We will call our special meeting to order and is there any public comments? No one here from the public today? I'm sorry. I'm only sitting here and now no one's left. And so we will go immediately into our work session to discuss changes to the 2025 conference and plan updates provided by the conference of plans during committee for the city of Phoenix. Okay. Great. I'm going to be doing live edits while you guys are making comments. So we can just begin Jameson Page one and work our way through. Right. Okay. I read what you did and anybody that's got a comment, I don't know, the copy that I've got is not numbered by page. It was the one you gave us the red line last time. Okay. But I mean, we get past the cover page, then there's a blank page, and then there's acknowledgments. The number store later, a few pages down. Right. I don't have any comment on acknowledgements, contents, I've got no comments. Implementation strategy. I'll just ask here in the matrix is going to be added to this because we stopped right before we would have gotten to the matrix. So the matrix will be a cut and paste of the recommendations that are contained in these chapters. So we have not created that yet, so we don't have to keep redoing it. Okay. Now we're into the executive summary. I read it. So that begins on page that's page one. Okay. Yeah. I've got one at the bottom of mine. That's good. Okay, so I don't know if my my version had a few minor formatting things, but I don't know if it was because it's an HTML version of the word document and that may be a little squirly. Yes, we opened that I was going to go off of that version, the of the link that you received. Okay, but it did have some strange formats. So I'm actually using the downloaded word version. Okay, so just a couple comments one is it starts with the number one before the word this is that intentional. No. Okay. And second, there's a space after the word committee before the period. So nothing substantive just formatting. Down section two, introduction. The second line there. I think there's an extra comma intended to be used by city staff, comma, decision makers, comma. I don't think there should be a comma after decision makers. Oh, there should be. Yeah, it's. It's. It's called. Where's it? I'm sorry. Second line. Last paragraph or first paragraph of introduction. So for what it's worth, it's called the Oxford comma. And someone lost a very large lawsuit because they didn't put the comma and the legal definition became those two things together but not separately. So whenever you have three things, you always want to have comma separating them if there are three different entities. Even when it's beforehand. Yep. Just keeping us safe. Okay. Well, somebody has already spent a firm and a time trying to hash out these various ideas and concepts, and I'm still not making any revisionary comment. I mean, you know, I mean, it might not be what I've done, but y'all did it in the old major meetings, so let's go on. So here we are to page three. I still don't have any notes. Okay, now we're into goals and objectives. I did make a comment and objective 1.6 to promote appropriate rather than obtrusive building height. I put my question as well, appropriate. And in what way is that objective? Tom, do you work? This was a, I believe this was Council member Webers' change. In wording, do you recall anything differently or do you have an explanation? I should have brought my other notes with me and I didn't. As opposed to appropriate, which any two people could argue over what's appropriate, unobtrusive at least has the connotation of less scale, right? I mean, what's, I mean, see anybody else have a comment on this? Well, I don't know, I think. Yeah. There are certain buildings you might not want to be on of trusive. I don't know. Let bank or it's a restaurant or something like that. Part of the part of the issue. Well, I'm just saying there may be things that you want. Unobtrusive might be inappropriate. This seems to be focused on residential properties. So, what about consider rather than promote a pro-three? I don't know. In the original, on the other notes that we had, I'd be seeing back this promote a appropriate unobstructive building, and we struck the word unobstructive, we struck that work. This letter appropriate. It had said unobstructed building. Promote appropriate unobstructed building. Yeah, we replaced on uptrusive with the purpose. We took that word out. All right, we'll let the word. How about this? How about explain to me as person that's trying to utilize the document. When I'm considering a proposed development, how do I utilize that objective? I would think if something is, if a land is owned residential, you would want it to be appropriate would be in conformance with both residential ordinances as well as perhaps similar look and feel to other properties there, appropriate to residential might be or retail might be different if it's You know, because it may have some image and you would expect residential, an appropriate residential structure wouldn't have typically a big sign of those areas. James Stone, right? But a business month, right? So appropriate for the use. I think what we tried to do there was put a war in there that was just, you know, sort of, you know, kind of a catch all type of generic type of I mean, I think let's say for instance, we're up there in Princeton and wherever it is that the church is wanting to build a 250 foot tall building the link building spot. Right. Yeah. So, there's now going to be a lawsuit over whether the city has control over that. Well, you could point to this and say that's inappropriate, but in order to say that it's. Quite a bit appropriate to the local. the other development in, I mean, appropriate, respecting other development or something like that. So I'm looking at this and I'm listening to what you're saying. So the question was, how would we use it on the development side? And the example I would give is when as we are looking at and developing the overlay district, you're going to see in that concept plan that's part of the design package, you see different size buildings and massing they talked about. And so where the placement of some of those buildings could be appropriate in a certain area where you're not covering up another building. In other words, you don't want to story here and one story here that would be inappropriate to have it hidden by a two story building. So those are the things that I would think that I'd want to take. I'm just looking for specificity here, or somewhere else that we don't have to have a lawsuit like they're having over the church. Okay. That's it. I mean, I'm not trying to get in the way of this. I'm trying to say, how do we make it toothy enough that it gets us what we want? When we say, no, that's inappropriate. they can push you out. You know, your idea of appropriate maybe is different than than my idea of Is that a comprehensive is that it? I agree frankly with what you're saying I But I'm also wondering whether That has to be that specificity has to be done by an ordinance and not a lot of. Well, if you're almost there, I think when it says building height, mass, and scale with respect to non-residential development and the surrounding properties. I think you could argue that either of those words leads a lot to interpretation, either appropriate or unobtrusive. I mean, they're both subjective and... Well, it's the famous word that I said all the time. Well, we usually wear unique all the time. The hell does that mean? Different. The only thing I could think would really reference something else that would have to be specific is the word conforming. Yeah. And so then almost whatever we put here is is not going on. I think where he has said in the past, you know, the copy has a plan as a guide, but it's not a defense, it's not a defense for a lawsuit. So we might, I mean, you could say both, you could say appropriate, comma, conforming. As I said, guiding document, it will come short of conforming. It will, this is, it's not intended to state specifics of the ordinance. So for instance, in either in the zoning ordinances, or do we have limitations on the size of buildings, either through height or square footage. What do you do? Would you both have roughed those in that way? No, I think we're fine. We'll do all that. I'm pretty good for weight. And I just, like I said, and I don't wanna get into minutiae here, but the three of you that were here, I can tell you that we went through all 50 pages lined by line, almost word by word, about the 50 pages. So it wasn't like we just took a look at the page and kind of skimmed over. I think I mentioned the other day, one meeting, a two hour meeting, we covered all three pages in two hours. So it wasn't I want that to be more of the sales. Well, how about this? I'm going to leave it alone, but reflect on it. And if there's anything that, you know, you or the committee can come up with my point. I mean, so I just brought that up. Okay. I said, oh, could I could I just back up a second since the I think we're going to go on from here objective one dot one again two formatting issues residential density has two spaces between the words should have one and then one has no space and should have space between those two words. Also, objective 1.7 is not indented the same way the others are. So either the others need to change or one dot seven needs to change. Okay. I'm going to highlight that blue and I'll go back and catch that. So we go to the next page, page five, with objective two two point three. Any comments there? Um, actually a question on objective two got one sorry, yes, end of the previous page four. Access to late Ray Hubbard. We've had, there are two ways that I could look at this, right? One says, hey, the lake is a great amenity. People need to be able to use it. The devil on my other shoulder says, hey, people have property that backs up to the take line. I should be able to use that. It's in the comprehensive plan. I should have access to like 300. If they do. So well, until someone leaves maybe unless they unless it's least, but we know that people have leased it and the public has still used their property when they shouldn't have. So I almost want to say appropriate access to labor. I just wonder if we're not making opening ourselves up for someone to say, hey, that's part of your comprehensive plan. and anybody that has property going on a link very upward, I should have access to it. I should have access. It was actually an access to a link. I don't know, what do you all think? It's for your thoughts. Would it be amenable to you guys to add where allowed after the work covered. People of any. Yeah, I'm trying to think of something that's in between access, which seems like anywhere the lake is, I should be able to get to it because I live in need versus limited which seems perhaps too restrictive. What about adjacency too? Well, I mean, you know, part of the ambiance is being close to like seeing the lake. Why do we have to say access to? Why don't we just say distinguish heat as a city of unique attributes, lake-rich-hubbered, common, cultural amenities, common, abundance of parks, just take out the word access to. Or that's fine with me. That's right. I think that makes sense. It's easy for easy. I'm fine with that. Okay. Yeah. Good call, Joe. I'm good. Anything else on objective two? No, nothing. Objective three livable community. I've got a pair of bits here. First item was you'd struck develop a citywide master parks plan. Clearly we have one now. You don't want to say something about maintain and you know develop according to the I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean,, but it follows along with the livable community and so I was hoping we could say for new residential development require dedication of parkland trails and open spaces for new residents, proportionate to the parkland trails and open space available to existing residents. So