2026-10-08 - City Planning Commission Work Session

Okay, I'm gonna use my bracelet as a gavel and call our meeting to order. Melissa, can you do my roll call, please? Commissioner Robbins? Here. Commissioner Willoughby? Here. Commissioner Engle? Here.

Commissioner Case? Commissioner Gigiano? Here. Commissioner Clements? Here. Commissioner Egbert? Here. Commissioner Cecil? And Chair Hinsler? Here. Hello, Jen, hi. Sorry, I'm sick, so I figured I'd

not expose you, but online. We have eight members present. All right. Any changes to the agenda or close appointments? I'm thinking, Kevin. Communications. Do we really have anything? Happy Fall,

y'all. Look at the PSO. Where are your orange? Halloween is coming. I think Jen and I need to coordinate our outfits. We were gonna go for a Beetlejuice look last year and we forgot, or I forgot, so

let's talk about attire for the meeting next. I'm joking. And then a reminder, Kevin will kind of talk a little bit more about November, but a reminder that the November meeting is on Thursday, not

Wednesday, because of Armistice Day, AKA Veterans Day, on the 11th. And so we will be close to COVID by a day. So make sure you know that as you look ahead a month. I don't think I need to come off

today. Let's get it, because I got a bunch. Okay, guys. I figured you did. Just first, for today's meeting, Lana Peeland from the Parks Department is scheduled to get over here as soon as she's done

with her nearing at the planning or at the Parks Board, which I heard when I was walking through the office. We're at the dais working on a recommendation, so hopefully we'll see her. She does have a

10-15 leave time, so whenever she gets here, I think we'll interrupt and let her give us an overview of the Parks Master Plan. So that I hope we will see. How long do you think her presentation is?

Well, she was thinking she would be here at 9.30, so maybe half an hour at the most. Second, I'm just returned from a trip to Huntsville with the Chamber of Commerce, and several council members and

others. It was very interesting. And Rocket City is exactly that. It's pretty amazing the ecosystem they have for rockets there. Just my one impression was they have every reason to believe that they

should be the host of Space Command as much as we are. So I think that's the one thing I took away with that was the other pieces. They have no term limits for council and mayor, so they've had six

mayors in the last 80 years. So it's been amazing. Maybe it's 80 and 60 years. Their current mayor is 20 years. They don't have a taper, so they can pass their own sales tax with this council. They

buy land. They have a history of owning 3,000 acres at the research park. So their culture is, they are very participatory in development. They basically bought a mall, knocked it down, redistributed

the land, and then put a TIF funding mechanism and built $40 million worth of infrastructure, primarily to protect their sales tax. So it's kind of an interesting, it's substantively different than

what we have here. And also one of the main things is that Huntsville only has 1,000 military personnel. The rest of them are NASA or FBI or contractors or Blue Origin, rocket testers. They run the

International Space Station out of there. So it's, it was a, they're one trick pony, they have space and that's about what they do. So it's coming everything. That's that development kind of piece.

Anything from like the zoning and code side that you learned or were exposed to that would be interesting for us? Well, the number of developers who were there with us were very interested in the fact

that the city built all the infrastructure and did TIF financing. We got the Chamber of Commerce, look at that, I think that, so we got to see all the ones that worked. I'm not so sure that there

aren't some that didn't work and we didn't see those. Of course, yeah. But they have a nice vibrant downtown. They're just, their city is much more participatory in the development process than our

city is. In a positive way. In a positive way, yes, and they're much more, they're just integral. I think most people would say positive, but we'll see. Thank you for that. Just the last couple weeks

there's been a hangover from the tourist final, or next hearing at tourist or city council. They had a motion to postpone until April 13. And so we can talk about that but I'm not going to talk about

that. And they gave some indication of some of the things that they wanted done that we're all sort of scratching our heads about whether we are supposed to do those or whether they're expecting

somebody else to do those are kind of what we're doing what's the order of events but there's been kind of a hangover effect everybody doesn't talk about it anymore for at least for a little while but

we're going to work on some potential code changes for data centers. And so we'll be bringing those to you in the coming months. Any other questions about tourists, there is not the vote was not a

moratorium. I want to clarify that that's not what was voted on it was just a that project was postponed. And so that's kind of where they are. Right. And depending on that postponement. I'm guessing

that that date will hold. Unless something changes with the project or the application, but say that date holds, they still do have the opportunity to remand it back to us which also still kind of

puts us under it. The decision to be made is on the appeal. Right. So the decision that was postponed is on the appeal that was filed, not the application itself right so held the, we denied the

appeal. Correct you denied the appeal and upheld the approval from the planning department so then they're seeing the same question. That's correct. So they could still remain back. Yeah, they just

postponed a decision on the appeal. So, so I think I just want to, you know, kind of restate that. So that we all understand that we're not, we're not going to be talking about it we're not going to

be I think to Kevin's point right because it still could come back to us and it is a quasi judicial item, I would caution anybody from talking about the specifics regarding it because it actually the

appeal has not been decided yet, so it's still a pending matter. What is the status of resolving the council's issues, the council had several issues that want to see resolved for that. Yeah, that's

what I was talking about that five sort of conditions that they wanted. One of them is they want to look at the overall code for data centers and what what we might be able to do and so that we are

working on bringing something to you, and to them in the next in the coming months here that come to us first. I mean, that's akin to what we the conditions that we kind of put in order so, and then

they took it maybe a step further with a few more things. So we're, we're looking at we've got large groups like what is the definition of data centers and things like that. Some of what you guys all

have actually commented on, and given us some guidance on so we're sort of melting all of that together over our hangover of tours. Okay. Thank you. One of them has to do with their application for

power. Right. Some confusion around whether they do or they don't need a certain application and so there were some things they wanted additional information on the sound. Well we don't know exactly

what that is because we did have a sound study we did have two sound studies actually. I don't know what they were looking for in that mostly having to do with standards around the infrasound, right,

the low frequencies, which there aren't there isn't any but there still isn't any Congress or Congressman Councilman Donaldson seemed to think there was some guidance in that area because he mentioned

it. Actually, there's an end, there's something they call an NC standard, which doesn't. It's just a standard, and it doesn't say what it's attempting to accomplish it doesn't distinguish between

commercial development and industrial development and residential development for the noise. It's our research is that there's not one place in the United States that regulates that to an NC standard,

there are some informal political structures that use that standard like the state of Illinois. We don't know exactly what it means because it doesn't really get into, it's okay to do it next to an

industrial part but not next to residential, there's just not this kind of distinction characteristic so we set some research to do. With that, if the code change that then it would come to us. Okay,

