[00:00:06]
LIKE TO CALL THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO ORDER ON THIS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2026 AT 6 P.M. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF RICHARDSON RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE ARE SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS AND TWO ALTERNATES ON THE COMMISSION. ONLY SEVEN MEMBERS WILL VOTE ON AN ISSUE, ALTHOUGH ALL MEMBERS WILL PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATIONS. IN THE CASE OF THE ABSENCE OF A REGULAR MEMBER, A DESIGNATED ALTERNATE WILL VOTE ON THE ISSUE. THIS MEETING IS A BUSINESS MEETING AND WILL BE CONDUCTED AS SUCH IN THAT REGARD, AS A COURTESY TO THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, WE REQUEST THAT ALL DEVICES EMIT SOUND, BE TURNED OFF OR ADJUSTED SO AS NOT TO INTERRUPT THIS MEETING. OUR PROCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED, SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD WHEN ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ACTUALLY ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. SO EACH PUBLIC HEARING IS PRECEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION, AND THEY MAY RESERVE ANY PORTION OF THIS TIME FOR A FINAL REBUTTAL. TIME SPENT IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMISSION DOES NOT COUNT AGAINST THE APPLICANT. ALL. ALL SPEAKERS ARE REQUESTED TO COMPLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD AND SUBMIT IT TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES EACH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. WHEN THE TIMER BEEPS, THE SPEAKER SHOULD CONCLUDE THEIR COMMENTS PROMPTLY AND SPEAKERS MUST NOT PHYSICALLY APPROACH MEMBERS OF THE CPC OR STAFF, AND SHALL REMAIN AT THE LECTERN DURING THEIR COMMENTS. SPEAKERS WITH HANDOUTS MUST PROVIDE THEM TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY FOR DISTRIBUTION. IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES, PRESENT YOUR OBJECTIONS. COMMISSION'S INTERESTED IN GATHERING NEW AND RELEVANT INFORMATION. WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN REPETITION. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. AFTER A BRIEF REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT, THE HEARING WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED. SO THOSE ARE OUR RULES AND WE WILL START WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ANY ITEMS. THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN ATTENDANCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER ONE.
[1. Approval of the minutes of the regular business meeting of August 6, 2026. ]
AND THIS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING OF AUGUST 6TH, 2026.ANY COMMENTS? CORRECTIONS. SEEING NONE, I'D MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 6TH, 2026 AS PRESENTED. I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER QUIRK. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM NUMBER TWO. THIS IS
[2. Zoning File 26-16 – Golf Ranch: Consider and act on a request to amend a Special Permit for an existing golf driving range, golf-related activities, and outdoor storage on an approximately 31-acre lot, located at 3570 Waterview Parkway and currently zoned LR-M(1) Local Retail District with Special Conditions, in order to accommodate related use and site modifications. Owner: The University of Texas at Dallas. Staff: Derica Peters.]
ZONING FILE 26-16 FOR THE GOLF RANCH. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TILL AUGUST. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8TH, 2026 AT 6 P.M.THEREFORE, WE WILL NOT BE MAKING A STAFF PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT. BUT. AND SINCE THIS HAS BEEN POSTED AS A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ACCEPT ANY TESTIMONY TONIGHT FOR ANY OF THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE. DID I MISS ANYTHING? MISS PETERS GOT IT.
YOU'LL RECEIVE A A PRESENTATION AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE HERE AS WELL ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8TH. IF YOU CHOOSE TO CONTINUE TO THAT DATE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THEREFORE, I'D OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONING FILE 26-16. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OPPOSITION TO THAT, TO THIS ITEM? OKAY. SEEING NONE, THEN I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TILL THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8TH, 2026 AT 6 P.M. SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BEACH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. YEAH. AND THAT PASSES
[3. Zoning File 26-18 – PD Planned Development - Collins/Arapaho TOD & Innovation District Form Base Code Amendment: Consider and act on a City-initiated request for an amendment to the PD Planned Development – Collins/Arapaho TOD & Innovation District Form Based Code regarding amending Section III. Signage, Subsection E. Permitted Signs related to “Flag, Corporate and Logo” signage, and amending Section V. Definitions related to adding terms for flag, corporate flag, and flagpole, and amending and restating in its entirety the zoning and development regulations for approximately 1,146 acres generally bounded by Campbell Road, Plano Road, Apollo Road, Central Expressway, and Greenville Avenue. Staff: Derica Peters. ]
UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. THIS ZONING FILE. 26-18 PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT. COLLINS, ARAPAHOE, TODD AND INNOVATION DISTRICT. FORM BASED CODE AMENDMENT. AND MISS PETERS, PLEASE TAKE US THROUGH THAT. THANK YOU. CHAIR. THIS IS A CITY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR THE COLLINS ARAPAHOE TODD INNOVATION DISTRICT. FORM BASED CODE RELATED TO FLAGS AND FLAG SIGNAGE AND ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS AS PART OF THIS ZONING CASE. IF APPROVED, THE. THE ENTIRE CODE WILL BE AMENDED AND RESTATED IN ITS ENTIRETY, RESULTING IN ONE CODE FOR EASIER ADMINISTRATION AND USE FOR THE PUBLIC. SO YOU MAY RECALL EARLIER THIS YEAR THERE WAS ANOTHER CASE RELATED TO FLAGS AND SIGNAGE. EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE CITY COUNCIL VOTED IN APRIL TO AMEND THE CITYWIDE[00:05:08]
CODE OF ORDINANCES AS IT RELATES TO FLAGS, AND THAT IS PART OF THE CITY'S SIGN REGULATIONS. APRIL 2026. AS I MENTIONED, COUNCIL APPROVED AMENDMENTS RELATED TO FLAGS, FLAGPOLES. THEY ARE LISTED HERE, SUMMARIZED HERE, AND I WILL GET INTO THE DETAILS OF THOSE AMENDMENTS HERE IN THE PRESENTATION. THEN MORE RECENTLY, IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THE SAME AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE MAIN STREET CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY FORM BASED CODE, BECAUSE SOME OF OUR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS HAVE THEIR OWN SET OF SIGNAGE REGULATIONS, THESE PD'S NEED TO INDIVIDUALLY BE AMENDED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, AS IT READS NOW AND NOW, TODAY, FOR THE COLLINS ARAPAHOE FORM BASED CODE, WE ARE REQUESTING THE SAME AMENDMENTS BE MADE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.THIS IS THE BOUNDARIES OF THAT DISTRICT. IT IS BOUNDED BY CAMPBELL ROAD TO THE NORTH, PLANO ROAD TO THE EAST, APOLLO ROAD TO THE SOUTH, AND PRIMARILY BOUNDED BY GREENVILLE AVENUE TO THE WEST. THESE NEXT FEW SLIDES SHOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES. THE FIRST. THE MIDDLE COLUMN IS THE CURRENT REGULATION. IF THERE IS A REGULATION AND THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, STARTING WITH THE FIRST ROW, THERE IS NO CHANGE.
ALL TYPES OF LAND USES ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A FLAGPOLE ON SITE, WHETHER THAT'S SINGLE FAMILY OR NONRESIDENTIAL OR ANYTHING IN BETWEEN. GOING FORWARD, FLAGPOLE HEIGHT WILL BE LIMITED FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOME PROPERTIES. THEY WILL BE LIMITED TO 25 HEIGHT, 25FT HIGH, AND FOR ALL OTHER PROPERTIES, THEY'RE LIMITED TO 40FT HIGH. FLAG SIZES WILL BE LIMITED GOING FORWARD. CURRENTLY, THEY ARE ONLY LIMITED IF THEY ARE CORPORATE FLAGS, BUT ALL FLAGS WILL BE LIMITED TO A SIZE OF 25FT■S FOR SINGLE FAMILY OR TOWNHOME PROPERTIES, OR 40FT■S ON ALL OTHER PROPERTIES. FLAG QUANTITY AND FLAGPOLE QUANTITY WILL BE REGULATED GOING FORWARD. TODAY, THEY ARE ONLY REGULATED AS IF THEY ARE A CORPORATE FLAG. ALL FLAGS WILL BE REGULATED AND THAT IS DEPENDENT ON THE. DEPENDING ON WHAT TYPE OF PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY MAY FALL INTO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TWO CATEGORIES FOR PROPERTY OVER TEN ACRES WITH TWO OR MORE STREET FRONTAGES AND IS NONRESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE.
THOSE PROPERTIES CAN HAVE A MAXIMUM OF SIX FLAGPOLES AND SIX FLAGS. ALL OTHER LOTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE FLAGPOLES AND THREE FLAGS PER LOT. AND THEN OF THOSE FLAGPOLES, THIS NEXT ROW DESCRIBES WHAT CORPORATE FLAGS ARE ALLOWED. SO FOR THE CATEGORY OF LARGER PROPERTIES THAT'S FIRST LISTED HERE. SO THOSE TYPES OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE OVER TEN ACRES OR TWO OR MORE STREET FRONTAGES AND ARE NONRESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE OF THE FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO. FLAGPOLES MAY BE FLYING CORPORATE FLAGS. ALL OTHER LOTS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE CORPORATE FLAG FLYING. LOCATION WILL BE REGULATED GOING FORWARD, SO EACH FLAGPOLE SHALL BE SET BACK A MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINES THAT IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE FLAGPOLE. FLAGPOLES CANNOT BE SITED IN AN EASEMENT, AND SITE PLAN IS APPROVAL FOR FLAGPOLE APPROVAL. AND THEN FINALLY, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR FLAGPOLES GREATER THAN 25FT IN HEIGHT. GOING FORWARD, THESE THREE DEFINITIONS ARE ALSO GOING TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS CODE, AS WE DID NOT ADDRESS FLAGS OR WE DID NOT DEFINE FLAGS PREVIOUSLY. SO FLAGS, FLAG, CORPORATE AND FLAGPOLE WILL BE DEFINED IN THE CODE. NOW THIS WAS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISTRICT WERE NOTIFIED OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN 200FT OF THE DISTRICT. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE IN RESPONSE TO THAT NOTIFICATION. AND SHOULD THE CPC CONCUR WITH THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS, THE MOTION SHOULD INCLUDE SHOULD BE MADE AS FOLLOWS. YOU SHOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THIS IS A HOUSEKEEPING MATTER TO BRING THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OTHER DISTRICTS. RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND IS THIS THE LAST DISTRICT WHERE THIS IS NEEDED? THIS ACTION IS NEEDED OR NOT NECESSARY? OTHERS. WE BELIEVE THE WEST SPRING VALLEY CODE WILL ALSO NEED TO COME FORWARD BECAUSE IT HAS ITS OWN SIGNAGE REGULATIONS AS WELL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BUT WE OBVIOUSLY HEARD THIS BEFORE.