our parkland ordinance is promised on this idea of proportionality that you can require new development to provide the same level of open space, parkland amenities are currently enjoyed by the existing residents, right? Okay, so I was just thinking that we might want to mid it into the comp plan because this is where we had talked about, you know, right above it, identify park and open space areas, can be integrated with existing and future development. So you're calling on maintaining the livable community. So I thought this was the appropriate place. Can you say it slower so I can sure I'll just pass it over there to you. So I've got some data to reinforce that, but I'll bring it up when we get down to our matrix. If we get that far, if not, I'll just hand it to you. But it was what came out of my looking at the Parkland dedication ordinance to try to figure out how we can get from there to the more appropriate requirements for open space from new development. I mean, this talks a whole lot about new developments providing open space, but the only place where I see it happening right now in the subdivision ordinances is in the Parkland dedication. And then the last time I brought you the thoroughfare screening. So the various ways that we can amend subdivision ordinances, Parkland could be upgraded, the Parkland dedication ordinance could be upgraded to include a requirement for linear feet of trails. So just like we're talking about X number of acres or additional resident of open space, we could also talk about X number of trail, feet of trail. because I think that the law is now recognizing that this measurement of trail length is also an appropriate requirement for new development to provide. But we can sort of map it out here in the conference plan that there's an expectation that new development will bring it along at a proportional level. Is everybody good with that? Yeah, I am. And, and goal four point on four I just was certainly okay it's going to be master parks plan. That's what we're going to call it throughout. Yes. I think it's defined at the transportation, on transportation strategy. Is there something that we're changing on the front? No. I just circled it. Yeah. Space right here. Being in a conversation space. Any comments on or goal five? So was there a bit of a, as y'all, but your way through objective 5.3? Words crossed out with preferences developed large tracks of land accordance with SF 3.0. Was that in the prior conference plan? Was that something else? No, 3.0 wasn't around. No. So you almost thought that was what you were going to say and then you didn't say it or much. I don't know why we wouldn't include, I mean, we talk about one unit per acre of developer land. Why not? Yeah, why did you have it include an preference for SF3.0 where it could be you lost. I believe it's referring back to objective 1.1. S set out an objective 1.1. Okay. Let's see what that says. Maintain a residential density of known more than one dwelling unit per minimum of one acre of the believable land. And then two is new. It says encouraged large tracks, the undeveloped plan and the building is set 3.0. So rather than have it here at the end objective 5.3 I'll move it up to 1.2. We did.0 there also. So do you want to add an objective 1.1 and objective 1.2? No, I guess I'm saying we need to mention something about SF3.0 in objective 5.3 also. Or I mean, do we say no more than one dwelling unit per acre and developable land elsewhere? That's in one dot one, right? We say no more than one dwelling per acre, dwelling unit per acre of developable land. We say that in objective 1.1. So rather than repeating it here, why not say require residential planning developments preserve open space and reaffirming openness while maintaining density identified in objectives 1.1 and 1.2? Joe, then you don't have to repeat. Joe, we could have done that. I recall what we tried to do right along, which is clean this up a little bit. I felt that, you know, the fact that it's goal number one, which is, you know, a kind of your starting point. Yeah. You know, where we went 1112, we spelled about them. And when we got down in the goal of five, we just would clean it up. Post of that. I pretty much remember that discussion. I'm not saying it's right wrong, but that's what we do. We try to keep it, keep it more clean and simplified. If you want to add an objective 5-3, a reference to objectives 1-1-1. I don't have a problem, but if you want a reference, then I just thought that with 1-1 and 1-2, we'd sort of played the groundwork there. Yeah. Why do we need to repeat it again? But that's just my opinion. I like what Joseph said. I think either your reference back to 1-1 and 1-2, or I mean, you're mentioning 1 acre for a lot. Here, again, you need to mention the 3, also, 1 or the other. You either need to mention the 3, or refer back to both of them. Yeah, be consistent. Because here's what I would say this as written, we talk about both objectives in one dot one and one dot two. But then we reinforce this one, almost making it more important. I think that was intentional though, Joe, because we were, remember, there was part of a discussion on the committee of replacing the word encourage with require to more think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. that that was more instructive for the implementation steps that would come next. Okay, so and I'm reading this and I'm thinking my way through it objective 5.3 and this was from the prior plan because it's in black says. It did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, it did, way it captures your zoning, straight zoning cases. Say that again, Jill. Well, this points to plan development, but we can see that the developers may want to just sidestep plan development process. If you know. So perhaps take out planned and make developments on lower KST. Yeah. You're just saying residential. Any resident. Well, yeah. Yeah, yeah. Require residential developers. Kind of. I think the reason that word is in there goes back to, yeah, it's a product. Not a goal, five. Well, going back to the previous comprehensive plan when the expectation was that people would bring larger developments in as planned developments. And we don't have much to offer. I mean, we don't offer any way to increase the density of their lots. I mean, smaller lots, more open space, none of those. That goes straight up. OK, in goal number six, I was curious about rule by design. Is that something we're supposed to know what it means? based upon these three objectives? Is it defined somewhat or was it referenced earlier in the in the comprehensive plan? I'm going to have to find out before I answer it all out. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. I'm going to go back to the next slide. We just search. No. No, only here. Since this is a new section, I got an idea that it was an idea that was promoted. And I don't have a problem with that other than I think there's a lack of definition to back it up. Yeah,'s a pretty universal definition. Let me just hold and we can see if we want to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. you Okay, so let's hear. This is like, yeah, it focuses on infelling neighborhoods, strengthening town centers, and moving development both for the schools, shops, and jobs. Concepts are relevant for towns of all sizes, located in urban and rural, urban and suburban areas. I don't think that gets it. I'm going to keep looking. David, do you have thoughts on this? We could put a pin in this and let us work on it. Sure. And I don't know if there's a way to provide some defining characteristics here within the goal or if it belongs somewhere else in the body of the confidence of plan. Okay. I don't know. Hey Joe, can we go back to 5.3? I don't know that we figured out what to do about the sure within one dwelling per unit. You know, we talked. We talked about the first part of that sentence, but. I like what Joe's last said while maintaining a density or while maintaining in one dot one and one dot two, you'll just refer back to those two. I think that's cleanest. Then you're not repeating language in two different objectives. But you're referencing both of them because they're both important. Yeah. I just, feel like if we mentioned one unit for acre, then we need also mentioned the preference towards three dot oh. So, okay. I don't remember too many. So my kids will say too easy. Yeah. I fine, I'm fine with that. Good. Okay. I mean that on the goal five, six, what about seven? Land use moves. I'm going to do it. you wish you could still type in in front of the room? Oh, no. Logan was described for the committee. You did good. I mean, words of bear. I mean, when you get into doing revisions and accepting revisions. On objective 7.4, I believe So that last highlighted should say for example comma but not limited to comma. Let's missing the comma. Are you getting rid of the comma between example and but. You have to have a comma between two and the items that it's referring to or a dash. This has a colon. I think a colon word. That's what's there. Not an English major, but there needs to be something that identifies the sentence and then the examples. I'm good. I think, I think, I think, Colan will probably be better. How many of us? Okay, looking into resource protection. So objective eight dot four. Yeah, that couldn't read that. It seems like there might be a word missing or something there. Follow a year round water conservation schedule that provides homeowners to irrigate their landscapes. Provides for. Provides for homeowners. We're on the two days each week for homeowners to hear the know, things that were scratched that out because it could change from two days to one day in your basement. Eight to four. I mean, one thing. There was a word missing. Yeah. Probably. I agree. Out of the word for. So it says all the way year round, water conservation schedule that provides for homeowners to irrigate their landstakes. On 8.5, infrastructure needs seems a little out of place there. So when I read it, I say encourage self-sustaining irrigation, encourage sirens, encourage pathways, encourage water systems, and encourage infrastructure needs. I just put what does this mean? I didn't know it. Self-sustaining, it's encourage self-sustaining irrigation. What is that? What about encouraged sirens? Well that could also be rainwater collection. I don't got sirens feels out of place. Yeah it's yeah something's a little out of I'm going to delete that. Just the whole thing. Just the word sirens. The structure needs is I. I've been really encouraged water systems. What is that encourage? Yeah, self-sustaining water systems. Oh well. And what and then later it just says water systems. Water systems and infrastructure needs. Yeah, so self-sustaining irrigation would be rainwater capture. Well. well, pulling from surface water. Particle loose. Water systems would be a self-sustaining water system would be as well. But then later it just says water systems. Yeah. How about encourage self-sustaining amenities, including but not limited to? I'm just gonna throw this in there. That's good. Yeah. All right. But how did sirens and pathways one blind up in here? I don't understand where the resources. I don't know. I think they're willing to protect the pathways. I don't know about the sirens. These pathways are they like not trails. I mean, what are they? I don't remember. I was that's one of the items that I added when we were talking about it. And I don't remember her in the science. What do you think about this? If we say encourage self-sustaining amenities including but not limited to, including coma, not limited to irrigation pathways water systems and other types of infrastructure. Okay but once again is pathway something different than trails? I believe it is because they... well Logan what's your memory on that or David? You guys were there that night I wasn't there. Is that like where I cut through my neighbors back yard