thank you. Well, let's clarify that the UTC pieces of the code will come to you. There are other pieces of the code like the noise ordinance itself different section if it changes, that may or may not

come to you, I don't know. Okay. Not, not tried to not, not built that bridge yet so I don't know how to cross it. Okay. I understand that we do have a another similar use that was approved. It's not

a data center it's a testing facility for chips. So it's not exactly the same as the data centers that you all know about but it's very similar in terms of its external impacts. We did approve that as

a development plan week or two ago, it's been appealed. So you will have, we will be scheduling that at this point we're scheduling it for your next regular year. Don't know exactly how we're going to

do that. What time we might do it at that time like one o'clock in the afternoon started at one in the afternoon, we are likely just to do it at your regular location, try to do logistics around that

will not be another hearing venue and going through that same process so still work to do on that. We will be hearing that, at least as it stands today at your November 12. If you think you're not

going to be around, let us know ASAP. So we make sure we have course, we're altering its length. I wanted to update you quickly on a couple of projects that we're working on the longer term projects.

We have a lot of work that's been done at the staff level on the changes to the UDC. The coordination of that effort with the attorney's office has overloaded their work program. And so what we have

done is agreed to hire outside counsel. We're going through the process of RFP for that. But what we're, what we're going to do for you all is start to bring you a little bit every month at this

meeting, an overview of the proposed changes, so that when these come as official changes, and they've been worked through the attorneys that are a little bit ahead of the game, hopefully for that. So

we've done a lot of work. There's a lot of changes. We'll just do a few of them every month to try and give you a flavor. But that'll be something to become kind of become kind of a regular, I think,

scheduled item on our work session if that's acceptable to everybody. And then the annex COS has been on again off again. It's not quite on again but we are in the process of making some changes

requested by a couple of city council members, primarily to describe and give them the opportunity to discourage flagpole annexations, a little bit more than what we did in our, in our effort. So they

are, they are not likely to bring that back to you unless there's big substantive changes. We're adding kind of a section that describes a little bit better, a little bit differently. And, and

describes the challenge of getting approval for that. So I don't think we'll bring that back to you except for as an information item, depending on how that goes with city council. We have a work

session with council before that. At that point they could tell us, take that back to Planning Commission and have them give us a recommendation. So that will be occurring November, December, January,

that kind of timeframe. That's kind of all for me. Questions, comments. Thank you. Awesome. Well, I think we're on to our consent calendar. So we're gonna start with epic crops, which is record number

CDP 26 dash 13. This is a request for the expansion of a medical marijuana cultivation facility, you all who was on the commission last year would have remembered this site from a request to allow for

retail cultivation in the same facility. The one of the main operators out of this building is just looking to expand their medical cultivation that's already been on site for some time to allow for

kind of a one for one medical to retail cultivation in their units on site, because medical cultivation was established under an older code at the time it was permitted by right, the current

configuration of the units is considered illegally nonconforming use considered to have that conditional use for any kind of place. So to expand requires the new conditional use to count new floor

area occupied by. So, there's been a couple of comments from neighbors, mostly asking questions about things that are far outside the planning, things control. So things about like licensure and

following the states requirements of course we can't answer those questions, but they did have some generic comments that smells traffic, things like that. I don't think I've heard from them since

their initial comments so I'm not sure we could expect them to attend. But there were no comments or concerns really from planning, or other agencies at the city or regional partners and staff did

find that this application meets all the review criteria and do not have any other concerns. And did he have any questions. I think we've seen several of these work school it's to the east, there are

great question, I would have to double check the distancing, but the one thing to note is that medical cultivation does not require distancing as the stores do. So, even if it is within 1000 feet

which I don't believe it was when I calculated it, because it's based on pedestrian navigation. It would not endure this applications ability to be considered. So this is all about medical

cultivation, not retail, the subject application is just for medical. It's about 1300 feet to the school, or depending on where you go in the school could be a minimum. The buildings pretty big so to

like the closest wall of the school as the crew flies is like 13. It was questionable but it's an existing use I think we just continue to see these with, you know, there's no expansion as we go like

oh it's going to smell well if you haven't known it's been there for how many years, did you say, yeah, well the building has been used by various operators since 2014. Yeah, so long time. Yeah. Okay,

listen, is that exotic or are these epic crops. So it is exotic crops, my dyslexia kept thinking was epic for a while but exotic crops. Okay, so maybe update to the agenda. The agenda says epic. I

mean, I think we bought it on, but exotic crops. Okay. Next up to room. Veterans villa zone chain. Yes. So today we're talking about veterans villa zone change. We discussed another zone change with

the previous question about a year ago. Actually, I have that site highlight here and so the last one so I never changed that out. This site here is the one that should be highlighted for that. This

site, which is going to be is currently under review for development plan and final plan application, it is being subdivided. You can kind of see where that brick point is or that 90 degree angle.

It's, it's being so subdivided straight down from there so the parcel is being subdivided never bring that up because it is currently split so. This division application is going to, you know, bring

that line straight south and then that eastern portions can be rezoned to MXM which is the current request today. And the parcel to the left is also going to is going to maintain its current MXM

zoning. So the parcel again is 10.06 acres in size, currently are five zoned on that eastern portion with an airport overlay, and is going to be again rezoned to MXM and maintain the airport overlay.

The development plan application review is for multifamily and is also the purpose for the rezone because the current R5 zone does not support the density that they're requesting for that multifamily,

which is about 30.2 dwelling units per acre. R5 zoning restricts to 25 dwelling units per acre. So, the MXM would resolve that issue. Yeah, and that's about all I have for this that there's the only

reason for this rezone and city planning is proposing it on consent. There's no public comments received. Any questions. Drew, can you just clarify on the site plan here and the prior slide, you've

got two different parcels highlighted. Just confirm which, which parcel. Yeah, so, so this parcel on this slide is the correct parcel, the one on the cover slide is the incorrect highlighted. I just

want to make sure what's the RFM zoning. We are. This is our flex medium. Yeah, it's also be set up within the cover slide that I initially had highlighted the eastern parcel over here. That's our

flex and this are flex medium as well that was a result from R5 to our flex medium. Okay, about eight months ago or something. Yeah, I just and that's I'm just looking at the consistency of what's

around. So, yeah, thank you, just out of curiosity, how close to the airport can residential zoning exist. Well, the airport overlay and the airport development don't necessarily influence restriction

on residential this, this APC one overlay which is this cross hatching you see here as an accident potential zone, which restricts residential development they're just outside of that. And that was

intentional, and they annexed all the same experience with several Air Force installations, I will just say, the more residential array areas you have around it the less likely the United States Air

