All right, we'll call the meeting to order. On behalf of the planning commission, I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of June 9th, 2026. On tonight's agenda, we have two public hearings and we have one discussion item. Uh before we get into the public
hearings, we have a number of housekeeping items to take care of. We'll do it here at the table. Um first of all, I'd like to introduce our newest commissioner, Mr. Nate Lee. Nate, thank you for joining the commission and serving the residents of our community.
>> A pleasure. Happy to be here. All right. Also then we have some organizational uh planning to do. We need a uh vice chairman. Um with that, uh Commissioner Berg, would you uh be willing to serve as vice chair for this year? >> I would. Yes.
>> With that, then I'll nominate Commissioner Berg. Is there a second? >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Call the role, please. >> Lemire? >> Yes. >> Berg, >> yes. >> Rody, >> yes. >> Ellis, >> yes. >> Rutherford, >> yes. with that. Then we also have an opening for uh one of our committees
that the commission uh serves on along with our city council. This is for the Empire Farmington Advisory Planning Committee. Commissioner Lee Meer, would you serve on that for the commission? >> Absolutely. >> All right. Tony, do you want a motion for that or not? >> We do not need a motion.
>> Okay, that's fine. Um then we also have uh minutes, the minutes from our regular meeting of May 12th, 2026. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? >> If not, is there a motion? >> Motion. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. I. I. >> They're approved. Then thank you. So we'll open up both public hearings at this time. We'll take them in order as shown on the agenda. The first public hearing is a variance request to this request is to exceed the maximum sign
area for permitted non-residential use monument sign. The applicant is the Church of St. Michael and the address is 22120 Denmark Avenue. Tony, you're going to take this? >> I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Here we go.
All right. There we go. Uh yes. Before you this evening is a variance request uh as Chair Rody had mentioned for the maximum sign area allowed for a permitted non-residential use monument sign. Uh this is for the property located at 221120
Denmark Avenue. Uh the Church of St. Michaels. Uh the request is to exceed the uh maximum size by 16.5 square ft. Uh there are two current existing monument signs on site. Uh one at the
Ash Street entrance and then the second on the entrance near Denmark Avenue. Uh the signs were put in place when the church was constructed back in the late 90s. Uh both signs are currently 38.5 square ft in size with heights of 4 1/2
ft. Uh the sign code does allow for one freestanding monument sign per street frontage if access drives are present. Uh there are access drives at both locations at this site. So both signs meet that requirement.
Maximum sign area of 50 square ft and a sign height of 10 ft. Uh so right now the signs are well within those uh requirements. Uh the church would like to add approximately 28 square ft um of signage
uh for electronic message board uh to each sign. This would increase the sign area to 66 1/2 or 66.5 square ft and then increase the sign height to 8 1/2 ft. So the the height still is within the the regulations. It's just the
overall size of the sign that would require the variance of 16.5 feet. This is a a picture of what the sign would look like. Uh they wouldn't be extending out with the sign. They would literally be placing the electronic
message board on uh top of the uh existing signs. As this commission is aware, there are nine criteria for approval of a variance. Um I will not read all of these. Hopefully you have read through those. Um but it is staff's
recommendation that the criteria have been met and the plan commission should approve the requested variance. Therefore, the action that is requested this evening is to approve the variance requested to exceed the maximum sign area for non-residential use monument
sign by 16.5 square ft contingent upon the following. Number one, submittal and approval of a sign permit. And number two, submitt and approval of electric electrical permit. Excuse me. >> All right. Thank you, Tony. With us tonight representing Church of St.
Michaels is Mr. Murkwood. Mark, did you have anything to add to the staff report? >> I think the staff report is um accurately reflects what we're trying to do. Um I guess given the nature of uh our business which is a church um we see
a lot of value to having the electronic signs and um frankly where we are in that corner we have uh minimal neighborhood today although I think that's going to change um we we are going to see increasing traffic on ash and Denmark
um so we'll have an opportunity to um post uh service times and events and that kind of thing on the um on the sign boards. Um the the monuments are set back actually quite a distance from the
road itself because of the easements. Um so it it just doesn't seem to us to to uh pose any nuisance or anything for the neighborhood. So we would respectfully request your ascent to continue. >> All right. Thank you, Mark. If you could stay available in case there's any
questions, I'd appreciate it. This is a public hearing. At this time, I'll call for any comments or questions regarding this before we bring it back to the commission table. We have a couple people. I don't see any arms raising, so we'll bring it back. Commissioner Berg. >> Yeah, Tony, just a couple questions. Um,
so this is going to be a video board, which is a different element than what's existing there today, >> correct? >> There will obviously be some illumination with this in the in the messaging that's on the board and and that. >> Is there any precedent around
hours of operation. Like, do we say, "Hey, it has to be shut off by 10 or 11 o'clock at night." So, we're not displaying light displaying signs that are near residential, right? They're not immediately in the vicinity, but is there any time constraints around when
they can be used? >> Typically, we have not done that. Um, I think we we may have done that with the dental clinic on the one um on Elm Street. >> Oh. um tattoo artist.
>> Um but that's not an electronic message board. That's just an internally lit sign. >> Okay. >> Um but with these in particular, um the newest one that uh has been constructed is one the the Lutheran church on uh Aken Road. >> Mhm.
>> Um and that does not have any of those um time restrictions on it. And to my knowledge, we have not had a single complaint regarding it. >> Okay. In the event that we did, right, because this one is directly across from residential and potentially some more residential, right, at some point,
>> we could certainly work with the church, too. >> Okay. >> Cuz these can be they're obviously programmable. Yeah. So, >> and I don't anticipate it's going to be like a big flashing Las Vegas billboard, right? But in the event that that would come across, it's just something I wanted to ask about. >> Absolutely. That's something we could
certainly look at if and when it becomes an issue. >> Okay. Um, other than that, I think I'm I'm good. >> Thank you, Andy. Commissioner Alice, >> what's your timing on this? I know you have to get the permits. Are you in
process for that or were you waiting for this or >> No, we're uh we're waiting on you and then it goes out to bid. Um there is a u uh we have our own process then of approvals through the arch dascese. So,
um, I I think I can assure you as a representative of the archbishop, there'll be no Las Vegas signage. I think he'd frown on that. Um, but the the timing is probably in the within the next year, certainly. >> Okay. >> Um, but it's it's not something we're
going to do immediately. >> Great. That was all I had. >> All right. Thank you, Lisa. Commissioner Rutherford, >> I don't have any questions or concerns. Chair. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Lee Meyer. >> One of the only things that I was noticing and reading about was how far
it is set back, how far the monuments are set back. Has there been any um way to go on out there and make sure that the size of the board is going to be sufficient enough for the messaging
that you are looking to portray? That's a great question. So, the we've consulted with uh a couple of the vendors that are going to be bidding on the project. Um and uh we had a presentation from one of them and um
they they believe that the sign that the sign is the proper size for what we needed to do. Um I think the only thing we might do we've this is depicted directly above the sign. So the question
is because these are going to be two flat panels against each other then we might have the we have the opportunity to angle them a little bit um to see if they could be more visible from the road. But the size is um they're telling us the size is going
to be plenty. >> Awesome. That's all I had. >> All right. Thank you, Nate. A number of commissioners talked about setbacks. So, and I understand setbacks are okay. So, you know, anytime I look at a sign, especially a monument sign, I always ask about sight lines. Sight lines, Tony, would be I mean, they're
already existing, so it's not something new. >> They're already existing and they're set back quite a bit from the actual intersection where the where the roads meet. So, I don't foresee that being a >> concern. I mean, and one of the commissioners talked about the light impact, which we always try to address.