so I can get across the street or something? I'm just going to get a look at that. I'll wait for me to put in in that. But if we're trying to protect a resource to protect, then that can be really a different. I don't remember why that was added in there. We did a lot of adding trails and pathways and stuff. Yeah, what was the resource alone pathway? We see trees? I don't know if that was brought up if there was anything as far as that concern? I don't understand. So. Tom, do you have any questions? That's good. Oh, I know. Looks good. Good. Yeah, I mean, I'd be fine if you just if you just made that, I guess there would just be two objectives. I guess there's a third. There's one, which is development proposals for tree retention, to parter, train, creek protection. There's quite a bit in that. To require development to utilize the sustainable design concepts for preserved natural resources. Okay, well, I guess that calls upon some of these same ideas that you're gonna plant lower, or dense lower water usage plants or something like that. And then objective three would be this, I'm sorry, then there's, then you've got preserved natural areas for public use whenever possible. Okay, that's good. Could you do have the pathways that are supposed to object 8.3. Reserve the pathways and natural areas. Yeah. That does flow better. Yeah. No. Y'all will do something to it. Okay. Jame, please just fix that. We'll do something to think of. What's in your twice as early as I think. Okay. So I moved pathways up to 8.3 and I changed 85 to encourage self-sustaining amenities, including but not limited to irrigation, water systems, and other infrastructure. Great. Sounds great. Okay. Okay, Jim, we're to your next part here with goal nine light front. still take the use of various long-legged red and fur by both community and private entries. I think I'm I had no problem with that wording. It's it's the word access to that I was concerned about. Yeah. You can see it was all in the prior plan with an effort to try to preserve some of the lake access that's already out there. To give you an example, I think it's a when we're trail that's adjacent to Co-bridge, it's a strip of land that's on the other side of the street that the city has through the lease from Bows. And there was period of time when the people that are across the street were going, well, we want to lease that. We want to take the public's right away from utilizing. They already get to use the water out of the lake. So the city of Dallas recognized them as, you know, they can, so they got their pumps on the other side of the street. Of course, the city rebuilt that street, I think, in maybe 1998 or something like that. So they had put their lines in before the city put the street across. But yeah, trying to maintain that is, because when you go out in there, they're in the evening at sunset. People are always strolling, watching the sunset. Somebody's always got a fishing line and a lake. But they're only a handful of places similar to that in the city of Heath. I mean, over at Terry, when it's in Tigbo Bay, and in Tigbo Bay we covered that one. And if really just Terry Park and Tigbo Bay, and what you just mentioned, in the vision, I think. And if you can find your way down to the lake, like in a roadboat or a sailboat or something, and come up on the shore, if the people haven't signed the lease agreement with the, with Heath and put up no trespassing signs, then you've got to rewrite the world to land your craft and throughout your beach town. Okay. Okay, so there's no changes to like front transportation strategy. So 10.2, identify and implement roadway and street deficiencies. I think you just identify roadway and street deficiencies and address those efficiencies. I would take out any implement. Thank you for all the time. We're coming some goals 10, 11, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, We more comments on goals. 10 11. I have something on 11 if you ready to go there. 11.6. Consider it accommodate needs for surrounding cities. You know, I think that we need to consider and accommodate when possible. I don't think that we need to accommodate the needs of other cities over what we have here. You know it's kind of a heat first mentality. I'd like to see us consider and accommodate needs for from surrounding cities when possible. Can I, let me turn the contrast up and say, why does that need to be an objective at all? I mean, obviously the Trinity lawsuit was an example of if being required, at least as I understand it, at least as I understand it, he being required to accommodate the needs of other cities to the detriment of heath. I don't know where that ended up, but my question is, why is that a planning goal for us? Not that we wouldn't want to accommodate needs as appropriate, but it almost makes it sound like one of our goals is to be accommodating to other cities. And I just, I sort of view that as, you know, something you do as a good neighbor, but does that really need to be in your comprehensive plan? I always wanted to be more of a meeting. That was when I was added and when a meeting set hasn't always been in there. Any idea why it was that? I think I can provide some clarity on that. The council's stated on multiple occasions that they hold it as a value of their speech collaborative with our regional neighbors and be a good a good neighbor to our regional cities. And I think that's where this came from that we're wanting to wanting to emphasize that as a value of he that we are intentional about being collaborative. And it was discussed a lot amongst the committee relating to problematic legislation that's coming up and the desire for the early recognition that he alone can't really battle these legislative matters, but when a group is collaborating together with So here's a suggestion. Why not say consider and accommodate collaboration with surrounding cities as appropriate. I think that would capture the thought without, I can't help but think, oh, I'm forney or I'm a whatever rock wall I'm I'm a city that surrounds Heath I need a bigger sewer I need a dumpster I need you know you know I need something that I need a a dumping ground why don't just take the work of comedy out. What do you think about consider the concerns of surrounding specific groups and age? Maybe have to do anything. Why do I like the word collaborate? Which you added as a reason this came up. Collaborate implies that we're doing something that's good for us and good for the neighbors. You're working to consider the concerns of surrounding cities sounds like doing something that happened. Well, if you remember, when we got sued over the development, but it's a trilogy, that here we've got the end of Verizon Road that the city of Heath actually paid to have built this Boulevard. I mean, kind of, it's truncated down there, it ends, but they're going, well, we can use that as the interim start development. And we're going, well, that's not what we want it. I mean, so here's this, this, even though that wasn't a city, one day, I guess, are they in with fund and Chisams in TCHA at that point? Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so you're kind of negotiating with another city over the extension of our runway to become their runway. So, uh... with another city over the extension of our runway to become their runway. So, and we were going we don't have. What was I I guess I preferred the the wording that I suggested based on your I thought I was writing what you said. No, no. 0.4 is considered to accommodate needs from surrounding cities. based on your collaborative. I thought I was writing what you said. No, no. A point four. It says, considering the culminating in terms of surroundings. Yeah, I had that flag also. Same thing. What did you say, Joe? What was your suggestion? Uh, take out the word needs. I would say consider and um, accommodate collaboration with surrounding cities as appropriate. This way, as appropriate, it gives us a little, you know, the fact that it's got to be, yeah, it's got to be appropriate for heath, too, right? It's not just somebody else's needs. And the word collaboration is a good one. It applies that there's some effort on our part and the surrounding city. But I think that kind of captures what you indicated. Sounds like maybe the mayor or some of these came up with that. I think that one was actually brought out by Councilmember Vales. Okay. Just a part of that an objective 11.5. I thought you might as well throw Park Master Plan in there says a minute of subdivision. We're going to reflect the conference of plan, thoroughfare plan and park master plan. And the reason I'm adding that is at the beginning of your transportation strategy section where you have these goals 10 and 11, you outline all three. or they're included as So I'm in this subdivision ordinance and the hard master plan. No it was a min right now you have it written it says a min the subdivision ordinance to reflect the comprehensive plan and thoroughfare plan all I'm'm trying to do is get park master plan and there is the third item to reflect. Got it. 11.7. I think the Senate needs just a little reword. Coordinate and seek alignment of state elected officials as it relates to state legislation impact on the city. As it relates to. impact on the city from state legislation or. or I would put it wrong. It just be as it relates to legislation impacting the't need the.6. She's in England. Thank you.6. I think you're going to have a little signal change. Why? Why do we need to say the same thing twice? Let's see. So what I'm going to do then is make some questions. What's that? Probably it makes more sense just under coordination than under planning. Yes, strike them under planning. Yeah, I would agree with that. Just keep. Keep it on the floor, please. Hmm. We're looking down here. Town center strategy. We've got it aired back to two bullet points. Is that good, James, I just town is understratiging. So 13.2 encourage businesses that generate sales tax and improve quality of life. I would like to say improve the quality of life for he citizens. Yeah, here's a little more sorry. The quality of life or for he citizens. That's great. And then the way you clarify. It does seem like the town center section is a little light, but I don't know what else needs to be in there. Well, we do have the whole design manual that was developed after the 2018 plans. So I think that's what. the committee comfortable removing a lot of those guiding those guiding objectives that culminated the plan. Can you sit? Is it good? make the committee comfortable removing a lot of those guiding those guiding objectives that culminated the plan. Can you say is it got a title? What's the document? Yeah town center designing design so in the in the preamble town center encouraged the development of the town center overlay district as special and unique area in the heart of heat. It is recognized as the city center consistent with or something like that. But at least draw attention to it. Town center overlay district design. Hey, there use strategy. and This is here, take a wee head on the layout here for a menu strategy? What is saying? Nothing here. I think we had it on the sheet. Okay, as we get to page 11, this is as we're starting to get into the real data that always go, where did that data come from and how does it guide us in the future? But here it is again. As you scroll down into the table, you all have struck out all of the 2008 on the left and you've added, you got 218 on the right. So, okay, you're just gonna flip flop at this time. Yes. Okay, that's fine. And our GIS consultant is working on calculator. Okay, well that was where I wanted to have this conversation because it does make a big difference in so it will smell different. I'm not a consultant. I don't worry. But I do count things as a business. So I went about counting what I thought was the open space and heath because it's a big driver behind what we can ask new