Force is going to use it. And it's already being developed there's changing the zoning. Yeah, they have the development plan application came into 2020 early 2023 prior to DDC adoption. So under

chapter seven. The density was based on square footage of units breaker which is breaker but they will be eating at that time when this development I mean there's more development happening around

here that's all underway we're just looking for the zone change for the density. Yeah, you actually ship has sailed on, is it a safe place to put residential, I mean, I guess we have the opportunity

to say, you know, we disagree with this zone change. But, but I think it's still residential. So this is going to be detached and attached single family. This is going to be attached single family. I

did have a recent pre application meeting for multifamily in this middle parcel. And then there is a curve development plan for commercial staging of lots on the southwest portion. Yeah. Other

questions. Just be real exciting for those people on f 35. Yeah, I'm based at Peterson. Yeah, I didn't involve Peterson on the review. They spoke to wildlife concerns. Just pretty standard comment

early. And then the airport was also included and had no direction. I'm trying to remember I've been on the commission we saw some of these, but this is not necessarily for this one but just for maybe

knowledge. There are some sound attenuation in the, in the residential building required being somebody right now remembering that right, because of the airport overlay or is it outside of, and it's

just in the accident room zone, you would have to fall within the ETL overlay in order for any kind of in order for our agency to acquire some form of. Yeah, so maybe it's not this one maybe there's

another one that I remember that there's some requirement, but I want to live close to where they were. I'm fine. Okay, thanks for leaving it on consent. Thank you. Okay, and then Valvoline or instant

oil. Molly O'Brien into. This proposal is from Valvoline instant oil change, and they're looking at redeveloping a site on your Southwest of the intersection of Austin plus and North Academy. It was

previously used as a drive through fast food restaurant for many years, and it has been vacant for the past couple of years, and it is being proposed to be with oil change facility which falls into

kind of our light auto repair. It's in the code which is conditionally permitted in this district. And this is the mixed use medium scale zone district, which so that will require the conditional use

of land use statement. So this is just the conditional use at this point, they did just submit development plan, but that development plan will not be part of this application. It will not be part of

the state use. Again, this is just an oil change facility preliminary site plan, and the city agencies and our regional partners did not have any comments or concerns about proposed use. And we also

did not receive any public comments. So we are requesting that this go on the consent. Okay. You think you know it's your turn already. I didn't even scroll down for now. I'm still looking at them. Hi

everyone. You can check for the pronouns are an honor to my department. I think they had to discuss for a lot of what needs you street, which is an application for non experience for an existing non

conforming six foot friends within the front yard so from the front building side to the front property line. There's a six foot wrought iron fence that exists, it was reported to code enforcement as

being a violation. And so now they're coming in for the non use variance to allow that fence to remain as it exists today. So I'll scroll to the next slide for me. This site plan here shows you on the

property where existing fence is in the yellow, the red portions are the are the existing fence that does not meet code standard where code requires a maximum of four feet, and they have an existing

six foot. And as you're reading the staff report, a lot of this is due to security issues they've been having over the past number of years with their renters, particularly thefts when the property

has been vacant, and also quite a bit of vacancy and an unpermitted occupancy of the exterior of property, and by others other the residents of that property so the applicant is seeking an on use

variance or to allow that six foot ornamental wrought iron fence to stay as it is on the property or four foot is required via our code. There's been one public comment that was in support of the

application and then one comment from the property manager that was also in support application. I'm curious, we see that the before and after pictures, the individuals who own the property now put up

the fence in opposition to what is required because they didn't do their homework. Correct. Yes, they were a previous person and then they bought it that way. So it's not an existing condition.

Correct. Yes. And then this is maybe a property boundary issue in the neighborhood. So it was an anonymous complaint. And they also did not submit public comment on the application. So, if it, if it

were an adjacent property owner they would have received a postcard twice both an initial review and for public hearing, as well as the public posters that are posted on site for both of those

occurrences. I'm not sure who it was or the reasoning behind it. We also have experience especially for front yard carports that someone else gets reported and ends up having to follow our processes

and they get upset and go around reporting others so it's just unclear of who that may be or the reasoning behind it, but we haven't received any comment to address that. And then with the property

manager making a comment that this is a rental property. Maybe I don't want to pull this but I just want to know. Sarah's going to tell me when I crossed the line. So it's a rental property. Correct,

yes. They have two homes on the lot. They have one here in the north and then one in the south. Yes, it is a rental property. They also own a couple of lots in the adjacent block face as well. Does

that have a gate scenario that they locked that up? Correct, yes. So on the site plan. It depicts a vehicle gate here more on the western side, as well as a pedestrian on just east of that. Do they

have a future goal? I'm worried about if they in the future want to make that a solid with fence versus the ornamental. Not that I'm aware of. It's a pretty sturdy and well-built ornamental. I think

they speak a lot to it in their project statement as well and to the importance of the community interaction while keeping the property safe for their residents. This seems like, I know fences make

good neighbors, this seems like such a minor issue in some ways but I'm really on the fence about keeping this on the fence. Because if they own all four of those parcels and we approve a six foot

fence on one portion of it, I think that opens the door that they're going to fence the whole property, which they have every right to do but not at six feet, in my opinion, potentially. I will say,

so this existing chain link, that would be legal nonconforming because it's been there prior to this code implementation. For their other properties here, this is owned by a religious institution so

it's not going to fail. For those other properties here, if they were to propose that for any potential issues in the future, again, it would have to come back as well. Okay, so they're not going to

just think, oh, I can dispense all my things illegally like I did first time. In which case, then we would either seem inconsistent because we'd be like enough, you knew already, we gave you grace one

time. I mean, yeah. So do you want this off on calendar? It kind of sounds like we do. I like it. Okay. So we'll keep it on the agenda as is and then you guys will. You guys rolling your eyes and I'm

sorry. Like, I'm really on the fence and I, you know, slippery slope. Sorry, sorry. All right. Hello again. This item is the cattle Creek development standards adjustment this was supposed to go last

month, but due to some scheduling issues the team had requested a continuation to October so we are hearing it today. This is a development standards adjustment the ID is 25 dash 10 for 2060 old ranch

road. You may remember this application coming through for the annexation and zone establishment to be in the our flex medium zone. The site contains about 19.9 acres, and the end goal is to have a

mixture of single family attached and detached homes, because of the our flex medium zone district and the way the standards were written during the UDC implementing the UDC code amendment changes 20

