeting, we'll typically have a work session, Commissioner Ryek, and so far since in your term, we haven't done that, but we have done that in the past. >> Anything for >> Thank you.
>> anything else from the commission? Questions for Mr. Patner? All right. Uh then we will move to uh the public hearing. So um uh move the public hearing before let's see uh okay. So is there anyone here who
wishes to um address the commission um in planning case 26-7? Anyone who wishes to speak? Seeing no one, uh, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll, um,
open it up for discussion along the commissioners commission. Any discussion? >> I would chair. Commissioner Casey, I was wondering um these setbacks that affect the east side of the property, has there
ever been any dispute with that with the the homeowner to the east, that single family home? That's where the setbacks are affected. I mean, I would we're just going to call
it an a conformity issue, but I wondered if the properties adjacent to it had ever raised any issues. >> Commissioner Casey, I'm not aware of any um complaints or any issues with the
adjacent property owners. um they were notified of the public hearing tonight and um the expectation would be if there have been issues with this property that they would either have notified staff ahead of the public hearing or or come to the public hearing. Um so seeing
seeing as no one came to the public hearing, I I feel like that's sufficient to determine that none of the neighbors have >> really had issues. >> Anyone else? Commissioner Ronak. Um, if anybody's been around Mary T, you'll notice that they have quite a
different set of buildings there. Uh, I think they got one of everything that you can think of there. So, it goes from single family to more intensive care, uh, more like a condo situation, homeowners association.
They've got a wreck hall. Uh, I had that for my census bureau when I was doing that and I was really amazed at the variety of structures that are adjacent to this or part of this and it's
call it a residential area would be more of an oxymoron. It's uh more of a development Mary te development and um I mean it works. It's just that uh it's an unusual
area. >> Thank you, Mr. Ryak. I would agree. I I mean, I just think that the area itself, it it is um it's a signature to Mary T. Um I'm really glad to see that this building is being used. Um again, I wasn't even aware that there wasn't um
anything going on the last five years. And again, just driving through there, you could see that the propertyy's still been wellmaintained and well kept up. So, it just speaks volumes to um having Mary Te in our community and so um you know I'm I'm very much in favor of you
know approving this. So, >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner, no. >> I just think based on the the history of the property and the the usage and the history of the property, a lack of concern in terms of the public hearing that seems like the right move for us to move forward with this conditional use.
So, I would make a motion in planning case 267 that we approve the conditional use permit subject to the conditions as listed in our packet. >> I'll second that. >> We have a first by Commissioner No and a second by Commissioner Knoblock. Do we have any further discussion or any
comments? All right. Then all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. Um. Any opposed? Okay. So the motion passes with all in favor. Um this is the decision of the planning
commission to approve uh planning case 26-7 regarding the conditional use permit uh Mary T. Inc. Demar Assisted Living 1177 Exon Boulevard um and may be appealed to the city council if you so wish.
All right. This takes us on to the second item of the evening. planning case 26-10 temporary signs city code section 11-1203.6 um there will be again another public hearing in this case and this will be a recommendation u by the planning
commission Mr. Patner. >> Thank you, Chair Prom Schmolki and members of the planning commission. So, uh, the second item I have before you is a request by staff for an ordinance amendment. This is another housekeeping item similar to last month's uh related to temporary sign storage. So, this
actually came to planning staff at the request of um property maintenance staff. Um, and this is related to two different items related to temporary signs. So, the first is the requirement that currently exists that the city hold on to temporary signs for 30 days um if they're removed for being
non-conforming. And the second is related to the window in which non-commercial signs are uh allowed in general in the city before an election. Um so, property maintenance staff do um pull temporary signs that have been
placed in the city right ofway um and keep them at the public works garage currently. So, that's the the way that we handle um non-conforming signs that get put out in the rightway. Um, and we're currently required by code to hold those signs for 30 days. Um, anyone who wants to come and retrieve their sign
can come to the public works garage and retrieve their sign um within those 30 days. Um, that does occasionally happen. Many times the um signs are kind of just written off and people don't actually come to retrieve their signs. Um but because of the number of non-conforming signs that get pulled, the requirement
that signs be held for 30 days can be problematic for uh property maintenance and public works staff. Um it first just having room to store all of these signs. And second, keeping track of when signs were pulled and when the 30-day limit is up for each sign is actually very difficult and and sometimes impossible
to do. Um so it is generally uh the the case in most cities that signs are not required to be held for any amount of time. They're usually just held until a certain time when all of them are discarded at once. Um, and Rapids would like to move toward that way of
handling things. Um, so um, property maintenance uh, did bring up that this is something that in our code that could be changed to allow for an easier time for staff to handle these temporary signs um, and remove that 30-day holding period. The second item is uh related to
the window before elections in which non-commercial signage, usually political yard signs, are generally allowed um anywhere in the city. Um so property maintenance staff usually do not like to get involved in picking up or removing um political signs uh or or