development for. And so there's the park plan ordinance. There's this modification I wanted to put in the conference of plan. But when you start looking at the total available area for what I call open space and he if you flip over to to the backside, you get to over a thousand acres. So right below it, it's sort of broken down into, when I say, park trails and open space, that is city of heat controlled or accessible through developers agreements, 231 acres. Private recreation is the golf enterprises that almost 500 acres. And then there's the HOA open space at another 280 acres. And then I made a rough, I made an attempt to come up with the linear feet and trails and that that came up with like over 81,000 feet. So what it all means is that the last two items, their residents per acre, I put the ratio in residents per acre so we'd have a whole number 11. Yeah, the one below it, lineal feet of trails per resident is flipped. So that's how many feet per resident. Anyway, it's always it's a ratio. It's proportion of people to space or people to to feet. And how would it have been useful if we had, if we had actually these numbers implemented in the Parkland dedication ordinance, then when they came to us for the Perry property, they're going to put in 110 residences, 100 was 115 originally. So our Parkland ordinance at least says that we use 3.2 residents per home. That's our that's our multiplier. I think so. So if they were going to put in 115 homes, it would have required it would have eventually brought us a number of residents. It would have brought us 115 times 3.2. would have brought us another 368 residents. And if you'd had, if you'd utilize these ratios, 11.2, you would have had 33 acres of open space required out of that 158 acres. That would have been a combination of Parkland dedication, undevelopable land that would have been flood prone, where it would have been trails, ponds, all of it. And it would have been about twice as much as they wanted to negotiate with this forum. I think there was about 15 acres and they went there. Yeah, closer to 20.17 point. So to the extent that we can start to take numbers like this because like I said, I'm not a consultant. And I think that other people should put their fingers on this. I mean, I'd be happy to share a spreadsheet with anybody, but it's a starting point. And where you get to this table that we're looking at on page 11, right there in the middle of the table was parks, open space, private recreation, and public semi-private. So it was 5.81 or whatever in the previous comp plan. I think we need to get that number up to over a thousand and we're going to really help. We've received a we have we do have a stowed and a proposal from Agra who worked on our. the park plan and the design manual for the Town Center overlay that we are gonna ask for the park floor to consider, for her to do that work for us to update the park floor and dedication. Well, hopefully we can visit because it's not just about, I mean, clearly there are different types of open space and hate. There's open space that's accessible to everybody. There's open space that's only accessible to members of a private club like the golf club. There's some open space that's dedicated to an HLA that may have limitations on non-HLA members using it. So, but all of its open space is a way that I'm reading the law that is making this possible and this proportionality laws that we consider, that is in our overall classification of open space. So I'm wanting to grab it all. Yep. Okay. I mean, I asked for questions. It's great information. When I look at up here, I see the word sugar highlights. Yeah. And then you know, you got to get on the proper party. Okay. Acres, you got 10. Are you saying that there are 10 acres within Shepherd Highlands that is H.A. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. That's not tax. 10.5.8. There8 there's a plaga land is it gets this one too and there's two it's two okay now with you now I guess there's one in the middle yes 10 acres just off to the side the the wildlife preserve or the ground century yeah it's kind of like to the south or the west, I don't know. Yes, it's closer toward the standard service. I used to exit Mariah Bay in a pathway across Stany Murphy's lot to get into that. Yeah, I'm with you. Yeah, cool. I think this is a lot of work. It's good. It's good. A lot of times into this this. Oh yeah. It's a couple of days when I had everything else to do. I'm sure what you were saying. Yes. I like this. So is your very are you wanting to get this cutified by a consultant or is that? Well, Aaron says that they part a consultant. We haven't hired anybody. We have a, we have a scope of work to consider from one consultant. Right. But that's as far as we've gone on, you know, trying to wrap our arms around the work. Well, I mean, consultants are great, but you know, a subcommittee of three people that made a presentation to the parks or, and if they accepted the product, then it could be used to update the park plan dedication ordinance. But I think that it probably needs to go beyond the Parkland dedication ordinance because it's limited in making the developer, like Flint, since you need to clarify that if he's He's got an undeveloped land in his flood plains. You know, he can use that to cover this requirement. If he has a 50% rate, right? Well, that's why the Parkland Learners reads. If there's a dedication to a golf course or something that is extremely limited and who gets to utilize it, it's still dedication to a golf course or something that is extremely limited and who gets to utilize it, it's still trying to meet this overall litmus test or how much free space open space is going to remain. It reduces the room that people that they get to put houses on. Right? That's sort of that idea. I'd rather have a golf course than another 100,000s, right? I mean, like that. It could appear somewhere else in the subdivision or anything else. I don't know. I don't know exactly how to do it. Yeah, okay. And I think that, yeah, for sure. I like it. And I think that yeah, for sure. But I think that if we add things like the thoroughfare screening, that that's going to help, it's going to help force the development. Say you say they wanted to go straight SF 3.0 to do that. If you had your thoroughfare screening in addition to the parkland dedication ordinance update, You'd probably get to the point where you forced them to accommodate the density, the proportionality of open space to new residents. Where it's gonna be tricky is like if you get something like this king property that comes in, it's a large flat track, there is, like, none of it is going to get set aside because it was floodplain. I mean, every bit of it looks into it, I've got fewer and fewer comments. Read page 12. Yes. Okay. So the third paragraph there is it talks about the ratio of retail uses per person. And just I'll just summarize it. If I understand it right, it says that kind of a average of 0.5 retail acres per 100 persons is what this consultant says is the ideal average. It worked point zero nine. So if you just look at us, we'd say, oh we're real low, you know we only have point zero nine. And then the last sentence there says, the need for a better balance of residential and non-residential uses is discussed further in later sections. I didn't ever see that and I don't know that we need a better balance. I think people move here but there's there's plenty of retail and things to meet people's needs that are just yeah I really and rather You know, it's so, I don't think that there is the need for a better balance. I'm not. So my question is why include this at all? Yeah. And because as it relates, so because my argument would be we have, maybe the word extremists extreme but we have a lot of retail in just north of us in Rockwall not an insubstantial and growing amount in the 40 and then if you want to travel further obviously there's an awful lot of going to speak along grade 30. So it seems to me that this paragraph may be appropriate for the county or a general a metropolitan area saying, hey, you want to have retail places to shop, and I'm not questioning their ratio, but I think it's inappropriate for this little town. Because of our nature. If we were surrounded by farms, You're right. And there was no mall you can go to that was within 10 miles or other restaurants and shopping and big box stores and so forth, but they're all close to us. And how would either like to take it out? Or it almost seems like, oh, it's low and we have a need. I'd like to take it out. I think it could easily be misused to say, you know, heath, your own comprehensive plan says you need to be fornic. If we need to be rock wall. If we choose to leave it in there, I'd like to have something that says, although this seems low, We can there's plenty of retail available short drive away, and we're okay with this because we're rural by design or whatever, something that says we've looked at this and we're not saying that 0.09 because we're 0.09 we need more retail. I would just assume take it out.. I would say take out the paragraph. It's misleading. And then you get into a discussion that you don't need to have in because of the comprehensive point. I would like to present a counter notion and that being that we do have an economic development corporation, municipal benefits corporation and their mission set is to increase sales tax revenue for the city of heave. So that there is we do actually have a ward that's working toward that goal in a very measured and very controlled the fine manner that maybe we could do both ends, maybe we could have reference to the middle. I'm saying implement or incorporate the EDC's mission set into this language, perhaps as opposed to removing it all together. I guess I'd like this doesn't really talk about improving increasing the tax base. This really just talks about places that people want to go to the community and buy goods and services. It actually says coming coming into the community to buy goods and services, which I would argue is not what he wants. We don't want people to come to heath specifically to buy goods and services in this volume, right? So I think it's a slippery slope. I mean, again, you have to provide the context of all of the retail around us. And on one hand, we try to keep Keith residential and it's not that we don't want any retail, but we'd like retail where we've zoned it retail, and there's a lot of it underutilized. But by and large, we want to be more of a residential, low-density community. This could easily be a fly-in-face network. So the future land use map is kind of hard to read because it says it's like still under development or whatever to block it. Do we have any future land use calling for local retail that is not already zoned local retail? We do because it's within the town center overlaid boundary but the base zoning on many of those parcels is at or residential. So it's reasonable that the property is across the street from here. Could come in and ask for a resounding to look at what we fail. They would have to thank you. Do anything good to look at properly. And they cannot, like if the home were destroyed, we couldn't, they could not build a home back on it because it's within that overlay, the council no overlay. That's true. Well, here's what Joe's saying in the argument against trying to facilitate it and then the economic development operation might be hoping for more leaps and more sales tax. I understand that the dives are even cast. I mean, we've already put on the map and it hadn't changed much over a number of years. I mean, this is our second house. It is, would imply, gee, you need to change this by a factor of six, right? Well, if you develop all the undeveloped local retail space that's out there, you're going to have a significant multiplication. Means, maybe not by six. I still, I just think how could this, how would this be used? And taking retail that's already zoned