foot garage setbacks are required. So, even though the front side of the home can be up to 10 feet from the property line garages are required to be set back 20 feet. And this has kind of caused some

issues for some of our developers here in town who want a variety of sod types, a lot of different products who want those shorter driveways with the idea that parking can be taken care of through the

garages that are provided on the property. As a result, the applicant is requesting a seven foot garage setback for 20 feet is usually required for a portion of the attached lots. So, I don't think I

have it in this slideshow but a lot typical show for a single family attached there is a unit B type, and it would be just those unit fees that would be allowed to have the seven foot setback in lieu

of the 20, which would be implemented through the development plan. Due to some concerns from planning staff we did ask if they find a method for kind of enforcement. So, because of the seven foot

driveway or driveway apron that obviously cannot accommodate a modern vehicle safely without it spilling over into sidewalks and other standard driveways so we did ask that they require no parking be

allowed on those substandard driveways, and then enforcement mechanisms through the Metropolitan District which was previously approved by City Council. So there are some notes, also on the

development plan with the lots of codes, calling out the Metro District as kind of that enforcement mechanism for making sure that that does not happen. There is a condition of approval we are

suggesting to commission, basically stating that the Metro District before approval of the final plot has to provide some kind of documentation showing that the message has that enforcement mechanism

written into their covenants or their service plan or some other kind of binding documents. So we're asking that that be provided at a later time, just to not slow down this application and because

there's always possibility for changes with the development plan in the future. Sorry, this is a very long window, there's a lot to talk about. The development standard adjustment is a little

different from our non use variance applications because it does require that the applicant provide either kind of the same or greater than stakeholders for the project so the development standard

adjustment should not be a reduction or getting away from a standard for doing it kind of in a different way. And the compensating benefit provided by the applicant is providing a preservation area

that encompasses the stream site overlay and the pre bowls mouse habitat that's on site. I hope someone can't see me but this kind of corner over here is all within the stream site, and is in the pre

bowl mouse area so the applicant, by their own accord is requesting that they put that in preservation area as their compensating benefit, and then the other compensating benefit to be seen as kind of

a greater variety of architectural design more as facade articulation because the different products being offered in the single family attached units. There was one or two comments provided from

neighbors they primarily just against this project generally not so much specifically the reduced setback. I think that more or less covers it. And these are, I think this is a different development

than when we saw and talked about and pulled from consent a couple months back about apron garages but that I mean, apron driveways but that's essentially the terminology right it's like a, I know an

apron driveway that is not going to ever be parked on, it just gives you that access into your garage. Yeah, that was I think the code crossing. Yeah, correct. I think we just had a lot of confusing

and work session confusion work session we pulled it and then it was like, Oh, we just, it is a similar situation to that where we're working will not be offered but there will be that shorter

driveway length. And this is unfinished and we'll see if a lot of very full presentation from the applicant. So we can do a presentation. If you would like one and we can have the applicant be

prepared to do one as well. Or we could keep it on old business and I can come up and ask if there's any last minute questions and if not we can. I'm not concerned about what you're saying, right now

it shows in unfinished, which is not the same as consent, which will be a full presentation, am I right. Yeah, yeah, and it was put on finish because it was postponed. Correct, but it's not consent

we're not just gonna. So, I don't believe we can put it on consent but we don't necessarily have to do the presentation. The commission does not feel like to see it. So, just to make sure I understand

what their, how many unit bees there are. Yeah, I'd like to see everything about this all night. They want to shorten it up. We're going to park, even if the segment can't. And was the code change

after the development was done, or before. So, the applicant elected to use this zone district, and then after that. In submitting their development plan. They then realized they needed this to come

back and make this change anyway. Yeah, they play the game, but it sounds like they have ample, I mean look at that application or that information, they have ample guests are being another thing, but

it's been the enforcement piece. And it is about 20 units that would be based on the current development plan I have in review about 20 out of the 40 single family attached. So basically one side of

each boot flex would be the unit. But each, each unit has their two required parking space on site through the garages. So if you're sticking to that parking calculation it is being met with on site

parking just in the garage and not on. I think we need to see everything all over again. So we can have a clear picture. That's just my thing. My assumption is just that we would see it because it's

not a consent item so let's, let's have the applicant just so that we can answer any questions. More unfinished business, height allowances for AD news. Johnny Malpica. Johnny complaining special

projects division in the planning department. This is another September item that was postponed to October so we could do a little bit more stakeholder engagement. A little bit about that again. The

height allowances for a user ordinances is a UTC tax amendments legislative. It retains the section 733 or four and it's going to have citywide impact. This is a standalone ordinance. This is going to

update one line in the code. And it specifically makes a change that impacts the detach ADU typology that you can see there highlighted in the red hatching. Can you go to the next slide please. Thank

you. So, as some of you may or may not be aware, the current code, following the 2025 ADU ordinance update, which revise our unified development code specific to ADUs to LACs. I don't want to use the

term LACs but to basically create a more friendly regulatory environment to allow for more ADUs. We also expanded the use allowance so ADUs, you can only do detached ADUs and your R2 and above single

family zone districts. I'm sorry, two and above zone districts we've sent it out to single family, notwithstanding the wildland urban interface. The purpose of that was to create a more friendly

regulatory environment and in the public dialogue portion during city council hearings following planning commission there was a number of changes that went in based on stakeholder concern. One of

which and this is the only which that we're correcting through this ordinance is that standalone detached ADU is permitted a height of 16 feet, rather than 25 to 28 feet as it was previously

permitted. However, if you have a garage that is quote being converted, you can now have 25 feet so the term converted is problematic in a number of areas because what it does is it creates a

situation where if you have an existing garage. It needs to be demoed because it can structurally support a second story ADU you have to make significant modifications to it. You're creating a

scenario where the individual has to come in for two building permits one to construct the garage, and then a second one to put the ADU on top. Obviously that outcome was unintended and it is causing

quite a ruckus for our industry representatives and homeowners wanting to do detached ADUs above a garage. So we are merely making a change to say that the ADU, the detached and alone ADU remains 16

feet but when you're doing a detached ADU when attached to a detached garage, which is kind of annoying to provide but it's what we have to do to follow how we define things that you get that 25 feet.