or yard signs uh in general um just because sometimes it's a it's a gray area between when those are non-conforming and when they aren't. Um, and before an election, state statute does uh require that cities allow um non-commercial signage uh for 46 days
before a primary election and uh in general election, sorry, before a primary election in a general election year and 10 days after the election. The city code is currently a little bit more complicated in terms of when this window is and when these signs are allowed. So,
we have it that um signage is allowed for 46 days before a primary election um as uh uh conforms to state statute as well as 46 days before a primary for a special election and 46 days before the general for a special election if there
is no primary. This is difficult for staff to keep track of. There are lots of special elections um off-year elections things that happen. Um and so staff are proposing to simplify the city requirements while still um conforming to state statute um and
updating this section of the code to allow non-commercial signage for 90 days before any general election including offyear and special elections which would then also meet the 46 days before the primary election requirement. So both of these items are generally just simplifying our sign code to make things
easier for staff to enforce. um and generally considered housekeeping items. While they do constitute a change in practice, they don't constitute a major change in terms of how property maintenance handles these signs. Um so with that, staff are recommending approval of uh this ordinance. And
that's all I have for presentation. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Passner. Uh commission, any questions for Mr. Patner? >> Oh, ma'am. Madam Chair, >> Commissioner Casey. >> Uh Mr. Patzner, does this include uh the 10 days after? Is that going to be part
of the the 90 days before and then the 10 days after? >> Commissioner Casey, yes, it would include the 10 days after. The only change would be to the language regarding um how how long before the election the the signage is allowed. >> Okay. >> Commissioner Ronak,
>> uh how do you differentiate between a commercial and a non-commercial sign? >> Commissioner Ronak, I don't have a easy answer to that question. I don't know if uh Assistant City Attorney Buchi does. It's not something that I deal with.
>> There isn't an answer for that question. >> I'm sorry. >> There probably is not an answer for that question. >> It might be a complicated answer. It's it's outside of my wheelhouse and I actually don't know um how how you would describe the difference between commercial. I know it when I see it, but I don't know where that line actually
is. >> Madam Chair, >> Commissioner, no. >> Mr. Patner. Um, would folks still be able to come to the city and see if their signs are there? >> Commissioner, no. Yes, they would be able to. There's just no guarantee that the city would still be holding their sign.
>> Mr. Hner >> um is there a uh is there some sort of how are we planning to communicate this to the community right so that people are aware of this change or >> especially for the non-political signs but >> like are there certain organizations
that we commonly see and I'm not saying that we should have to reach out to them specifically but I have to believe that there are people that maybe um are aware of the current process and if their signs are left behind they'd want to know what to do. Commissioner Smokeoki
the uh maybe it's just >> city attorney Buchi would like to answer this. >> Yes. >> So there he stole my line earlier about you know it when you see it. >> There's a saying in the law ignorance of the law is no offense. And by placing your sign into a place it should not be.
You're technically violating an ordinance and committing a misdemeanor. >> Sure. >> So uh I don't beyond our meetings here I don't know that much notification is needed. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. Um, Commission Commissioner Schmoly, if I may add to that. Um, usually the
clerk's office does put out communications uh ahead of every election reminding people, especially anyone potentially running for a school board or or other political seat of these rules. Um, and that those communications, I imagine, will be updated to reflect the new ordinance uh
the next election. >> Sounds good. Thank you, >> Commissioner Ronak. Is there is there a permit requirement or a fee for signs? >> Commissioner Ryak, we do require a permit and a fee for commercial temporary signage. Um, so businesses do
have to pay a fee and they have uh 60 days per calendar year that they can have commercial signage out. That is temporary signage, things like banners, flags, portable signs. In terms of non-commercial signage, um, no, we don't have a permit process for that. So, if
someone's putting a sign on like say a private property right on their in their yard, that's something that the city wouldn't touch. If they're putting it in the right ofway, those are the signs that we go and pick up. We don't touch any signage generally within that window ahead of a general election just because
if um if property maintenance staff make a mistake, it's worse to make a mistake than to just leave a sign there until after the election. >> Is there an issue with this? I mean, is there a problem that brought this forward?
Commissioner Ranak, the the main problem uh for the first item was that the um public works garage uh there were just too many signs being stored there and it was overflowing. They're having trouble keeping track of them. Um for the second problem, I think it's just a matter of it's difficult to keep track of when
these periods start before each different type of election. uh before the primary elections, general elections, and all these special elections. And I think staff find it easier to just have a blanket 90 days before any general election um which then also covers the primary election rather than trying to keep track of every primary um because it can be
difficult for property maintenance staff to know exactly when they can and can't be removing signs. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> All right. Any other questions? >> Question. >> One more question. Mr. Ra or Commissioner Rana. >> No, I moved the approval of the uh
>> we need a public hearing. >> We have to do a public hearing first. >> Oh, >> so one thing. >> Oh, I didn't mean Oh, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. We've all done it. >> Okay. If there's nothing more, no more questions, then we'll go ahead and move to the public hearing.