retail and filling it with retail is not going to, it's already going to happen. It's already zoned retail, right? I just use this as being a potential target. What if we were to incorporate a calculation, a ratio that's based on the area of the town center overlay in the very few other local retail zone parcels compared to our build out population and use that as a maximum ratio. Do you like it with me? We can see, I mean, without seeing the numbers that say, okay, we could look at the numbers. I would assume that we wouldn't add any new local retail at all, beyond what's already planned for in the Townsend or Oberlai boundary and already zoned local retail. And that we would be. The ratio would compare that to our build out population. So 18,000 ish. And that would give us a week and do do the right. One of the problems with this is, is it your comparing statistics to most cities? And heath is not like most cities. Nor do I think the majority of the rest, majority of citizens want to be like most cities. And I think that's what all these statistics are saying. So why not take it out? So I'm wondering if you just pull it out. Now I heard what you're talking about EDC, and I respect those. But if our company, I guess my sense is look, the comprehensive plan has retail locations, right, that are zoned retail. Why do we need to talk more about it? But you know, again, we know that there are every year a significant number of requests for people that have either agricultural or residential zone property that want to have it re-zoned retail. And that's, I'll say that's one of the, you know, common challenges. It's not on the future land. You smile, we say no. Well, I get that, but this is a reason for somebody to argue why they want it. Why can't I target on it? We're under you to look, we're underserved by businesses. Yeah, it's not the, you, you, one could argue, hey, your ratio of businesses is way too low you your comprehensive plan even says that I want to give you you know I want this reason because I want to be consistent with your comprehensive plan and increase the number of businesses. Yeah How much if we add this note is this true is this needed to delete this paragraph? Why not just delete it? I mean, our advice is deleted. Well, we had two members of the city council on the committee that did not delete this. Yeah, they didn't delete it, but you could say that the P and Z recommends deleting it. I'm trying to remember when we were talking about it. I'm not asking if it's true. I think it's probably is true if you look at a broad enough geography. Well, delete that question. How about is this needed to delete this paragraph? I don't remember the speed of big discussion. What we did, but it's been so long ago, I don't remember. So the way I see this as a tool is, when we, for the lack of bedroom, when we see the word unique, this helps build that, that we're looking for unique in this actually, I don't speak to that for me anyway, from that respect. I don't think, you know, by pointing out where we're at compared to other cities, or other cities is fine, but I don't think we need to reference the fact that we're troubled or. Yeah, the leading that last sentence. The leading the last sentence. I just don't think we need to speak that out. I would take it. Joe, James, how do you do? Which sentence are we arguing over? This is blue one. The need for a better balance of residential. I would just take the whole paragraph up. Yeah, take that out. What's the point of I, well, like I said, I guess what I'm deferring to is that there's, we're just part of a better committee and there were people that that wanted it in there. I guess we're comparing our ratio of basically point one versus average of point five and saying that we're light on retail as opposed to whatever, where did average comes from? I mean average was that of some which I think is a message that we don't want to do. I don't understand why we can't just say that. But, Jeff, when you're talking about acres per hundred residents, I mean, you could look at what is already zoned local retail and not developed. And you can also look at the areas that are on the future land use map or local retail that have not been zoned or developed. and talk about well if that was all developed into local retail that have not been zoned or developed and talk about well if that was all developed into local retail what what percentage of acres per her residents on the final buildout is I mean you know some conversation that we We will continue to maintain our below average ratio of retail acres to residents. I mean, but I'm not against, I don't feel like anybody's going to use hold this over our head to get something that they're not already entitled to. entitled to. I mean, if there are any on the future land use map for local retail and you want to take that away from them, then there's going to be a real dog fight over that. So you're saying leave it in? Yeah, I don't have a problem with it. I mean, I'm not sure what that last sentence of need a better balance of residential and non-residential uses as discussed in a later section as chapter. I could probably get rid of that, and I don't like that, so. Well, I don't. So what if, would be an agreement, could you make a recommendation? So P and Z recommends removing this paragraph and see what City Council thinks about that? Yeah, well, that would be my recommendation. I don't see how this helps us. And it could just hurt us. I don't see how it helps us. We could defend it as you said, James. I don't, you know, if we have updated numbers talking about, well, yeah, I agree. And if somebody wants to keep it in, then I would say just take them take it. I think it's making the point that we're at a much lower level of retail to, and rather than trying to rectify that problem, it's more of a recognition that that's who and what we are. I mean, it kind of reinforced that, but I mean, you're still going to have more local retail develop. Well, unless, unless we've true. So that's true. I think that you could agree. So here's an alternative. Update the numbers based on what is already zone to retail. So it's not going to be point nine, right? I think it will. This is very very low. Yeah. Well, then rather than than I'd like to. If we just look at the prior page and look at the acres here, it's non-residential is 32.7 acres, but we don't have any idea what the the potential development is. It's just an introduction. It got moved down from the prior constant at 65 to 32 in our last complex land But there's there's quite a few acres that are That are already zoned where we'll be zoned as Well, so what would that do to this ratio? is the silver formula form of question. So maybe we should find that out. But I could, could we go back to that paragraph? I think that whatever the ratio is, I have something north of. .09. I would suggest that if we're going to keep this in, update the ratio to include, and we could state that we're including what is zoned retail, whether it's there or not, whether there's a business there or not. say per 100 persons which reflects the desire to keep Keith residential. Very bad design. Yeah, rural and residential. So rather than which is relatively low, that's sort of a, that's a criticism. And I would say right after the word 100 persons. I'm going to add something and I'll tell you what you think. Uh-oh. How about that? Yes. I think that's pretty good. I still think that's. We're saying. We're saying we strike the sentence after it. I'm good with striking the sentence after it. But I still feel like we're. What we're saying is.'s ratio is at a balance with everyone else. That's a problem. But he thinks it's a problem though, Joe. I think it's just saying it's low, which means that people are shopping somewhere else. Yeah, it's very, it's not saying that that, if we delete the sentence that says, there's a need for a better balance, then it just stops at this relatively low ratio means that people who live in the city are going to other areas to meet their retail. I wouldn't say low ratio. I just say this ratio. Yeah, this ratio. Yeah, and the word low is is is in derogatory. Take out the word uses. Yeah, but the word low is derogatory. Okay. You want to take out the word uses. Even your rationale that I weren't low is derogatory. Okay. You want to take out the word uses. Yeah, we just make retailing use. I think that's accurate. Yeah. So above you have highlighted the 37.5 acres for 100 people. Where did that come from and why is it highlighted? It's highlighted because we need to update it. It's the old number. It's the old number. But we're going to update that when we do. In the same area, and I'm not going to do it. Where you're tempted to do it for you. But I think this is an opportunity for you to put in a paragraph having to do with the open spaces per resident. And whatever denominator you want to do it, as in per 100 residents, whatever makes sense to you. I can leave after. But it's just a further acknowledgement of how we're going to maintain a rural by design community is to maintain a high level of open space per resident you're talking about here. And I don't mind using the word high though. I got a question. One second, I got to get this down. I'm going to please it. The first sentence that says the ratio of retail use through the population is also important. And then it goes on. So just. Oh. That option. So. I think we need to reiterate. The ratio tells you okay, tells us okay, why do we have to say it again? These ratios are going to be going down, which means everybody's going on a time to go get stuff. But we have to say it again, you've already said it in the first sentence. Why are you re-in rating? It's a negative. I think it's a negative's come sending. What's negative come sending. Well, how about this? We're going to get another pass at this. Let's let the work on making this whole section more redo. And then of course, the City Council will change whatever we can. Well, that's probably true. I know it was. I can tell you that when we talk about this, it got lower mode of discussion rather than remember. I think it was quite a bit at it. I think it was just put in there for information person only. I don't remember any discussion was anywhere near those significance. When we talked about this, I think we just did it. And it was kind of like here's satisfaction. Move on. Okay. We'll work more towards the next. We spent a lot of time. We'll try not to solicit more retail. Look at the understanding now that. That's rather about low. I get it. I get it. I want to keep it in on that. Thank you. Usually. Usually land use is all right. Well, okay. That's a good right discussion. See this is good. Why it's important to have multiple perspectives. It makes the recommendation. Yeah. Right. There's someone. Who? Okay, so as we get into the 13 talking. Yeah. And we should be happy. It's a young kid. Yeah. It's a young kid. Medium density is going to be, okay, it's going to be one egg. Are we moving on to 13? Yeah. Yeah. He's realizing use of population growth. We don't have any, do we have any SFB burrito? no. So I thought that we've struck us at 15 and 22, but it's still on the table three. They have to be on there because we have areas that are developed as that and they always remain at right. Okay, but it's okay. It is we don't have a townhouse on any more doing. We do. Yes. I know that we have some, but do we have, we have home zoning anymore doing. We do. Yes. I know that we have some, but do we have, we have a zoning classification? We do, and we must fetch for a warehouse. No. We have an area that's zone for that that's not developed, right? We do. Sit up there. Something or something? North of Buffalo Creek somewhere. We do. Like a building. I think it's very bold of the review committee to reorganize this for it's going to be minimum of three arc of lots for rules. See if we can stay out of federal court. It's the interview. Under review. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. y'all still later on just tell me where. Okay, so, you know, I don't think there's anything on this grid. So what's the process for updating the land use map? Yes, so we have to update the base map to reflect all of the new subdivisions. And we will ensure that the land use that is assigned on the map is compatible with that has been flooded since 2018 and then we will have to take a look at the undeveloped land the land is still remains undeveloped and it's the it's the the direction of the steering committee that that area be rural estate with the minimum three-acre size stipulation and provided that we has the legal check then that'll be settled. Yeah, how is the map updated? I'm just curious. Is there a tool you have or a tool that's. Past the map and failing. Yeah, so yeah, so I'm working, I'm working with our GIS team on having that take care of essentially at this point. What we're looking at is the SF-43, you see this is going to be MDR, medium density residential. So when you take a look at the current map, then you see that yellow, that shows SF-22. So those that will become SF-43 and those that are SF-22, will now become the dark real for the HDR, the identity of the potential. So those are the, we're definitely going to see on that map and anything that's been done since the last constantly. We clearly know that our GIS consultant gives us software, and if you like shape files, they're composed of different layers, so they'll just reassign the color for some of these layers to be appropriate for a new classification. So, James, are you wanting to just kind of go through the rest of the document? Yeah, any comments you've got? Just go ahead and try them out. Are we at page 16? I'm looking at this. I mean, the land use map is going to be very curious to see what gets done with it. I mean, because you're always, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean,'s there's going to be a list of. Yeah, I'm showing just you know I in case there's confusion I'm showing that as page 23 okay don't look at this screen you're going to get dizzy residential density, Um, when you were on resident. Okay, go back one page. One page. Recommendations. Yeah. Okay, Dick. Recommendations. Breed. Establish a listing of acceptable required amenities such as. Lake access to parks. So use it. The way. Use the way. So it sounds like there's someone's going to compile a list of amenities. And then we have re re re re re require. Each individual property and have at least three of them? So is that list going to be part of the comprehensive plan? No, it'll be a code amendment. All right, and then require. So our recommendation is that the code require each property to have at least three of those amenities. Okay, and so I'm just thinking, you know, or the, the amenities, you know, we want to make sure that they're good legitimate amenities. Not like, there's a street light within 100 feet of my house. So, you know, that's. So. Yes. There is a list of amenities coming out. In our believe. We have it listed out under the plan to build a conversation. Yeah, you'll see it. And 28th thing. Okay. The other item that I have is on my page 24. It's where there's a. So, we'll it's going to be the next page. Okay. Go down just a little bit more. Okay. I'm in the plan development district regulations to require Plan developments to provide unique features that enhance the neighborhood and the city Beecher should include and not be limited to combination of the following. Yeah, so So, is there some way that we can define some of these subjective items like ample open space? And I know that we talked about that. James had, you know, can we refer back to ample open space, refer back to, you know, where we define it. Landscaped entry features, you know, or landscape buffers. I know we had a conversation with that. My interpretation of a landscape buffer might be different from a developer's. Is there some way that we can define what our idea of a landscape buffer is? That'll be done in the held amendments. Okay. Follows. Yes. I'm having trouble following where you'll learn inside my pocket. I mean, it was just I get a lot. So page here on the clean copy. If you're on the red line, page, talking things, it's page 21. 28, under the line. 28 is 28. Okay. There's that ample open space. Well, and that was once again something I was picking up on. If I go past earlier about brief pages on what I'm looking at, D11 require uniqueness in each layout of development. Where is that? That's what we were just on. Okay, we were just on that? Yeah. Okay, well I didn't realize that. That's okay. With the third item was update the open space standards. Okay, that looks like a defined term. What is open space standards? That's what we just adopted. That's that ordinance. Okay. It's just adopted. So, okay, that's in your code then. Yes. 27. So it might be 20. See it. 27. I'm going to be back to the future land use map. Okay. It says. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. I'm going to have to say that. the future land and development and should be therefore, and should therefore be rigorously preserved and enforced. Do you enforce a map? We do. It's actually a requirement for a zone change that it'd be compatible with each or range of staff. Is it enforced the right word there? Preserved and maybe it is the right word. It's just disturbing a little thought but preserving the forest. Oh, and for sure. Yes, well, the map is inside of a document that's not a regulatory document. Yeah. The regulations of the city require that they conform to the confidence of plans future land use plan. Right. Well, you have to amend the plan before you can amend the zoning. OK. Yeah. We think it needs to What we think of a follow over to or enforce just not like that. But if that's the right words. Yeah. in their soul. I say utilize. I bring the same way to answer and follow. Yes. Why with. But you too. Yeah. It'smed with. Checked. What was it was more issues will change it to conforms. which we would like to to perform together with launch. No issues will change it to conform to the way that they're going to conform. Yeah. I'm going to take out a should therefore. I'm just going to say yeah, it should be rigorously. I can't for you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I like it. The therefore is not the ordinance. Yeah. On my page 30. Under parks and open space value considerations. I guess it's this was probably pulled from the previous comp plan. There was a study that was pulled in that says that properties within 100 feet of public open space have a 23% premium property value. And I know I assume that the goal of this is to show that there is value in having a home or located close to open space. But when I look at this, I'm a numbers guy. I'm kind of a black and white guy. And when I look at it, I say, okay, so if a home is located within a hundred feet of an open space as a 23% premium. So if my home is 200 feet away, it doesn't have that. You know, so if you have a million dollar home, you're saying that it's really worth 1.23 million if it's there, but the home on the next street over is worth a million. I have a hard time believing that there's a 23% difference in the value of a home within a couple hundred feet. I got this curve here which shows the 23% for 100. It's there in the crop box when you get to 1100 feet. It's down to like two and a half percent or so. And I know that this is pulled from active living research. I just have a hard time. I think there's some value in being close to a open space, but I have a hard time believing that there's a 23% premium on that. You know, I've never seen that. If you were to get a. A value study done on a home. I have a hard time believing that there would be a 23% difference in the value. That would be more long on the properties closer to public open space have a higher percentage premium of property Some yeah more to yeah more general. Yeah, I would be so full with Just I mean I think that's important that we we know that open space is important and there your homes know we worth more, but I don't think that I mean, I I have hard time defending trying to defend this. How about properties near public open space have a premium property value? Generally, you have a good name. That's a pretty good name. That's a couple more general. Yeah, because you could still have your graph down there and let people make what they want to of it. Yeah. I can do it. Yeah. Under the state. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You know, this is. This is all just a example to what you're going to recommend to you. It's worst place. If you have a choice of two people houses, you'd be more likely to buy the one. Well, I said, I looked across the street from a park one time. And I don't know that I would want to do that Well, I think that's why I said generally You could argue you could argue there are certain kinds of amenities and public spaces that are attractive. Hey, I like trails. I can walk get outside and walk on the trail on the other hand I think think he keeps it simple. Yeah. How about keep it simple. They're going to know such things here. Or in real estate. Or I can play in the park one of my scouts. I think he just need to catch some just Christ. Yeah, I would go. So being wanted to say. As shown in figure three. Properties in the Republic of space generally have a premium property value period and remove all the rest of it. Yeah, that works. Okay. So here's what I'm deleting. Look at the check the screen and make sure I'm going to delete all that and I'm so the bullet that says properties near public that will no longer be a bullet. It'll just be added to be the end of that sentence. Okay. And then everything below does next two bullets removed. Is that everybody give it that? Yeah, doesn't matter. That's a good statement up to your hand. You're gonna move these? Two pages later. We're talking about trails and sidewalks. We don't want to say that I'm sorry. Yeah, literally a miserable bounding and property is a full battle. I think we're going to call it a mile where we're talking about the 800-foot rule being within. You know, the trail or an open space or a park, I think that probably leads to that. Yeah. Right. It's good to have it there to kind of provide some basis in your open space ordinance. Right. I'm going to just bump it up here in the paragraph. There we go. And then properties that have access to a park or open space within a three mile walk. Three minute walk. Three minute walk. And not for 85% of the federal value added premium. We like to do. Okay, unless somebody tells me not to hit the lead on the lead. This stuff might have to be on the ship. I think I heard she's not here. What is the problem? Joseph's. This lowwood stain. I tease. She's the one. You only need someone to stay during this all. I didn't know this guy. So you want to say, want to? I just want to say. And she just tell us how to do a bit bit. Tell us more on how to do it. I do it. All right. All right, guys, I changed. Okay. What do you think about the way this looks now? Oh. Oh, that was a good one. Sorry. Did I mess you up? No, you didn't. You're good. I was gonna refer to it. Right as the screen changed. Is it a bad person need to be? Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not that said, damn. Okay. Okay. You start. You want to put in public? Or just say near open space. Okay. You're open space. Yeah. You're open space. Okay. Yeah. I killed't know how to do it. It's on my it's on the computer here. I can end it. You're sharing. I'm sharing. Yeah. Are you recording it? Yes. Okay. I do. Okay. So I just stop it and end the recording and the recording. Stop share. Okay. You were looking for a file. I didn't. Danny set it up to record. So I can make it say that chance. Let me see what. Let me just just close the laptop, right? Very good. It's recording. It's recording. So I'll stop the recording. Or in the thing in the sauce. Any kind of instructions on the recording. Perfect. Nice. Yeah, we can't wait one second. And the chief being something from the group. Sorry. They're longer. Yeah. David, can you take over? Sure. I'm a much slower typer. So. All right, David, two pages later under trails and sidewalks. Uh-huh. Yeah, right there. Okay, so. It talks about the value of trip, the trail system. The beginning of that second paragraph, in addition, an alternative form of transportation would benefit a large portion of the population who cannot drive because of age or disability. I didn't understand that. Is it saying that if people are too old or disabled to drive, then they can use the trail system. Yeah, it seems like if they can't drive, then really the trail system wouldn't be. A good option for them either. there was an effort from the previous plan. I mean, do you know what the discussion was? The tech comes back. I'm just enjoying this that somebody chose to add in a question. It says integration of pedestrian bicycle and equestrian access should be presumably going to the following recommendations. So yeah, have you have you you seen that as a major problem? Now I know that I can take my donkey herd out to the triels. Well, yeah, not only is it on the cover, but you'll tell me whether they'd be diverging. Well, that's the justification for 3.0. So. And Tom knows some people who might be very interested in we can put Hitch and Puddle in front of the grocery store. Well, it being some of our land for a quest reading, you know, it's right Tom. Apparently Tom. You don't know about the request campaign? I mean I'm not objecting to it. I just thought it was security now. It just seems strange. In addition, an alternative form of transportation, an alternative form is that like riding your bike along the trail or walking along the trail. I think if you would have added a word in addition trails could provide an alternative form. I think it would help add a little value to that. And also saying the only way. What about jet packs? The only way? Yeah. The sentence is a dismal thing. Which one of you is going to be in addition to what we've said? the north end of the edition. Well, Trayles could provide, could provide, well, in addition, In addition, trailsals could provide. Could provide a long time. In addition, Trials could provide. No, I think the beginning of this is very cumbersome. The only way to reduce dependence on the automobile, it's kind of like, well, why do I want to reduce dependence on an automobile? And that was really the only way I just think rather than saying in addition, we could just say start with the word trails could provide an old, that's fine. Could provide access to trails could provide an alternative form. Probably better wordy. I mean, don't even have to reference the automobile. It sounds like we're Henry Ford years. What about mass transit? Why can't we have mass transit? We're escalators. But I think we're just saying trails could provide. I like that. Okay. Access to. I think think I think it was just or trails could provide an alternative form transportation or maybe not even the word alternative trails could provide a form of transportation that there we go could benefit. Well, it always irritated me that my kids couldn't go to school on bicycle or because there's just no access. I mean, you get to the end of the neighborhood and there's the farm road and there's bar ditches. Either walk in the bar ditch or get around over on the road. And I don't think we have to say because of age or disability. Not only does that not apply to your kids, but it's what's the point? Just say, it's going to provide access a large portion population. A large period. Does that be large? A large portion? Or is it just a portion? Yeah, I don't know if that need that in. Yeah, I'd take out the word large, could benefit the portion of the population. I can guarantee you that this narrative here was written by a consultant that was hired at least 10 years ago, not 15 years ago. I mean, that answered that question. And that's asked. That's an interesting one. Period there. Because here you go. Period there. OK. If someone can't drive because of age or disability, then probably can't ride a bike here. Well, it depends on the bike. Well, then they can go to my sidecar. That'd be a power guy. You could tell we're into the third hour. Yeah. Trails to provide access to a suit and. Oh, there you go. I got kids in my subdivision. I have a polarization. tremendous. Yeah. Yeah. Joe, to your point, under pedestrian, bicycle and a question integration, the next. One way to reduce dependence instead of the only way. Yeah, only is inappropriate. Yeah. Yeah. One way? I like it better. Two and a minute. Okay. Where are we down? I'm gonna say, where are we? Let's see. Underneath pedestrian bicycle and equestrian integration. Just put one way. What's your point again? I'm sorry, I can't point again. Where? I'm sorry. Yeah, one way. One way. Oh, one way. Yeah, I think that's not the only way. Oh, I forgot. Oh, I forgot, I think that's not the correct. That way you don't sound slow. It's hard. That's real. on the open. Okay, that's good. Our That's real good. On the other hand, on the other hand, okay. That's good. And then the question. And then there's ten. The question you just need. Just need a comment. There you go. And the next section is good. Welcoming in safe streets. Down just just to touch more safe streets. It says the transportation plan, didn't we clarify before that it was the third airplane in the conference plan? I think that we've stricken through transportation plan and it's the thorough third plan. I'm going to clean the document to your page. And then the next paragraph after that one you could just read with me here, a welcoming street means a street that is designed to protect, project the image of equality community streets are one of the greatest assets the city has to establish character maintain and or increase property values. A welcome in street also means a safe street. And then I don't understand this. X urban areas have proven less safe to travel within than dense urban areas. I'm not familiar with what an ex-urban area is. What are you reading? Right here. Ex-urban areas have proven less safe to travel within than dense urban areas. I think it's just what I was talking about. We are ex-urban in the sense that we're connected you know, Farm Road, I mean, you know, which is text. And there's no, you know, sidewalks. So you get out there and people run on it and, you know, they bike on it. Okay, I'm familiar with the term ex-urban. I think that's what that means. Is that it? I'm not familiar with of that either. Expert. Why don't you say rural instead? This is likely due to the more open feeling experienced by drivers when they were traveling, when they travel long straight roads with wide lanes that lack friction created by trees and parking cars. I don't understand any of that. So, I don't understand what they're trying to say. It says ex urban areas and area outside of. Typically, denser inner suburban area that the edge of a metropolitan area has some economic and community connection to the metro area, low housing, density, and relatively high population. That needs to say distractions. Yeah, that was your action. Yeah, if it were head straight roads with wide lanes and then lack distractions created by tree's friction are what are you talking about? It's not like you're a science. You're in a science class. Well, and you don't? Yes. And we decided to keep that in. Well, I think. Personally, I think it's awkward and I don't understand what they're trying to say. But in maybe there's other thoughts. I'm looking, I'm sorry,'m looking up here where David in the paragraph before So welcoming, just part of the paragraph before. I'm welcoming just part of the paragraph. You still the transportation plan popped up again in the second sentence highlighted in yellow. Okay. And then there's another one down below as well. Just copy and paste through her. I'm making up which I'll change all those at once. Yeah, just go through and do. Yeah, do a check. I'm. That transaction is. I do a lot of check on our agenda for that transcription. If you look at this, this has been one of my issues with the city and the subdivision ordinances predating the last conference of the plan. If you get into the bullet points that are below, you have under a welcoming streak, the The next paragraph was a men the subdivision ordinance. That's the first point. The second bullet point was new subdivision shall require drive by access to an adjacent local street for each new law. So this was something in particular that I worked into the last comprehensive plan. It's still there. It's just been modified to share residential driveways with cross-access easements or not prohibiting. So somebody who stuck that in there, I don't have a problem with that. But the whole thing about new subdivision shall require driveway access. That means to a local street. That means that someone comes in and wants to do subdivision and they go, well, I've got this 10 acres that's next to the farm road and I want to subdivide it and the tour in the lots is going to have a driveway onto the farm road. See, you could say, no, if you had amended your subdivision ordinance is to say just what that bullet point does and what you want to do is make future development, future subdivision. The say is kind of 10 acres and he wants to build a house there. Well, he doesn't need to subdivide and he just puts his driveway on the farm road. But if he wants to take his 10 acres and make it into 10 lines and put 10 driveways out the farm road. But if he wants to take his 10 acres and make it into 10 lots and put 10 driveways out on the farm road, then you go, no, we don't have to do that. Correct. You have to build a subdivision where there's a cul-de-sac that enters in and you don't have room for 10 lots. Still, if you've only got room for six lots. But each of those lots have a driveway that accesses a local street. I think we've covered that. Yeah, but we've never amended the sub-dissolution. We've had that discussion. You're right. Yeah. So that should be somewhere in our engineering design stand. We run into the spacing of drive voice. That's how it should be now. I don't know if that the actual case but we should have regulation for that and I know a text novel. Text novel would be much deeper. Sure. Well, you're right. We had a prime example. Something like that. Yeah, where it was SF. If you drive down small and you're going past Halford and in the right there's a new house that's plucked right down there and it has a driveway out. So that was a two acre lot and they came to to planning and zoning and wanted to subdivide and And that was a PMZ that goes back 10, 12 years ago or something like that. But they allowed it saying that we couldn't we couldn't impede their ability to subdivide and I brought up this is well where are they going to put the driveway? I think that's what we're talking about. The driveway is not going to exit on to a well-dressed hill. See, that's a defined issue that has to be spelled out. Yeah, I don't disagree. I don't disagree. And then one thing will begin. One thing we do have in our regulation is that it has to be you have to access to a public stream. So what local means something different to me than from why not? I think I understand what you're saying. Jane on that. But if you look at what that bill at .2 says is that the prior conference of plan the one from 2018 stated that to subdivide you need access to an adjacent local street. Yeah right. The local streets are defined in the thoroughfare plan. They're not theaters right there not you know the thoroughfares right exactly no no I I see you point I see you point. I see you point. That's where you mean when people come in with their application to 75 on an existing zone piece of property, you turn around and send