And a garage would initially be permitted up to 25 feet, so you're keeping consistency in potentially right like a garage could be the same. A garage, a standalone garage that does not include an ADU

can be 16 or 20 feet depending on roofage. Okay. If you could just go to the next slide for me that one more so I think it might be helpful to look at the ADU ordinance and what the code provision

read so prior to the ordinance going to and going into effect in June of 2025. Detached ADUs could be 25 feet or 28 feet depending on the roof pitch didn't matter if it was attached to a garage could

have been two stories, none of that mattered. Just to note, after the ordinance update we expanded ADU, detached ADU allowances into our single family zone districts. And so now that changed to 16

feet or 25 feet, if the garage was converted all we're doing here is we're saying, if the detached ADU is attached to a detached garage, you can say 25 feet and you need 25 feet because the 16 or 20

foot height for you know this right in your industry doesn't allow for that reasonable second story habitable space for the ADU. Is there a way above a garage, or the intended of this code provision

is for someone to construct an ADU and sort of a carriage house format, which would allow for, you know, it's a second story ADU that's above the garage. And why we did not use the term above and why

we didn't want to specify it above is because if you do a second story ADU above a garage, and you have an internal staircase with a mudroom on the first floor, or you want to do a portion of first

story space and convert one of the bays of the garage into that. This allows for a little bit more flexibility. Not really a scenario where you're building it attached and fully adjacent to right like

setbacks on these lots aren't actually going to realistically allow an attached dwelling unit to be attached adjacently only and not above right under the way we've written this code provision if you

have a single bay garage right now in the rear of your property with a five foot side yard setback in a five foot rear yard setback. And you wanted to build a ADU next to it that is physically

attached to the detached garage that's two stories under this provision you could do that. I don't know that I think that you could, you could essentially do that but, you know, keep in mind you could

also take your single bay garage and do a two bay garage with an ADU above. And if you think about the impact of that second story. Typically the two bay garage with ADU above an external staircase

has a bigger impact. And so the intent isn't to create a new sort of environment for someone to be like ha ha ha I want to do a two story ADU attached to a garage, it's to provide a degree of

flexibility that makes sense, and still respects kind of the dialogue we had when we were doing the ADU ordinance update but also creates a less restrictive environment. The vast majority of people

who want to do an ADU are going to put it above the garage, we want to not mandate that it have an external staircase. The other thing is, you know, when you think about what ADUs do so aging in

place. Often ADUs can be used for that sort of thing. And so ADA compliance and things come into play and so if you have, you know, an external staircase versus an internal staircase in a mudroom,

this provides a degree of flexibility. That we think is beneficial, but I hear your point. And that was definitely considered. I guess it was intentional but I wanted to ask. It was very intentional.

The last thing that I'll just add is we did do some stakeholder public engagement we did email this out to our list of Homeowners Association representatives that we have the most current and

available list. And we also reached out to some of the stakeholder groups that were very vocal throughout the ADU process the ADU ordinance update process to talk to them and then finally we have the

UDC Advisory Committee meeting. And we also presented this there, which was part of the reason why we pushed this to October. I will add that I've had a couple meetings with some of those groups, it

does sound like at the hearing there will be some engagement. And I think that the concern is similar to your what you pointed out that they wanted to be specified that it's above the garage rather

than attached to it. If you want to make this more foot wide sliver, you know, if you think about the practicality of the hotline, you're just not right. It's not practical. And then it further limits

what we're trying to with code changes or ordinance changes previously was trying to allow more flexibility and this creates a little bit more but still put some priority. And I think the other thing

to add is, you know, you have to factor in the other provisions that back into this, you know, there's there's gross floor area allowances set back. That's what I'm used to. Yeah, that was carefully

thought to specify that it's above. But again, there's, you know, there's a compliance issues. And I think, I think this provides the most flexibility but still embrace this kind of those that

dialogue and some of the concerns, although I think you'll hear from some of those groups who are going to disagree with me. We have a public process. So we obviously we're going to see a full

presentation and obviously some ample public comment you'll see a full presentation, given the concerns regarding above slash attached to a detached. You may also see some additional diagrams or

drawings kind of explain the intention behind why we decided to use that language. Thank you so much. Thank you. How many times have you said attached detached? When attached to. You're the star of

the morning for me today. Any comments. This is a request for the property 1022 race street for a front and rear yard setback nonuse variance. So, this property, believe it or not, was planted in 1887

in this exact configuration. So, it has some unique characteristics because of that race street, which you can see here on the east side is the front yard, and then in the back, the alley on the west

side is your rear yard. The request is to reduce the front yard setback from 23 feet to five feet, and the rear yard from 15 feet to five feet to accommodate a single family detached home. So since

this is a plotted lot. This is the condition that's been in for a long, long time. It was not of course the owners of, you know, doing that it was created in this way. The lot itself is 5500 square

feet, and in the R2 zone district that requires a 5000 square foot lot in order to build a single family detached home so it actually does exceed the minimum lot size for that unit type. The lot is

expected to be able to meet lot coverage, the side yard setbacks, other dimensional standards that are applicable to single family detached homes is just basically the issue of the orientation of the

lot perspective to the alley and to the public street that are causing the issues of building on the site. So, I have some exhibits that I'll show you during the whole presentation next week that kind

of demonstrate some of the challenges with the current code required setbacks. You can actually look at their site plan you'll see that the front and rear yard setbacks if done correctly per code

actually overlap each other. So, technically speaking, no development can actually occur on the site without any kind of relief. So there was some concerns from the neighbors less so about the front

and rear yard setbacks but more kind of periphery things such as access safety building on these lots themselves, just because they are kind of a unique situation being that kind of little, little

keep those kind of in the middle of an alley and a substandard road I should say, that's a good term, that's, we'll say substandard race street is like I think a 60 foot right away. They did provide a

survey that'll be in your packet kind of demonstrating that that it's kind of a larger right away than probably needs to be. So, there is some justification in the sense that the front yard, while it

will be five feet from the front yard property line that right away is quite a bit larger than you can typically see in a residential area, especially on the west side. The decision we are requesting

to be put on the potential approval would be just a note requiring the applicant to receive approval for a final drainage letter prior to issuance of any building permits, just because of where the

lot sits, to the neighbors and the grade changes, there is some small concern that runoff could be an issue but it should be able to be mitigated. It's just a matter of making sure that you know those

things are addressed prior to any kind of construction or grading. So I know, I know that's kind of an interesting project so I have a presentation hopefully that will answer any lingering questions

but I can also address anything small right now. I think it's gonna be an interesting one to hear any questions. The final plot was included in your packet so you can you can see it was plotted. Yeah,

just fascinating. Okay, well that wraps up our item agenda and perfect timing for our presentation. Are you ready, I know you all just walked in. I'm Chair Hensler, nice to meet you. Sorry, it's