The other one question I had is Mark, how do you anticipate attaching these to the existing sign? >> Um, >> have you have they told you what would be the best process or way to do it? >> Like everything at St. Michael's, it's going to be an adventure.
>> All right. >> Um, so, um, what I think we're going to do is there's a cap. Um, there's a masonry cap on top of that brick. So, the first thing we got to do is pop that cap off because none of us
know um exactly how that's constructed u beneath us. You know, we believe it's block. It's probably hollow in the center. We know it's got frost footings in it, which we want to take advantage of. So, um our plan is to actually
um put in um uh reinforcing bars that will actually mount the sign to. And we're going to use that monument as a firm attachment already uh frost proof. So that's that's really why we want to keep the monuments. Not only do they
look good, but we know structurally they'll be uh they'll be better to hang the sign on than if we just put a post in like they did at the Lutheran church. So >> okay. >> So but be determined. It is to be determined and it'll we are obviously
we'll go through the permit process and that kind of thing and we uh >> um we know we have some work to do on that. We've got electricity at one of the monuments but we don't have enough and the other monument we only have
lighting on uh which isn't suitable. So we've got we know we got some electrical work to do and that's to be determined. >> All right. Well, thank you. Um, again, just as several people have mentioned, this is not unique to our community. 40 years ago, it was, but it's not anymore.
And and we have some examples that I think look nice out there. So, I have no concerns with this variance request. Um, and if there's no more questions or comments from the commission, I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So, moved. We
>> have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Motion and second. Call the role, please. >> Berg, >> yes. Rody, >> yes. >> Ellis, >> yes. >> Rutherford, >> yes. >> Neimar, >> yes. >> Front of the commission then, and this is a commission decision, um is a variance request to exceed the maximum
sign area uh for monument signed by 16 1/2 square ft. Um Mark, there are two conditions. Does you as a representative of the church, do you agree to those conditions? >> Yes. >> All right. With that, then I'd look for a motion for approval. >> Motion to approve.
>> Have a motion for approval. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Motion and second. Any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. >> Rody, >> yes. >> Ellis, >> yes. >> Rutherford, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> All right. Thank you, Mark, for your time. We'll go on to our second public hearing. This is a conditional use
permit request to allow a landscape company to operate a wholesale business, outdoor sales, and supply yard within a B1 zoning district. The applicant is Chip andale HP LLC, and the address is 211034 Chip Andale Avenue. Tony, you're busy. You can take this one, too, right?
I I will. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commission members. >> Uh, as Chair Rody said, the property is 2134 Chipendale Avenue. The applicant and owner is Chipenddale HP LLC. Uh, Mr. Hunter Stanick is here this evening with
us. Uh, the property is zone B1, which is highway business, wholesale business, outdoor sales, and supply yard are all conditional uses within that specific zoning district. Uh, the property is guided for commercial in our 2040 comprehensive plan. Uh LNG landscaping has been occupying
the space or property uh since the end of March. Uh single family houses are to the north, city- owned storm water pond to the east, auto sales to the south, and trunk highway 3 in the city of Empire are to the west.
Uh the applicant again is requesting a approval of a conditional use permit uh to allow the landscape company to operate uh a wholesale business which the tenant would sell uh salt for winter ice mitigation uh to wholesale business
customers and to state, county, and local governmental units. Uh the outdoor sales and supply yard. Um the applicant has indicated that uh items would be stored on site or are currently being stored on site uh related to the tenants
landscape design and build services. Uh this is where customers can view and select uh items for their projects. Things such as rock, mulch, irrigation, pipe, stone, pavers uh along with the equipment that uh you could use to uh
install uh those materials. The site itself is 1.32 acres in size of which 29 acres is considered right ofway. Access to the site comes directly from trunk highway 3 in the front. Uh an
existing 6,000 ft building sits towards the south central portion of the site. Uh there's an open non-paved area located on the north and east sides of the site. Uh this area is enclosed with a chainlink fence. Currently outside storage of landscaping material as I had
mentioned is currently occurring on the south side of the lot behind the building. And then the employees use the grass area on the north and east of the building for parking of personal cars and work vehicles and equipment. This is a picture of the site survey
showing the location of the building um and then the access. So, as you can see, there's quite a bit of open space um on the north and east side of the site. Section 1064 uh D2 requires that all
parking areas, driveways, and loading areas be surfaced with asphalt or concrete pavement. Uh if this is approved, a conditional of approval uh should be that all parking and loading areas uh either be paved or be surfaced with concrete. Uh the applicant will
have to submit a parking lot and striping plan. Uh that will have to be approved by uh the building department, engineering department as well as planning staff. Um appropriate screening will also have to be provided uh in accordance with city code uh and should
consist of either an opaque fencing or landscaping specifically along the northern side of the property adjacent to the existing residential. Uh, as I had mentioned to the east there's a storm water pond. There's some substantial amount of vegetation around
that pond. Um, it's very dense during the summer. However, there could be some concern during the winter time of visibility. So, we may want to look at that as well. Um, if this does move forward, um, applicant will have to submit a
screening plan to the playing division for approval as well. So again that would be if this commission does move forward with approval of the the cup. Uh similar to the variance however there are fewer there are six criteria uh for
approval of a conditional use permit. Um with the uh conditions that I have outlined I do feel that it does meet those uh criteria. Uh therefore, the action that is requested is approve the conditional use permit request for the property located
at 211034 Chipnell Avenue to allow a landscape company to operate a wholesale business, outdoor sales, and supply yard with the within the B1 zoning district contingent upon the following. Number one, all necessary building permits are obtained. Two, assigned permit shall be
submitted and proof for any exterior signage that may be installed on site. Three, a parking lot and striping plan must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the city. And lastly, number four, an exterior screening plan must be submitted by the applicant and approved
by the city. >> Right. Thank you, Tony. And Tony, just so that the commission's all on the same page and got a good lay, can you go back to one of your first slides? I want to It's the one with the shows the whole area in color.