them back out if they they don't have access to a to a look. Yeah, that we yeah, if they don't have access to public stream, local they can't they can't develop. I have access to or create. I don't have to create it. Sometimes you see that in the form of a flag lot. Sometimes you'll see that that way. They have a problem following. They don't have access. So they'll have to purchase that 50-foot minimum or whatever the zone may be on an 80 feet flag to have access to their five to eight years later. That may be two eight years. That's one thing we're assured that they have. But it wasn't good, they cannot fly. David, farther down on those bullet points, There's a bullet point without, with just a period on it. I'm sure that would be caught later, but probably the next page. Okay. Okay, in fact, that's all I have to rest about. So, I'm sorry, I don't want to go back, Janie, you think we need to make change to the local streets that that's calling out? I think that if in your subdivision ordinance, you can just state, among other things, that subdivisions require driveway access for each proposed lot to a local street. I mean, it's a simple statement, right? I mean, yes, yes. And it won't get a matter of zoning required. Because the subdivision should be a privilege that meets all of our requirements. But as it stands now, someone comes in that got a multi acre lot. It's owned for additional lots, but they never subdivided. It faces the farm road. And we don't have, all we can tell them is you need to go to tech.ask for permission to access the farm room. But we can't turn around and say, no, you can't do that because you're going to need to provide a local street for each one of those proposed seven vital lots. I'm super sure it's yes. So that's where that's that's a private street. Is she versus a public street? That's where you make that a public street. That's where we have that. The dedication. You have to dedicate. They got they have to dedicate some way and improve a street. Right. That's exactly that way you do access to a public street. That way you don't have all these drivers that don't come in asking the subdivide unless you've got enough room to $10 to do the whole thing. Exactly. That's compensation we've been happy with someone. I'm following your logic with your saying there. If you have a 20-acre or 15-28- want something about them to take it. 10 or 10 or 10 lots. Right. And they can't meet that distance requirement. We would have them cold to sack it more than like there's somehow laid out where you have the double, double frontage or two ways in or out and or cold to sack it toac it to where you can mention that you do that a dedication of right away and you have each lot face that right away. That would make it a subdivision. And that would be good to put your skills in and so forth on that. Definitely. Absolutely. And by the way, isn't the first go seven vision. Yeah, we do. Yeah, it's always go there for permission. And I'll have your. Here, thank you. Well, yeah, well, that's, that's what I, that's what I would are to bring in a right now. But right now you don't have the ordinance to enforce that. We should have it in the ordinance to if they are coming in to somebody by this. You've got this. You've got the conference plan. That's a guide, but the the regulation would be based on our zoning that would have to meet that requirement that we're that about. And then the Southern vision regulation was going to go to Southern via the property out into those lawsuits would become developable. Otherwise, you don't have a developer for Southern vision. So they had to get the permit from text off. They had that access. That's're talking about. Yeah. And then they would have to dedicate us a street ride away to make that public street. And what's different conversation, it's gonna be private street, and that's the difference. No. I don't think we want any more private streets. Well, except. All right, we're running out of comments. Oh, I started going along enough. We took out a whole bunch of stuff. You did? I may have an action on it. I hope I didn't. You said don't be stuck in pictures, love. I haven't, I haven't saved yet. It all says. We're going to get out of here before six. That's fantastic. I'm doing it now. Joe's been off a quiet down there. You may be coming up with something. I don't know. I think I'm. I didn't have anything else. Well our next step is we're going to create that matrix now that you guys have given us all your input onto these recommendations. We'll create the matrix and David's working with GIS to do the mapping. And we will get the demographics plugged in and we'll have a complete draft to get back to you. I mean, we would love to have that for your April meeting. It's a heavy lift to get that get it that fast. So we're working diligently to do it. But that's our goal is to have it for April. Keep it in your keep it as a back of your mind, possibility that it could be to make your main. I mean fantastic. We'd like to get the silver council to approve the next one, right? We would love to. Yeah. But they they they who were sitting. The council members who were sitting on the committee told us we want this done right. That was their primary direction. Tommy or their touch. Yeah. So I think that time frame sounds appropriate and reasonable to me. Is there any. external factor or any other factors we should be aware of relative to the timing. Just our GIS consultant and their ability to push the mapping out. So no, no, no. And get enough eyes on it to James point on the future land use map to ensure that we're well handled on that. So no, I don't know. I know probably the most extreme case would be a legal action that we would anticipate that we would want to have this updated. We are anticipating any legal action at this time where we settled in our deck. That's it. Yeah, we settled down with the Trilogy cases and there have been no indication of any others coming our way. Thankfully, so we're we're optimistic that we're going to get we're on from fitting right now. So we look at this as a public hearing involved. They're well being. So I'll say this again in our public meeting or in our next public meeting, I guess this is a public meeting, but I just want to say thank you for all the city staff because I know when we were talking about how to go about updating this year and a half ago, you know, we talked about the cost of a consultant and, you know, thanks to the diligence of the city staff, probably saved us, I'll just say $20, $50,000 or 90. Yeah. So thank you for the extra project. That's welcome. Oh, I would like to ask you guys. So if it would, if we would be amenable, if we needed to have another called meeting in order to get in approval from your commission before the may excuse me before the last April council meeting. If we end up getting constrained on time. So we would be looking at maybe the third week in April to try to meet with you. As you said, first week in April was when we were going to talk about doing a public hearing on it. That's our goal is to have it to you for the April first, your April first meeting. But if we simply cannot accomplish that, it's we're going to work diligently to do it. But if we're not doing it. So you're not going to post this public hearing like how far an advance. We've got to post it at least 15 days. 15 days in advance. Yeah. So that means that by the end of this week, you're going to need to notify for April 1. We would, yes, but we can also go ahead and do that and if we're not ready, we can address that. We continue to meet, I continue to hear into April 8th. And we can re-notify for another day too. So what's the date you were thinking of? So, let's see. Let me think about this. It would need to be the following week. So the second week in April because we would need time to. We would need to have a them to act on it and then host it for the area. Right. We couldn't make it. We couldn't make it. Council's meeting on the page. Yeah, and the you want to do any kind of like joint session or anything. Do you? I don't know. Let us put our thinking caps on and can normal pull you if we if we need to try to have an intern meeting between your first and your May. We'll do our due six. I know that ideally the first notion was to try to have this to the council and have them act on it before we before election Saturday so that it's it's just handled right. But then when we had our last committee meeting in Tom and David were there for that were you or were you sick? You were on my... Scott and Brett both said, we want this done, yes, but of most importance is for it to be done well and to be complete and done right. And so we took the takeaway from takeaway from that is yes push like you can for an end of April approval but there is a consideration made there that we there could be more time and evolved and they recognize that. Okay, sounds fun. Yeah. I think the meeting would be going longer. Yeah. I think the meeting will be going along. Yeah. Okay. We'll cooperate with your scheduling requirements. to expedite this because we'd love to see the new camp plan and go through the approval process the council by the April 1st and May. Okay. The election is so early in May that it would be, yeah, it will have to be by the end of April to make it. Yeah, under that. All right. Well, at 6.40 p.m. will adjourn. One's good. 540. 540. So how did we start? 6.40 p.m. where the journey was good. Hi, Frank. 5.40. 5.40. 5.40. I'm glad I had me stop this. OK. You're still rolling on. We're going to stop it. Hold on, we're going to stop it again. I did the boy. Did you? I stopped it, man. Yeah, we can say what we're doing. You're saying it like that. You really look like that. Guys are quite... Yes, Tom, you too. I'll get out. I need to get out of here. I need to get out of here. Thanks, Jim. You're welcome. Thank you. You think You think that's helpful? It's good stuff, right? Oh, I'm going to serve. I'll email it to you next cell and then you can tell me I'm going to call the next. And maybe we'll wait for you for the next week. I'll leave it. This is the fruit guys. Thank you. People know that. I'm going to be there. Thank you. Thank you. How are we going to have to make? Carol, are you going to have to make a rescue? Yes. You're going to have to make a rescue? Yes. I'm going to be there. Thank you. How good afternoon. Can I have a rescue it? Yes. You do. You do. What's that? How do you plan to take the rescue? What's the question? Which part of Europe is that from? I can't's a, but I can't speak any cold. My parents are more interested in the problem. Like Rand, my, I never knew a grandfather. One grandfather's size before. But what's it? Rand, the mother. That's right. The mayor's name. Where they buried during the World War II. Well, no, they they have agreed to hear. That's something. Yeah, that's something. Yeah. So before my dad. I have to lie. He's 90. Yes. I'm gonna let you get around, it's gonna be too. I, he's 90 years old. I love you too. Yes. So, um, I'm going to let you get around, but it's a good experience. It dreams like hell. Please don't say that. I get a job at war, I'm on a business, but I got a job. I need help here for a long time, perhaps. But, um, he was a little, and, uh, he was a little, and we need to be in the next four years. And we need to be the youngest boy. So my dad turned 100 and I'm going to go college. And I remember he was at the age of even and for a story. But see the mark. I mean, that's true. You see so much. I think if there are many people at once, they're just a couple of people. You have to be signified. But my dad, he was like a kid for us. So, he joined in every part of the decision. So, he did not see. Oh, did the bulldozer. I don't know. I don't think it's fair. Well, I don't know what I'm going to say. I don't find any concern. Well, I don't need to. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. I'm going to go to the bathroom. Thank you.