Nadine by the way, I'm Nadine. Hello Nadine. Hello Planning Commission members. I will tell you this gives me a little flashback. I worked in planning for 17 years I don't know many of you but, oh my

goodness, staff looks so familiar and friendly so thank you for letting me join today. My name is Lana Thelen and I'm the Design Development Manager for the City Parks, Recreation, and Cultural

Services and I'm joined with Skyler Robye, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services. We're in the position for just a little over four months. Lana has definitely been through the entire

process of this Parks System Master Plan so she's going to be the main presenter today. So as I understand it, you just wanted a little bit of an overview of our Parks System Master Plan. I'm going to

give you kind of a high level overview. I know that there are particular pieces that are probably more important to you so if you want me to dive into any of those, I'm happy to. But just giving you

an overview to begin with. So I'm happy to say though that we were just at Parks Advisory Board, and they have passed this Parks System Master Plan. So we are on our way to City Council in October for

this. Almost done. All of a sudden, just here, alright. So our Parks System is over a hundred and fifteen years old, and it's a system that is at the core of our quality of life, our health and

wellness, our environmental stewardship, our community identity, and our tourism economy. Well within the heat of all these, but for that, you know, pieces that means environmental stewardship. We

work with our open spaces, hopefully you've been in some of our open spaces, and you see that care that we put into them. Our tourism economy, Garden of the Gods, Peg's Peak, are all part of our

system and our network. This represents a significant long term stewardship responsibility, and we protect it for generations that are currently in this as well as generations to come. I really want

my children and my grandchildren to have the same experience that I'm able to have. A few stats for our system as a whole. We have more than four million cultural destination guests. We have 715,000

annual participants in our programs, and we have 19,000 acres of parkland. We have 326 miles of trails, all taken care of by 242 employees. We have 152 developed parks. Why do we need this plan? Just

like you guys have a city comprehensive plan, which we did fail the city parks plan follows within. We've had a park system master plan that has been actually 50 years old at this point, but mostly

certainly updated in 2014. And so since 2014, if you can remember what you were doing in 2014, things have changed. Population has grown, our assets have aged. We have evolving recreation needs. I

don't know if pickleball was a thing back then, but it is now. And rising costs are creating new demands for us. Our responsibilities continue to grow, and we're shifting our focus to reinvestment,

sustainable funding, capacity, and responsible growth. We've completed 9% of the park system master plan recommendations, like fully completed, with another 78% that are advanced or ongoing. And those

are really things that maybe they don't even come to completion, but we've started many projects. This last piece on this slide just shows our evolution over time. And we again started in 1871, but

many things have changed. A lot of those are related to our funding sources and ups and downs within our economy that's really important to us. Next slide, please. Why do we need this new plan? I love

numbers. If you like numbers, you'll like these stats coming up. But our costs continue to rise. And I know you see this from the planning side when your developments come in, but we've had 160%

increase in operations and maintenance, and over 100% increase in construction costs. As you can imagine, our dollar doesn't go near as far as it used to go. We've got deferred capital reinvestment

totals of $125 million. It's really hard to quantify that in your head, but we've been putting off our maintenance for so long that we've accrued $125 million. In addition, we have capital replacement

totals of over $837 million. So our available funding sources have not kept up, and we've calculated that with the cost of what we have today, with our deferred maintenance, and moving the future, and

we've been $52.2 million annualized funding. It's a big number, and it's a bit hard to quantify, but I think one of the things that really came out of this plan was that number. We haven't had that

number before. We didn't know how much short we were, but now we have a whole appendix to this master plan that explains exactly where that number comes from. The top right portion of the screen. It

really shows our place or how we've been represented in the general fund. And so in 2019, we had $15 million of the general fund going towards parks, or about seven and a half percent. Over to 2026,

and now we have 17 million, equating to about 4% of the general fund that just mentioned everything's growing in cost, but yet our share of it has in fact decreased over time. I think it's shown

really well through that bottom right image. The parks department is funded through multiple different sources, three of those being the general fund, our trails, open space and parks, which is one

penny, every $10 of sales tax, adequate to about $13 million a year that comes to us. In addition, our conservation trust fund. So the lottery dollars, we get a pro rata share of that that comes to us

each year. That's about four to 6 million depends on how many people play the lottery so that's the only reason I encourage lottery. But that is an important piece that comes to us as well. So in 2008

we had 180 employees that were funded out of our general fund, and a total of 192 employees so primary general fund employees. In 2006, we now have 122 general fund employees, a total of 188 employees

so actually fewer employees now than we did in 2008. And we actually have many of ours coming out of the tops in CTF. The reason I mentioned that is those two funds are the funds that we can use for

our deferred maintenance, our capital investment. And when we put employees in there when we do maintenance out of those, as you can imagine that reduces the amount that we can do for CIP. So that's

just one example of how that's changed over time but I think it's important to see what's happening in our parks so perfect. Next slide please. So what did we learn. This has been about a 20 month

process for us to get where we are today. We've had over 6000 written comments from citizens. We've had over 3000 responses to surveys, many hours of engagement. One thing that we're really proud of

is that we did a statistically valid survey. We did that not only for the city as a whole, but also for each individual council district so I know you guys know council members asking about their

districts, we wanted to have the information for them. We also did an online map comments, top of the beds, stakeholder interviews, and then focus groups and staff workshops. And so we really wanted

to make sure that all of that community input was heard. In our technical analysis our consultant actually went out to every single park in our city and analyze those parks for us which is really

important we have that data now. And then that all results in for us a very data informed decision. Next slide please. This is the slide that I'm most excited about and proud of. So from all of those

pieces of information that we received from our community, we boiled this down to four guiding principles. I'll walk through them for you. The first one is preserving our legacy, those natural and

cultural resources that we have. We want to preserve those now and into the future. Second one is strengthening community connection. We know that our stakeholders, our partners, volunteer groups,

city planning commission are all partners in our needs and what we have moving forward, and we recognize that those are very important. The third one, creating exceptional experiences. When you go to

our park system, however you enjoy it, what experience do you have with the design and how that was laid out? Do you enjoy it? Do you want to come back? Those are all really important to us. And then

the last one, since I mentioned our 52.2 million dollar annualized deficit, investing in our future. We want to have a different story in 15 years from now. Not this story that we are in debt. We want

to change that for the future. Next slide please. So we took all of these guiding principles which have goals and actions under them and created seven first steps. I'm a planner by heart and so I

needed to have a plan and then how I was going to begin to implement that. So these seven steps, I'll kind of go through high level, but we got to have a funding strategy to figure out that deficit