>> Yeah, right there. Um, okay. And I was thinking, you know, where the new Holiday and I remembered, but I I wasn't sure the location, but right behind Holiday. Remember, wasn't that future lots?
>> This is right now an outlot. >> Yeah. But I thought that would possibly future development >> potentially. >> Okay. And I just just so that everybody knows, we got we got we do have the car sales just directly to the south. Doc Nordines to the north, but houses
residential to the north, residential to the east, and I'll even call it residential to the to the south and the east a little bit, you know, right there. So, I just wanted to see that again. >> Yep. >> I don't recall. Oh, the access was going to be off the road further east. Okay, that's where they were. I just remember
that was possible future development of lots. Okay, I'm sorry, but All right. Just want to get everybody at least myself on that same page. With us tonight is a representative, Mr. Stanic. Uh, do you have anything to add to the staff report? >> I do not. >> Okay. You can stay available. We'd
appreciate it. I assume there'll be some questions. Uh, with that then this is a public hearing. Are there any comments or questions? Beth, anything from you? Okay. Not. All right. Commissioner Ellis, >> can we Come on, Beth. Um, so when we
talk about, excuse me, the screening that we're going to put in play and where we're going to be paving, I mean, it's not a large, it's small. I mean, it's basically an acre, right? Because it's 1.32 acres and >> correct. >> Um, over a quarter of it is in the right
of way. So, with the you're going to be paving, how many employees are parking there now? I I mean >> yeah there there's a estimated 8 to 12 employees parking there today. >> It ranges every single day.
>> Sure. But no more than 12 we can say. Yeah. >> Probably. So I don't know. Um and then Tony for in terms of paving how is this is there a ratio for this? You know one per four one per four four per thousand or something or >> I think it is uh
>> I just don't remember. I think per code it's one per two employee. >> Okay. So, you'll be able to do that. And then to Dirk's point about this isn't you, but to that lot that's right behind the holiday
>> that that's for that's there's a for sale sign for that and that's just being that's nothing to do with this property. >> That has nothing to do >> nothing to do with this property. So, basically paving screening. Where will you be storing the salt? How
are you going to store that? >> Yeah. As for the salt, you'll actually see on it would be the norththeast side of the building. There used to be an out building that used to exist there. There's a concrete pad already there. >> You had a schematic you could bring up
and then help the commissioners. >> It would definitely help me. Thank you, >> Hunter. There you go. >> There you go. So you would put a building there or >> there there would be three walls and a roof on top of that. Yep.
>> Concrete or masonry or what? >> Uh to be determined. >> Okay. >> Those are all my questions, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Rutherford. >> So as I understand it, you're going to you're going to have outdoor retail sales as well. Is that correct, Mr. Stannic?
How the process works is when a client comes in and they sit down with the landscaping company, they'll do the design internally with CAD or whatnot. And then once they figured out the materials that they want to use for the project, then they'll go outside and
actually tangibly touch materials of what they want to be using there. So, um they will have access to the materials for their projects projects outside to purchase. >> Okay. Yep. That's all I have for now.
>> Commissioner Berg, if I can turn my mic on. Um, so with with the concept, you'll have folks come inside, do their design, go outside, tangibly touch. Are you going to be storing the large majority
of mulch, rock, pavers, those things out in that lot or that area behind the store? I would say they store it on a kind of a a projected project like hey we got x amount of projects coming in we need this much available. Okay. It's not
going to be hey we're going to have a mound higher than the building there. So >> okay perfect. That's kind of where my concern is. If you're going to have trucks pulling in to deliver semis full of mulch and trying to turn around in there at the same time. I would imagine that would get pretty difficult. >> Not going to work.
>> Okay. Okay. Um, and then on the screening, Tony, I know you mentioned the north side and then potentially the east side as well, depending on vegetation. >> I think we'll want to at least look at that specifically during the winter season. Maybe that's something we look at this coming winter, see how it
actually >> works and then maybe revisit that next year. >> Okay. Okay. Um, any requirements around types of screening? Um well, typically the code requires
either fencing or some sort of dense landscaping or a combination of both. >> Okay. >> Um at that point, we leave it up to the applicant to submit a plan. Then we comment on it. Um >> to see what would work best from and I'd
also work with our natural resource specialist on that as well. >> Okay. >> Okay. I think the rest of my questions are answered already, so I'm good for now. Durk. Commissioner Layer, >> the one thing I was thinking of was, is
there any potential harm with any of this any of these items that are going to be on the property going into that wastewater area? Like after after rain, after a heavy wind, something like is that going to have any
impact on that wastewater like pond back there? >> Right. We'll want to look at that as part of the probably the parking lot and striping plan. Um they'll want to pro we'll want them to provide us some more information as to where those will be located grading wise and things like
that to ensure that we're not going to be polluting that pond any more than it should be polluted. >> Okay, >> yeah. Um, one thing I wanted to bring up on that topic is I know your guys's um,
codes ask for concrete or asphalt. So what we were thinking for the east side of the building, so if you're looking at the east side of the building and back where the majority of loading takes place, uh considering like class
five or gravel, which would prevent any sort of material moving into that waterway as you discussed because it just kind of keeps it there and that soaks into the ground on the property rather than, you know, washing it out.
uh elsewhere. Obviously, for the parking on the side of the building where the uh employees are parking, you know, we would obviously consider asphalt there, you know, because there's actual vehicle movement there. >> Tony, do you want to respond to that?