So, at this time, we'll open a public hearing in planning case 26-10. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak? Anyone here who wishes to speak um in planning case 26-10? Seeing no one, we'll go ahead and close
the hearing. Um and we will now limit the discussion to the commission. Commission, any comments. Um, Madame Chair, this seems to be a truly housekeeping kind of issue and it makes some um, sense as far as storage
space and time and effort of the city staff. So, um, in planning case 2610, I move that we recommend approval of an ordinance revising temporary sign standards and amending city code section
11-203.6. six dot. >> I'll second that. >> We have a first by Commissioner Casey, a second by Commissioner Knoblock. Any discussion further? >> All right. Then hearing none. All in favor say I.
>> I. >> I. >> All opposed. >> Okay. Hearing none, the motion passes with all in favor. So it is the recommendation of the planning commission to approve planning case 26-10 temporary sign requirement city code
section 11-1203.6. Um this case will be introduced to city council on May 5th of 2026 with a decision by city council on May 19th of 2026. Uh with that is there any other business
to cover Mr. Patner? Thank you, Chair Schmoki, commissioners. Um, I just want to quickly go over uh the uh items that we have in for the the next meeting and then um I think uh Assistant City Attorney Buchi would like to make a statement and then I have a
few follow-ups after that. Um, so we do have two applications in and there's there is a potential third um, application that I'm not going to get into just because um, staff haven't yet determined whether or not it's complete and whether it will actually go forward to the meeting, but there may be three. Um, right now we have two in. One is a
conditional use permit application for 11670 Eagle Street. This is the Rapids Tech Center on Eagle Street uh, just off of Northdale. Um, and this is for a an auto wrapping business uh to open up in one of the units in the Eagle Street Tech Center. Um, which would require a cup. Um, the second is two
items related to the Cardinal Crest development. So, this is an 11 unit single family development that was approved back in 2024. Um, and they are coming they're that approval has expired and the applicant is coming forward with a modified plan for 14 units instead of
11 units. So they are requesting to reszone to uh from LDR2 to LDR3 and requesting approval of a preliminary plat for that 14-unit development. So those are items that will be discussed more in the May meeting. Thank you.
>> Uh Mr. Passner, in the presentation you do have the Demar assisted living. Uh okay, I take it that doesn't have anything to do with the upcoming or what you just discussed. Chair >> Smokey, no it doesn't. I forgot to switch that picture over. I apologize. >> That's totally okay. Just wanted to make that clear.
Okay. Anything else? >> Uh, Assistant City Attorney Buchi, >> Mr. Bakonei, >> Chair Schmolki, Commissioners, I just wanted to take a moment to thank uh, Commissioner and former Chair Schwarz for his decades of service. I for one
miss him and I look forward to seeing him soon. He he has resigned and that's his choice and um, look forward to seeing him soon. I'll just note that years and years and decades of public service government is only as good as
the people in it and I encourage people to volunteer and hopefully you're as good as Commissioner Schwarz was. >> Thank you, Mr. Bucha County. I echo all of that. I worked with uh Chair Schwarz for many years on this planning commission. Uh we um you know heard and
resolved a lot of planning um issues. some of them um you know even were a bit contentious and you know he was always a great leader um a great chair to to take us through all of those planning cases. So uh we do wish him the best and I uh
do hope that we get to see him here again in the future um and do offer my thanks as well. >> Anything else? Did you have one more thing Mr. Passner? >> Yes, Commissioner Smokeoky. Um, members of the planning commission, I do just want to echo uh Mr. Buchoneyone and and
your own sentiments regarding uh Chair Schwarz. I I um really appreciate the the service that he's given to the the commission and and I think he did a great job and I'll miss having him on the commission. Um I do want to note that the um city council are planning to
um make a decision to appoint uh Commissioner Smokey as chair of the planning commission at the upcoming meeting on May 5th. Um and the city council are also hoping to make a decision on the vice chair of the planning commission at the following meeting. Um so if anyone is interested
in the vice chair position, please do send me an email, a a private email um and I can make sure that you the council is aware that you're interested in that position and and that um that you're in the running when they do make that decision. All right. Thank you. >> Excellent.
Uh, Commissioner Rana, >> uh, how long was the previous chair, uh, >> Chair Schwarz, how long was he in the position? >> Oh my gosh. Better than 10 years. >> I've been here 10 years. >> Wasn't it like 15 or something?
>> The whole time easily. >> I was here what 12 11 12 years. You was almost the same time. >> Exactly. >> 11 12 12 years. >> And he's been chair since I started. So >> yeah, definitely. >> Okay. The reason I said that is do you think we should do a commemorative
gavl for the individual from the commission? Can we do that? >> Let's talk off here about awesome options that we could pull together and do. >> Perfect. At another time. >> Yeah. >> Perfect. Thank you.
All right. If there is no further business to discuss, I'll accept a motion to adjurnn. >> Uh so moved, Madam Chair. >> Second. Motion by Casey, second by Trel. Um, all in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed.
Hearing none, the motion passes with all in favor. >> This has been the planning commission meeting of April, what is it? 16th of 2026. Thank you.