that we have. We're going to have to educate our community and explain to them why we have that deficit and make sure they understand it. We're going to develop recreation and cultural plans. We're

going to advance our essential resources for economic tourism where appropriate. We're going to modernize planning, classifications, level of service and PLDO. This is where I see you all being a

piece of this. And we're not exactly sure what that is. I know our recommendations for PLDO come before you and that's really important. We want to see how that system is working, that there's any

changes in the future. Those PLDO recommendations turn into our level of service and so how we're providing our number of park spaces within our community. We want to launch a comprehensive asset

management program, really understand exactly what we have and what we need to move forward, and then we want to progress visionary projects. We do still have a vision here. We have lots of projects

that are in the queue and we know that they take time to move forward. We want to keep those in the queue as we move along. Next slide. Take those seven steps and then we put them into phases. So the

first three phases represent the life of this master plan. The first phase is setting up for success, really getting us ready. A lot of this is the planning pieces of it, setting us up for success

moving forward. The second phase is stabilizing our system, really looking at those deferred maintenance responsibilities that we have. How can we come up to speed on those? The third phase is

strengthening and growing. We have 10 parts that we haven't even built yet, wanting to get those on the ground, and then parks in the future as they come into our system, making sure that they're

being built. So those first three phases, as I said, are part of this master plan, but we didn't want to forget that there's life after this master plan when someone else, probably not me, updates it

in the future. But 2040 plus really is that elevate and sustain. Once we've figured out how to take care of what we have, adequately invest in it, we want that continue into the future. Next slide. So

really, this future takes all of us and I really appreciate that you allowed me to come here today because I think that's a piece of this puzzle that we want to cover in here. So it takes our

leadership to align policy, funding, and annualized investment decisions with the park system master plan. It takes Parks Department to lead and implement the first steps, priority actions, and then

we're going to track those actions over time, communicate the results, and change as we need to. And then we need partners. We consider you one of our partners to bring resources, expertise, advocacy,

and collaboration as we move this forward. And then, last but not least, is our community. We want them to stay engaged, participate, volunteer, and help support the system as an advocate for our

future. So that is just a question. So, again, if you want me to delve into anything that's more specifically related to CPC I can, or if you have questions, happy to answer those as well. Does the

master plan available? It's online on our websites. We can make sure that you get that but colorsprings.gov/park-system-masterplan. And it does show kind of all the pieces that we've done moving to

this phase and then the final document that we have. Okay, Jen, I see that you have your handouts. One of our pushers is online. She's not feeling well today, so yeah. Sorry, I'm sick, but I

distinctly recall, once upon a time, coming up on 15, more than 15 years ago, when I was in policy school, we did a case study on Colorado Springs and how declines in property taxes had lowered the

budget so much that all the park bathrooms had to be locked up. And I was kind of surprised when I moved here all these years later that most of them still seem to be. The master plan addressed that

particular deferred maintenance and any of the complaints I lived near Dorchester Park about like trash receptacle availability. Yes, we heard loud and clear that comfort features as we kind of call

them restrooms, pick up trash benches, a really important piece of our park system. Most recently restrooms have been a big topic for us. We did have to close, unfortunately, as last summer due to

some budget constraints. But we also recognize that that is probably the one thing in our park that every person could use. And so we know how important they are. They are definitely addressed in this

master plan and the direction that we need to continue to provide those in the future. They're very important for residents. Thank you so much. Appreciate being here. Maybe just add just add that City

Council is recommending that we will actually mayoral leadership is recommended to City Council that we had in about $91,000 into our budget to have restrooms open in our parks that we had to cut out

for this year. And we don't take it a concerted effort to try to open those restrooms in the parks. There's a lot of non-potable systems that don't really work well because of all the kind of

chemicals you have to battle with that but just, we're just kind of curious on stuff like that. I'm not sure what the exact number is either, but we can definitely provide that number back to you to

get a good idea. We have a specific agreement with CSU for all of our utilities that we get them at a different rate, you know, more about community city grade. But I can get you some, some facts and

some numbers on that just for water or you want to just some of those hard costs, you know, kind of figure out how to spread the spread the potential a pretty expansive system between non pot and

potable. And I think our maintenance team really recognizes that still has been really working hard to do some of the native conversion. That was a big effort that started, I mean, it's ongoing, it's

ongoing, numerous years ago, it's ongoing to try to mitigate and you've seen that reduction in water use by the native gun. We've talked about, you know, regular grass turf and similar sports fields

as well so made some transitions there. Then our golf course operations we've added a whole lot of nature areas, natural areas brought those into the overall pool and stopped watering. And some of

those locations but yeah that transition to our greenhouse operation and a lot of our flower beds, medians that we maintain have been transitioning more this native still take water, but just not as

much. Right. My question was just how does the homeless population affects the parks and what she was talking about with the restrooms, if you have a lot of all the restrooms. To me I could see an

issue there too so I'm just wondering what you guys offset the issues. We're working with homelessness team. So it's a combination of departments, Amy Cox is leading out of housing homelessness. Oh,

we're working with housing and homelessness team, or the city department Amy Cox leads that up for the city. So we're at the table with them along with Colorado Springs police department fire

department. Colorado Springs utilities as part of that as well. And then there's a lot of other community groups that are part of the development strategy. Right, because it all impacts is public

works is also a big piece of that. And what we've seen in our budget it's about 25 to 30% of our total budget now is allocated to like homelessness response and cleanups within our park systems. And I

think the board member that was online, Dorchester Park is one of those areas that we just cleaned up last week. And so you're kind of like chasing them. The challenge around into other parks you know

which is maybe degradating that experience creating safety issues, and that came through pretty evident as the number one reason that community is concerned over 50% of our communities concerned about

the safety of our parks and our trail system. So we heard that loud and clear. I know we're working with mayoral leadership right now. The housing homelessness group, the initiative that's going

together there, as well as councils, you know, recognizes the need to really bring some resources as well as strategy to how do we resolve every year cost. It really would and that's the one thing

that being new to the position that jumped out to me in 2014 it's really not even mentioned in the master plan, and it is scattered throughout all of our public surveys and public comments about you

know the issue that we're facing so we're going to be investing some, some real time and resources to try to address that and make our parks safer, activate them. Thank you. I know you mentioned PLDO

in your slides and I know one of our former commissioners was was very invested in that topic and that kind of continues both with the school and dedication and PLDO dedication. Can you just talk a

little bit more about that because that's one of the things that we probably see the most or that's maybe most pertinent to our work on the family commission is that when we see development

applications that have to do that. These in lieu of or so forth, and I don't know how much that the detail goes in, and in the master plan maybe I should just read it. Well, I would encourage certain

pieces if you do read it that are very related to what we call level of service which is really kind of the umbrella that PLDO feeds into. And so we have calculated our level of service, we look at

that from a neighborhood perspective from a community park perspective, and then from an open space or regional park perspective. And so we had some numbers from 2014 and we have numbers from today.