>> Well, the code is pretty precise or very specific as far as parking and loading areas. Um, we'd want it to be paved or concrete, at least the areas where they're going to be storing things. >> And commission, we have not deviated from that drastically over the last
number of years that I can recall. That's why I wanted Tony to do it so that >> the commissioners understood. >> With that wastewater pond back there, Tony, is is it just storm runoff or where is what's the source of that pond? Do you >> It's a storm water pond that was part of
the hometown development to the the residential development to the east. >> Okay. Okay. So, there's nothing else running in there other than storm water. Okay. >> Nate, did you have any more? >> Okay. I got a few questions for for maybe both of you. Uh Hunter,
is it is it a long lease? >> Uh, as of right now, I have fiveyear lease with five-year options. >> Significant then. Okay. Yep. >> And the reason I ask is is that um you know, some of these conditions, as Tony mentioned, aren't aren't going to
be requests. They're going to be mandatory. You understand that? And I just wanted to make sure that the lease was sufficient enough to for the expense. Okay. Hours of operation, >> uh, normal business hours 8 to 4, 8 to 5
>> because landscaping can get a little later, which I'm fine with. I just I hope it's control so that it's not, you know, bringing in heavy equipment real late, middle of the night type thing, and you you assure us it's not. >> Yeah. Uh the only arm that may extend is
the salt. Obviously in the winter time when they have, you know, all their entities coming in and buying salt, you might see a little heavier movement >> during a snowstorm or something. >> Your plows and tractors are going to have to get out though of the night. >> Say that again. >> Your plows and tractors are going to have to get out in the middle of the
night. >> Yeah. Y >> you're going to want to plow during Yeah. night time. >> Yep. >> Okay. Additional lighting of any kind? >> Uh as of right now, no. >> Okay. You got the one light in the back and that's no more expected. And the reason I asked is you got again you got
residents. I know it's a backyard but you got you got at least two residents to the north that could be impacted by any additional lighting. So this time no more lighting. Then you said okay. Um noise we'll look out for um
Tony the in our code as I read it and you reminded me that I think uh 1069 requires 6 to8 ft tall peak maintenancefree fence the fence in the north is 5T >> correct >> that's something you look at when you get the uh the plan >> correct
>> I mean lots of times those those I'll call them slats were put in the thing and that we've seen that before but you know again it won't the five it's a five foot fence well built fence but still five foot >> correct >> okay um and then the east screening I I
guess >> if necessary we're going to have to do something but you right now you can't see through that at all >> right >> um but in the winter time I I haven't been out there I haven't seen it so you'll have to anticipate or look at that um so just for clarification
because I know a couple of commissioners talked about the different products the mulch the things like that What kind of um I know the equipment and the cars will have to be on on either puminous or concrete. What about mulch, things like that? What what kind of surface are you
looking for that that to be put on? >> Uh that doesn't necessarily have to be concrete or pavement. Um it's more just the loading areas and the driveways and the parking areas that I want to have surfaced. Um, as far as the
mulch and things like that, in all reality, it could go on the grass. >> Okay. Or if they put down class 5, you know, you may just have to look at it and work with staff if if this was approved. All right. Um, and then for the commission on these, I always ask the commission, um, do you
feel this is the right type of business for this lot, this use in this area? And if you feel it is, then we can proceed. >> I don't hear anybody saying it's not. Yeah, >> I think it's fine, too. I mean, you got a car dealership, you got do you got residential, though on what I wanted to
point out at the beginning, you got residential on two sides. And I always tell people, if you're not a good neighbor, staff's going to hear about it. And then they're going to be out there at your door. So, I mean, that's just the way it works around here. It works. That's the way it works in any
any uh community. So, anything else from the commission? Hunter? You have anything else? Um, I think you touched on it was the the five- foot fence. Um, I know you
guys are 6 to8 feet for your your uh wanting to happen. I mean, would you guys consider the 5-ft fence, but obviously having some sort of blockade or or nonvisible material put on it? >> You know, we're going to require the
screening. I'm going to let staff, they're the experts. I'm going to let them review your screening plan and see if they feel it's adequate. Is that acceptable, Tony? >> That's fine. >> I mean, it's a well-built fence. Um, you know, I know the neighbor to the
north, he knows how to get in touch and if there's an issue, he's he's going to let us know. >> He's introduced himself right away. So, >> yeah, I'm sure he will. He's But he's a great guy. >> He's a great guy. >> Yeah. So I, you know, I just say that that he's, you know, he'll he'll watch
everything out. So I'm not worried about it. >> All right. I think we're ready to proceed. You okay? >> Good. >> All right. With that, then I'd look for a motion to close the public hearing. >> So moved. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion second. Call the role, please. >> Ellis,
>> yes. >> Rutherford, >> yes. >> Meer, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Um before I get into the uh motion, uh Hunter, there are four conditions. Uh do you want me to read them or are
you familiar with them? >> If you could read them, that'd be great. >> All right. Building permits are obtained. You got to have that. Not a problem. Signed permit shall be submitted and approved for exterior signage. It may be installed. You okay with that? A parking lot and striping plan must be submitted by the applicant
and approved by the city. Okay, that's a big one. An exterior screening plan must be submitted by the applicant and approved by the city. >> Sounds good. >> You okay with all of them? >> Yep. >> All good. I got your agreement with that. Then when in front of the commission, then as a condition use
permit request uh for the property located at 211034 Chip and to allow a landscape company to operate as a wholesale business, outdoor sales and supply yard within the B1 Highway business owning district with the four conditions that the applicants agreed upon. Is there a motion?
>> Motion to approve. >> Have a motion for approval. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion and a second. Is there any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. >> Rutherford, >> yes. >> Meer, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Rody, >> yes. >> Ellis, >> yes.
>> All right. Thank you. Welcome to the city. >> Thank you. >> All right. Good luck. All right. Well, I I don't know if we're going to take a No, we're not going to take a break. All right. All right, we have a zoning code update. Tony, you're going to start us out and then Beth's going to take over.
>> I am. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh, as the commission is aware, we've been working on this uh, Farmington zoning code update for about a year now in earnest. Um, we've had a couple different meetings with both the plane commission and city
council regarding this. Um Beth Richmond uh with HKGI is with us this evening to kind of give you an update as to where we are and to confirm kind of the things that we've talked about in the past. Um because we are getting to the point um
here relatively soon that this will likely be coming back to this commission as a public hearing. So obviously we want to make sure everybody is on the same page and comfortable with what we are uh proposing. So, with that, I will
let Beth take over with her presentation and I will stand by for any questions. >> Thanks, Tony. Well, hi everybody. It's nice to see you again. It's been >> a few months probably. >> Um, all right. So, tonight, uh, like
Tony said, really just want to kind of give a recap of, uh, where we've been, where we are, and kind of next steps moving forward. Uh so uh as a reminder, this project uh specifically focuses on title 10, which is the zoning piece of
the city code. Uh and we were not intending to do a full code rewrite. Uh there was a full process that was completed back in 2020, which as far as zonings zoning codes go, that wasn't that long ago. Um and so this update is really intended to be um focused on on
specific areas. Um so pieces that um staff has has noted over the last few years um that we wanted to address. So uh mainly those points are um really focused on the zoning districts themselves. Um making sure that the structure of those districts is
something that supports the community's vision moving forward. Uh and then also as we're uh continuing to roll into that 2050 comprehensive plan update. um that with this code update that we create the framework for the zoning districts um to
accommodate those anticipated land uses that are coming um that we anticipate to come out of that 2050 comp plan. So it's trying to kind of lay that groundwork um for the 2050 plan as well. Uh otherwise we did some other kind of technical updates uh relating to the code
structure um analyzing the uses themselves to make sure that the city's in line with uh state statutes um just kind of modern modern uses uh and then we did look at some some procedures and development standards as well. So um again mostly what we're focusing on is
is the zoning district piece of this. So that's where I'll spend most of my time tonight. Um, like Tony said, uh, we're getting close to completion here. Um, you all saw in your packet that there's a majority, uh, of things that are at least drafted. We have a couple more
chapters to to finish up here. Uh, but the intent is that we would have a full draft available, uh, for public review. Um, so available online uh, toward the end of June. Uh, and then tenatively thinking about a public hearing um, for the adoption process in August. So, uh,
kind of wrapping this up, uh, over the course of the summer. Uh, so, uh, most of these slides you all have seen, uh, but we just wanted to again kind of make sure everybody's on the same page as far as the changes, the high level changes that we're looking
at. Um, so when it comes to the zoning districts, uh, really we were focusing our attention on downtown and then on Spruce Street. Uh, and so that resulted in a few different changes. Uh one is that downtown we're anticipating that there would be three uh zoning districts
for that area. Um so it would be uh DR which is downtown residential uh DC which is downtown core and then DE which is downtown expansion. Uh as part of that uh the current B2 district which is the downtown district
um that would be reszoned to DC downtown core um which means then that the B3 district the name would shift to B2 just to keep your um your numbering hierarchy as it is today. Uh we would also be reszoning the SSMU, the Spruce Street
Mixed Use District, um to MUCI, which is uh a district that you already have today, but we'd be incorporating the Spruce Street uh mixed use into it. Uh and then we're looking at eliminating the Highway 3 and the Spruce Street overlays. Uh and I'll talk a little bit
about that, but those standards don't go away, just the overlays themselves do. Uh so uh downtown again this is uh this is a big focus that really came out of um that 2023 2024 uh comp comprehensive
plan amendment process. Uh that amendment was never formally approved. Um but the work that was done as part of that amendment is really what's been informing um this these next steps with the downtown districts. Um and then that information will also be will be moving
forward with the 2050 comprehensive plan. Um, so, uh, understanding that, uh, what we were looking at as far as, um, kind of the downtown districts is that, uh, we want to have a district or districts in this case, uh, that provide
for flexibility within that core area. Um, we want to still allow the existing residential that's there um, and incorporate other types of residential, but again allowing that flexibility between uh, the commercial and the residential.
Uh so uh the updates that are proposed as a result of that uh is keeping the the RD which is the residential downtown district. Um but it shrinks and it gets renamed. So instead of RD it's now
called DR. Um and then there's two new downtown districts that are proposed. So that downtown core which is primarily what B2 is today. Uh and then downtown expansion. And that's that's the district that if you remember the last meeting we had, we spent a good amount
of time talking about um what standards would be appropriate for that area. So that district is really intended to apply to the areas kind of right adjacent to the downtown core uh where the city feels that you know commercial expansion would be appropriate. Uh and even then we would we would put kind of
some some bumpers on that. Um so that commercial development that's new is something that can only be located adjacent to existing commercial um or on the same intersection um as existing commercial. Uh so uh as far as dimensional standards
go uh the requirements for the the downtown residential and the downtown core those are staying the same. So they match what's there today as far as RD and B2. Uh and then downtown expansion. What we tried to do is uh make the
requirements consistent with both the DR and the DC. So residential uses uh would follow the DR standards and then the non-residential uses would follow the DC standards. Um so uh as we had talked about at the last
meeting, we had those test sites to try to understand a little bit more about the dimensional standards. Uh and what we heard with that is you we really wanted to make sure that uh any lot area that we establish is based on the existing lot and block pattern of that
portion of the city. Um we also want to make sure that it's a size that's large enough where uh development can accommodate all the necessary elements. So screening, parking, driveways, uh all of that. So uh this is what's proposed for the DE district. So for
non-residential district, we're looking at a minimum lot area of 19,000 square feet uh which is roughly two of the existing lots uh that are part of that pattern today. And then for apartment dwellings, it's uh 30,000 square feet, which is three of those lots. So that's
when we did those test sites, that seemed to be what was uh working best is about that size. Um the minimum lot width is related. It's based on the lot width of two lots and then three lots. Uh we're also proposing a build two zone
to make sure that any any buildings uh commercial buildings are pulled up to uh the front or closer to the street. Uh so this is a requirement that a minimum of 60% of the lot frontage uh needs to include a building that has the front
plane within 0 to 15 feet of the property line. So trying to make sure that those buildings are are pulled to the street as much as we can. >> Can I just interject a little bit for Nate's benefit and >> can you explain and maybe Tony you might want to do this too Nate what what
they're looking at and what we talked about in our last meeting was kind of an expansion to the south of a district in case there's some change in housing. There are some businesses even south on Third Street if you're familiar with downtown and going south on Third
>> and this is kind of a new zoning district. Tony, you want to explain better than I can? Yeah, it it would be basically a new zoning district that we're looking at um that like Beth said, it can accommodate both the existing residential that's
there because we don't want to we don't want to kick necessarily kick out those existing residential units that are there, but we want to have flexibility that if um you know someone wants to maybe buy two or three lots that are adjacent to existing commercial
area that they can put a commercial building in there. Um, and that it uh allows for that potential. And again, that's all this is as of right now is potential. Um, unless you lay the groundwork, you
can't. We'll never, we don't have that magic eightball to, you know, determine exactly when and if this will happen. But what we're trying to do is set that stage so that it can happen if we have someone that wants to do that. So that's
really what we're trying to do with this if that makes sense. >> Yeah. No, absolutely it does. And I was just going to ask and it sounds like nobody has yet, but has there been developers or has there been other individuals that have reached on out that like that area and have seen it and
have been asking, hey, can we do something in that area? Um, not specifically. Um, as Dirk will remember, back in probably 2000, I think we did a stretch along Elm Street, um,
on both the north and south side, maybe a half block, I think it was, on either side as commercial with that comprehensive plan 20 20 almost 30 years ago now. Um, and then we went away from that and now we're kind of going back to
it. maybe even well expanding it even more. Um but no to no we haven't had no anybody specifically come and ask about it. We have at least shopped a couple sites to
um some people um more recently but nothing's in the works or anything like that as of right now. >> Thank you for simplifying that Tony. >> I don't know that I simplified it. >> You did. And and just one comment I want to make in case there are residents
viewing and and one of the questions I'll have later is when we notice it who's going to be noticed, but that's a later question. Um this is no indication that that anybody's got to do anything with their houses. We I just want the residents to know that this is just for maybe future
potential opportunity. Who knows? It may or may not ever come to attrition, but it's it's at this point an idea. So, >> all right. I'm sorry, Beth. Go ahead. >> Oh, no problem at all. Feel free to interject.