We are making progress towards meeting those goals. And I think you guys know that we would like to see two and a half acres per 1000 residents for neighborhood parks and three acres per 1000

residents for community parks. I believe we're at about 2.14 at the moment for neighborhood and we're at just under two for community parks. We have stayed relatively consistent from 2014 to now for

community parks, of course, we've added acreage but we've also added residents so that the park is out. We're chasing it, we're chasing it, continue chasing it. We've improved from a neighborhood park

perspective. So, really we are looking at that and how are we moving back forward. I'd say there's kind of a couple important aspects right now we look at it from an acreage perspective which I

mentioned, as well as an access perspective so is that park within a neighborhood half a mile of your home, can you walk through it within 10 minutes. How is it within two miles of your home. And so

those are important factors. We've been introduced by our consultant I will mention, Nick Coon is in the back he is our consultant with Kim Lee Horn. They've done an amazing job with this plan I

cannot take full credit for anything. But they've also introduced the idea for experiential access to our parks from a level of service perspective so you know, do we provide basketball courts within

a half mile, or are they spread out from more than that. What can you access within the distance from your home. And so that is something that we're actually looking at. How could we implement that in

the future. It kind of blows up he'll do just a little bit, because it's very strict with acreage now it's really easy to tell you, but how could we make that a component of what we look at in the

future. And then that would trickle through to PL do when it's calculated. So we definitely work very closely with Caroline Miller in the planning department for all those conversations, and really

each development that comes in we appreciate your attention to where those parks are located, and how they're used within those communities. It's really important to us so big picture if you want to

go more detailed I can. Are there things that we should be specifically thinking about when we look at the review criteria, or ways that either staff more importantly but before they, it comes to us

shouldn't should consider and maybe how the application price to get to those goals or addresses it in some way and maybe that's something we can't do I don't know. But it's really important piece for

us is how they lay out in the overall community, and developers often have certain locations that they want to put them in. They may be the locations that maybe they can't develop on, but that also

means that we can't develop what we want on them as well so we've really pushed strongly for locations that are accessible by the entire community, but also have the ability to develop the playground

not a structure per se. We don't want the leftover land. That's just there because they can't use it. There are certain instances where that's beneficial to us and we can definitely communicate that

to the developers but we really push hard for land that is usable by the community. I think, oftentimes that's what gets to you. Hopefully we've had those behind the scenes conversations but if we are

unable that is where we would look for support from you. It's that level where they're just not willing to move that park, but we want it in a certain location for the long term success of that

development. Thank you. I think we're just hearing this as an informative item we're not taking any recommendation action that's right. Yeah, it goes different route to counsel. Yeah. There are other

things that you want to learn more about. Can I ask one more. I'm so sorry. No, that's okay. Sorry, I didn't see you have your hand up, Jim. Did you speak to whether if at all the master plan

incorporates some of the more private sector planning going on around the creek plan. The US Creek plan. Yes. Yes. So I would say that it is showing up in a couple of ways within our park system

master plan. The first is that we have a number of guiding documents that we recognize, and guiding this plan moving forward, the COS Creek plan was one of those guiding documents. It also shows up in

some of our guiding principles goals and actions that we really want to support the development of creeks and how those implement our park system along our trail system. And then thirdly, it's showing

up as one of our visionary projects, specifically the COS Creek plan is really important to us and I'll just say. We are a component and a part of that team that's moving that forward with Pikes Peak

Waterways in our engineering group and we've been really happy to be a piece of that because we know that while the improvements to the creek are one thing. They offset and become that entire corridor

and a lot of our trails and our parks are near that space. And we really think that these improvements can assist with that and talks about homelessness before. I think, you know, this can really be a

catalyst for some of those homelessness concerns that we have as well. So I think it really all works in tandem together. Do you want to add anything else? I'm sorry. That's all. Oh, okay. So as we

look at the master planning and long term efforts for parks, I imagine that as that plan prepares to come into fruition, we're going to have to just as a city plan for a much larger budget to maintain

that sort of thing. Or is the master plan anticipating private operators of creek facilities? I would say all options are on the table and this is why there are kind of two parts that question one

specifically to the COS Creek plan. We definitely understand that building and developing anything like that does take long term maintenance and want to build that into our long term maintenance going

forward, but also that bigger picture question of that 52.2 million dollars. We know that that's not solved at one specific thing. In fact, kind of phase two of this for us is to hire a consultant to

look at strategic funding for the parks department specifically, analyze this from an external perspective. Use everything that we've received in our parks system master plan to help guide us with

what's the right step to move forward. And so that is what we're planning to do next year. We're not just going to put this on the shelf and say, we found a number, but we know that the next step is

really to figure out how to solve that moving forward. If you had pieces to that. Yeah, it's going to be a diversified funding approach for us. To Lana's point, it's not one thing that's going to turn

this around. We don't have enough money in the general fund to capture 52.2 million dollars annually. So we're going to be looking at a variety of opportunities for us to do business a little bit

differently. So I think we're really excited and encouraged about that opportunity as well as to advocate the plan and communicate and educate our community and then get some great feedback from the

community about how they maybe are willing to come alongside us financially to support the overall plan. Thank you so much. I learned a lot today. This has been great. Thank you so much. Thank you for

this opportunity to come and speak to you because you are our advocates and if we can help you understand some of the things that we're going through, we really get one more voice out in that

community that understands what's happening. So thank you for your time. One thing that I've learned from Lana is we've also seen that some developers are coming right alongside of us and actually

open to the idea of constructing the parks for us because they truly understand the value that it brings to their development, to the quality of life to that community. So that's been an exciting

development, I guess, so to speak. Yeah, I know I think that's great right like it's a community resource, but they're building out those communities in a way that they need you and you need them so,

and that's great. And not keeping them private which I think is another, you know, another option, right like I live in fine parts and we have a lot of private parks in our community which is one

thing but then I see the bill on my HOA thing, whereas right like the community there's also the city doesn't and there's that list between the city doesn't pay for it. Yeah, it's great. We'll be

looking at that specifically. Okay, yeah, I'm sure I mean, lots of opportunities all around. I appreciate the task you guys have. Everybody was a master plan. All right, see you all next week.