>> All right. Uh, the next related piece here is about standards for parking in downtown expansion. Uh, so as we were doing those test sites, understanding kind of what can and can't fit on a site. Uh, one of those pieces that we were exploring was was parking and
what's kind of what's appropriate for this district. So, the I'll start with downtown core would stay the same, which I believe is no parking requirements. >> Correct. >> Um, uh, downtown residential requires two
per unit. Um, and so those are proposed to stay the same. And so then what we're left with is this downtown expansion district, which is kind of somewhere in the middle of those two. Um and so what we're proposing is that uh a minimum of two spaces would be required for all of the uses. At that point, if someone
comes in and has, you know, an apartment building or a commercial building uh that they're hoping to put up, uh they would need to calculate the parking requirement using the parking table in the city code that says, you know, for this use it's it's this many parking spaces. Um if when they calculate that
for non-residential uses um if that exceeds five spaces um then we would allow uh a reduction so that the applicant would only need to provide 50% of the calculated spaces um of that using that parking table. Um
with that on street parking spaces along the lot frontage itself would be allowed to to be counted as part of that standard. So, um that's that's what we're proposing right now. Uh and then as part of that, we also did look at some access questions. Um so, if a lot
is adjacent to a developed alley, um then primary access would need to be off of that alley. They might be able to have a secondary driveway depending on what uh depending on the site and what the city engineer thinks. Um, and then if it's a corner lot that's not adjacent
to a developed alley, then access would need to be off of the the street with the lower functional class. So, a local road versus a collector, for example. Questions about parking? >> You you talk about do you say developable developed alley?
>> Yes. >> What is that? >> Paved. >> Are any of our alleys paved in this community that I can I I'm trying to Some are, I guess, but not a lot. There's one I think uh in downtown that's
>> Yeah. >> But no, as I should come up here. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. I won't get yelled at this weekend. >> No, as of right now, the majority of alleys are not paved. Um, uh, the city engineer, John Powell, has mentioned
that the he would like to at least have a conversation with council about the potential of improving the the alleys specifically in the downtown area where we have abundance of them. Um, but he's indicated that that conversation likely won't happen till later this year. Okay.
So, and we don't know where that conversation will ultimately go, but he would at least like to have that conversation with them. I understand, Beth, if if the main access is going to be off an alley, it should be developed, but they're just not there yet. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Yep. Yep. And this language was
developed in part and had the city engineer kind of reviewing as as part of that discussion. >> That word just caught me and I wanted to make sure I understood what you were talking about. >> Yep. >> Um, all right. Uh, so the last piece here related to downtown expansion, I believe, is screening. Uh, so we had a
nice discussion about this at the last meeting as well. So uh screening is required uh or proposed to be required when a non-residential use or an apartment building is located adjacent to any residential property which odds are at least on one side of that
property it would be adjacent to some sort of residential site. Um, so and part of that discussion that we had, um, was is there a difference in if the parking lot is closer to the property line versus the building and kind of what does that look like as far as
screening needs go? Um, and so what we've landed on, at least to propose tonight, is that um, parking lots that are located within 15t of the shared property line uh, need to be screened by a fence. So six foot tall opaque fence.
Uh if it's reversed like the the image kind of on the bottom there and the principal buildings are within 30 feet of the shared property line um then we would look at again 100% opaque screening um that's six feet in height but that could be fence landscaping or
BMS whatever whatever combination makes makes sense and is proposed. Um so two different scenarios uh trying to address both of them. So does anybody have thoughts or questions about this? I know this is new language
coming out of that discussion. >> Beth, I don't remember. And Tony, maybe you can help me out here too. When we had that joint discussion, there was a question brought up, I believe, around say an apartment building were to go in in a scenario like this.
Does the height of that apartment building play into this requirement at all or is it simply based on distance from the the resident next to the building? >> As it's proposed right now, the height doesn't play into it. >> Okay. >> Um
I don't believe it's too much taller than the I'm trying to remember what the height requirements are for these these districts. >> Uh they are >> 40 >> 40 I believe. 40. So, it's not a whole lot taller than your than your normal
requirement for a single family. >> The only the scenario that's playing out in my head, right, is that bottom example scenario where you've got an pretend it's an apartment building that's three stories, right? And then now they're looking down into the the
resident next to them. So, I didn't know if that played into it, but I >> I couldn't remember from that meeting if we talked about that or not. Okay. In that instance, it may be more appropriate to have a landscape um >> buffer >> buffer versus a fence where you can
actually get some height from that vegetated buffer. >> Makes sense. Okay, thank you both. >> All right, I'll keep moving. Um so the last piece here with the downtown districts is that there is uh there is currently a downtown overlay district
that is intended to remain. Um and that would those standards in that overlay district would apply to the downtown core and then downtown expansion districts. Um and uh really these are intended to um you know encourage integrated site planning, kind of
reinforce the the architectural traditions and kind of the feel of downtown. Uh create that walkable environment um and then establish any sort of transitions between um downtown and then the the adjacent neighborhoods.
So um the standards in here are related to building material and design uh awnings and canopies and then parking. So there were some other standards about uh screening. Those have been moved to screening. So they now live all in one one place.
Uh the other two overlay districts, I mentioned them a little bit earlier. Uh so Highway 3 and Spruce Street, uh those are intended to be eliminated. Um, but the standards that are in those overlays then are going to be moving into what we're calling general building design standards. So, a separate chapter. Um,
so those standards would apply to all new multi-unit residential, mixed use, and then non-residential development. So, that's that's the standards you think of uh when you think of kind of building and site design. So, building materials, facade design, transparency, again, awnings and canopies, and then
loading docks and utilities. So, I did want to touch on this. Uh, we are still kind of working on the zoning map with staff. Uh, but I did want to just kind of have that discussion tonight. So, the parcels uh that are
proposed to be reszoned um reflect those zoning district updates, but they also need to reflect the 2040 comprehensive plan since we haven't moved to the 2050 plan yet. Um, when we're doing those resonings, we're looking at 2040 comp
plan, but updated zoning districts. Uh, so it's a little bit of a of a juggling game, >> especially when you change them. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a little bit of a a mapping exercise for us that we're kind of deep in the middle of right now. >> Um, but primarily the big differences here are going to be again those spruce
street mixeduse parcels are are all going to be reszoned to MUCI. B2 will be reszoned to DC. Uh and then those B3 parcels are going to be the name's going to change to to B2. Um again, there are additional resonings
that we would expect to happen after the comprehensive plan for 2050 uh is updated. So for example, in the downtown, we don't have a downtown land use yet, a land use category because that was not ever adopted in that 2023
2024 amendment. Um, and so we really can only reszone the parcels that are consistent with their current 2040 land use. And so we're we're doing a little bit of juggling with that. So there may be some parcels that don't fully get um
reszoned until after that 2050 comp plan update. Uh and then there are also some areas, some growth areas in those commercial nodes um that again were kind of looked at as part of that 2023 2024 uh update that again may not be reszoned
because right now they may be guided for egg land or whatever it may be. Um and so we know that there will be some additional reasonzonings kind of after the comp plan update uh goes through. >> So Tony, the process of that then and timing, what what are you thinking?
Uh well, the 2050 update uh we have until December of 28 to do it, but I would anticipate us being done well in advance of that. Um just with the groundwork that we've done with the
update from a couple years ago. Um but we're still probably a year to a year and a half out before the the 2050 gets approved. Are you are you thinking amendments to the comp plan then or if you need to do something or what are you
thinking? >> No, it'd be more doing resoning to be in compliance with the adopted 2050 comprehensive plan. It'd be more reasonzoning than amendment because right now we have to get the the 2050 in place in order to make some of those
zoning changes. Um, >> so we can't >> maybe I'm looking >> your zoning needs to be consistent with your comp plan. So your comp plan wins, >> right? >> So right now >> you got to go 2040, >> right? And because we're we have to go 2040, some of these uh zoning district
amendment pieces, the mapping >> may have to wait till the 2050. >> Okay. So then we're going to have a discussion in first part of July. Explain that. How how will that work if you're not going to do a an amendment? >> Oh, I see where you're going. Yes, we
can still do amendments to the comprehensive plan. >> Um, this is just that that's sight specific. Yes. >> Right. Well, that's you're going to have sight ones. We just this commission just talked about three or four of them in the last six months. >> Right.
>> That's what I'm talking about. No, we can still do amendments to the comprehensive plan >> um as necessary, if you will, but with some of these it's not necessarily time dependent. >> I'm okay with that. You
>> I guess we're on the same page now. I >> Sorry. I didn't quite understand where you were going. >> I didn't want to givea examples, but I just did. So, >> Yep. >> All right. Um, so I realize these maps are are small, but um, this is kind of the the
analysis that we are in the process of right now. So on the left you can see um all those red parcels there, those are the um the Spruce Street mixeduse district. So those will be reszoned. Believe there's 11 parcels there. Uh, and then on the right, those are the the
B3 that are going to be changing to B2. So >> I don't see anything on the right. >> I know it's really That's okay. It don't matter. It's my It's my eyesight, not not anything you're doing. >> It's small. Um, and this zoning, this is the downtown district. So, again, this
is very rough. We're we're currently working on this. Can I ask a question because this is where you got me confused when you said about the 20 40 and the zoning >> is I if if we can't do this for the 2050, we really can't send out notices that
they're going to be changed to downtown expansion, can we? >> We would only be changing the one we would only be noticing the ones that are having any kind of change. >> Yes. >> So, we'll have to identify those. >> Okay. which is most so as we've as we've done this
comparison um kind of all the parcels with some sort of hatch which is most of them >> um those are all able to be >> filmed at this point. So that was my question before is is and for those of people that that were the hearings when
Tony explained 20 years ago or so when we decided to do this along Elm and I and the residents were a little uncertain. They came and they said, you know, you're reszoning my property. How can you do that on me? You're kicking me out of my house. That isn't the case at all.
>> Right. And that's what I I want to get through because this commission is the one who holds a public hearing >> and we're the ones that going to have the residents out there and and I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page >> and I will tell the residents, you have nothing to be concerned about, >> right?
>> Um that's what I told him 20 years ago. Well, we're being very specific with this that that's >> but for those that maybe have a developer that's adjacent to downtown, you know, and I use the Atkins house in the our discussion.
>> If if somebody wants to put in something there that meets the city codes, they certainly could do that as long as they meet the codes and and do the design standards and all that. >> Absolutely. >> Somebody that's two blocks down out of the blue can't, they're not going to do it.
>> Correct. Yep. So, I'm going to tie into what you said, Durk. So, in the event that we go that this all goes forward and notices go out to people that are having their property reszoned, it will explicitly explain there is no impact to your property
>> for current use, right? It's >> potential future use is really what that means to them. >> Yes. I want that notice to be as specific as possible. Okay. >> Correct. >> Perfect. >> Yes. There's a lot of phone calls otherwise. Yes. >> Yeah, >> it is. And well, like I told the
council, you know, this commission here, this staff here are the ones that are going to have the residents in front of us. They may also go to the the city council. I understand that, >> but we're going to be the first body that they're going to speak with about this. Absolutely. So, we got staff and
the commission has to do the the best job we can to help relieve their uncertainty and >> absolutely, >> you know, like that about it. So, okay. Yeah, I'm on the same page now. Sorry, it takes me a lot longer the older I get. >> There's no problem with questions. Not
at all. Um, all right, last little bit here. There are some technical updates. Um, these are based primarily on input from staff. Uh, and then the findings when we did the, um, the zoning code audit as well. So, uh, there are some
some updates related to seedures for land use. um use specific standards. So, electric vehicles and accessory structures have some changes. Uh and then, uh development standards, so specifically related to screening for industrial properties. Uh there were
some conflicting requirements that we're just trying to make them uh more clear. Uh parking space requirements uh and then wetland standards. So, um again, mostly technical. the draft will all be available for you to really dive in if those are topics that you guys uh are
really interested in. >> Thanks, Beth. >> Yeah, no problem. Uh and then we did propose a reorganization of the code as well. Um so on the left is what you have today. You've got six chapters. Um things are uh lumped together in kind of
large groupings. Um on the right is what we're proposing. So you've got 12 chapters. Um the districts are are split out by district type. Um and then the idea is that the information about the districts or things that uh kind of your average person uh property owner or
developer would use. Those are higher up in the code. Things that are more technical like procedures, those are further down because staff's really the ones that are using those and they can find them even if they're a little bit further down. So um
with that, that's what I have tonight. So, if there if there are any other questions, otherwise, like I said, we're we're shooting for a kind of end of June release date for all the drafts to the public and then whoever wants to comment can can comment and that's great. Um,
and then we will incorporate those comments as appropriate and then hopefully bring that bring the public hearing draft in August. >> Okay. And Tony, remind me our August meeting might be that'd be on a different night. Isn't that primary or not? Yes, that would be on uh when I
think it's a Wednesday. >> I think so. Two. I don't know if that would conflict with anybody else. Uh timing, just think about that. >> But we're going to go we'll talk about this now first. We'll start with uh Commissioner Rutherford. >> I don't have any questions. I'm good.
>> Okay. Uh Commissioner Berg. Um, my only question because we kind of talked about some already is around the the public hearing meeting is thinking through people's opportunity to come and talk. August is sort of when everyone's trying to wrap up their
summers and vacations and things like that. Does it have to be in August or could we potentially look at September given that it's more likely that people will be in town because of school has been started at that point. it might give more opportunity for people that
are interested a chance to attend. I maybe we have historical data on that. I don't know. >> Um that's something we can certainly talk with HKGI. Um because obviously we want them to be available as well, right? >> Um but that's something we can certainly
discuss. >> Something to consider. >> Absolutely. >> Because we haven't noticed the meeting or anything like that. So it's not that it's set in stone yet. >> Yep. It's not a bad idea. I I guess you know I think about it talk about it with with Beth and Rita.
>> I didn't know Beth for your timeline if that was going to c you know a month is a month right that's still a good amount of time so I didn't want to cause any conflict there >> and I mean in all honesty on our end I mean once we have the draft ready it it can sit until all of you are ready to
>> and it provides for more opportunity for comment and engagement as well. So that's not necessarily a bad thing. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just given all the conversations we have recently I think giving people the opportunity to come and and speak and ask questions and all
of that the more opportunity we can do that the better. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Yeah. That's what I >> Mis >> I'm just looking we were because we were talking about maximum height. So for residential the maximum height is 35 ft. It is.
>> So and then I had a question. I wrote this down and then if you can't answer it now that's fine. But in section 10.32 and then paragraph E4 there's a legal description. Where is the where is um that located? >> You don't got it all memorized.
>> Not memorized. >> It's okay. It's okay. It's just a question I had because it's called out specifically. There's a legal description but it doesn't say where it is. Maybe if you could email me that. >> I'll email you and I'll ask question versus trying to answer that. >> Okay. No, that's fine because I just I
wanted to say >> it was um 10.3 um two paragraph E. >> Do you know what page of the doc of this? >> Oh, you know what? I'll find it. I because I I just was jotting down notes when I was reading this. I'll look it up
>> just because and my point is you call out specifically a legal description and then you don't say where it is right I mean like we can all read a meets and bounds but where is it and like why are you calling it out is my question >> so >> that was just a question I haven't you
know if I notice it other people will notice it too >> but it's okay we can look at it yeah 10-3 to paragraph 4 >> um E4 for, but I'll email you. That's fine. >> Page 42. >> There you go. >> Okay,
>> we're on the right page. Now I'm curious. >> Except those location. Okay, that is what that is. Is that's basically it's not so much a legal description. It is um >> basically the downtown area. It's this section. Um
>> Uhhuh. >> Oh, how do I explain this? Um, each well, God, how do I explain this? >> Well, I mean, people are going to ask if I'm asking, people are going to ask you. >> What it is is that each community is
divided up into sections and then quarter sections. >> Okay. >> Um, >> and it's a surveying. >> It's a surveying. >> I get it. I mean, it reads like a legal, right? It that it reads like illegal. That area that they're specifically referring to encompasses basically the downtown area. >> Well, maybe you want to add a footnote
or something to that. >> But that's what that is. >> Explain what it is. >> Yep. But that's what that is. It's basically it encompasses the downtown area, >> the new district or the entire downtown. >> Uh it encompasses
more than just the core. It encompasses basically everything from I think highway three to >> Denmark. >> That would be nice. >> Thank you. >> But yes, it does encompass more than the downtown, but
>> just because we're so focused on it, you know, on downtown and we're changing and all that stuff. I just I think that was my big question. Thank you. >> Anything else, Lisa? >> No. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Commissioner Lee Meyer. No questions at this time. >> All right. Um, Deanna, do you have
anything before I get into my last comment on this? You sat through the whole thing. You must have a comment. >> I know. It's unusual for me. >> I'm not saying that. >> I apologize if it took it the wrong way. >> They have. Um, Jared, do you have anything to add on this?
>> Nope. I mean, this is a big project from staff, commission, council, and and really our residents and downtown business folks also. So, um, the comment I got, and I made it at the last meeting with the council, is and and I appreciate the expansion district. I
understand we're we're kind of looking at it for future, what possibly could happen to our downtown. As I said before, I I think as much opportunity for this community may be in other areas. It may be on some of the major
arterial roads and intersections and and I I just don't want us to get too hyperfocused on just the downtown. Not that it's not important. It is. Um we want them to to grow and expand and do do well. But as a commission, as as a staff, as a council, you know, I hope
we're putting out, you know, looking out a little broader and and saying, "Okay, where do we anticipate the growth?" and and we could all name the the corridors that I'm I'm talking about and the intersections that that we think you know are going to be major intersections
maybe not in my lifetime >> in some of you younger people's lifetime and and maybe in your kids and grandkids and I just want this community to set itself up so that it's ready for that. >> Absolutely. >> So and then that's just what I said before and that's I wanted to repeat it.
So >> Kathy did a great job. Thank you. We welcome back August or September or another date. You and and if you want to bring Rita, you can, but >> I'll let her know she's off the hook if she doesn't want to come. >> I mean, I'm just saying it's up to you. Um, >> all right. Thanks all.
>> All right, Tony. Was there anything else from staff? >> I have nothing, sir. >> Anything else from the commission? >> If not, I'll remind the viewers the next regular meeting is July 14th. And with that, I'd look for a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> You have a motion. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Motion and second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> We officially adjourn. Thank you,
everyone. Thank you.