YES. AND THIS IS IDENTICAL TO THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SEEN FOR THE MAIN STREET EXPRESS CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY DISTRICT. YES. CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT.
SO BUT OBVIOUSLY DIFFERENT DISTRICT. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE SEE IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNS. COMMISSIONER BEACH I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT IS DRIVING THIS. I MEAN, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE FLAGS THAT EXIST IN RICHARDSON. HAS THERE BEEN SOME ISSUE OR WHY WHY ARE WE NEEDING TO INCORPORATE THIS INTO, YOU KNOW, CODE OR
[00:10:05]
ORDINANCE OR ZONING OR WHATEVER? DO YOU WANT ME TO? OKAY, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO WE WERE INITIALLY TASKED WITH UPDATING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, BECAUSE THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGULATES ALL OF OUR SIGNAGE, WE REALIZED WE DID NOT HAVE CLEAR REGULATIONS WHEN IT CAME TO MAXIMUM FLAGPOLE HEIGHTS FOR FLAGS. AND SO WE WERE TASKED BY CITY COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO TAKE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND SO HENCE WHY WE DID THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATED TO THAT. AS DEREK POINTED OUT IN HER RESPONSE TO CHAIR MARSH, IS THAT THERE ARE SOME OTHER PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ZONING AREAS THAT WE HAVE THAT HAVE THEIR OWN REGULATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO SIGNAGE. AND SO SO THAT WE CAN HAVE CONSISTENCY IN OUR APPLICATION OF OUR OF OUR FLAG REQUIREMENTS, HENCE WHY WE'RE MAKING THESE AMENDMENTS. AND WE'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON THOSE AREAS WHERE WE MAY HAVE A LITTLE BIT GREATER EXPOSURE TO. IF SOMEONE WAS WANTING TO TRY TO POTENTIALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INSTALLING TALLER FLAGPOLE HEIGHTS COMPARED TO WHAT WE MIGHT HAVE ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE CITY. SO WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE CONSISTENCY IN OUR APPLICATION OF OUR REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, SOME OF OUR ORDINANCES WERE SILENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT A PERMIT WOULD BE REQUIRED. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE PRIMARY REASONS BEHIND THIS IS JUST THAT CONSISTENCY AND APPLICATION OF OUR SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS AS IT PERTAINS TO OUR FLAG AND FLAGPOLE HEIGHTS. FLAGS ARE CONSIDERED SIGNAGE.SO HENCE HENCE WHY WE'RE DOING THIS WORK. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, DO WE HAVE ANY PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE IN VIOLATION OF OF WHAT THIS WOULD BE? SO IN THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT, NOT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, YOU KNOW, MAIN STREET, CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR, WE DO HAVE THE TWO TALL FLAGPOLES THAT ARE AT THE CLAY COULEE SITE. SO THOSE POLES DO EXCEED THE HEIGHT ALLOWANCES THAT ARE NOW PROVIDED FOR IN THAT ZONING CODE. BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER FLAGPOLES THAT MIGHT NOT BE CONFORMING. AGAIN, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY PERMIT RECORDS ON, IT MAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO DO THE ANALYSIS. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONE SITE THAT COMES TO MIND THAT, YOU KNOW, FLAGS WOULD NOT BE THE FLAGPOLES THEMSELVES WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT THAT HEIGHT, NOR THE FLAG SILKS PROBABLY AT THAT AREA. SO WOULD THE SITE BE GRANDFATHERED IN TO KEEP THE HEIGHT THAT THEY HAVE OR. YEAH. SO ANYTIME WE CHANGE ZONING RULES, THEN THE NON-CONFORMING REGULATIONS, WE WOULD EVALUATE THAT TO SEE WHAT PROTECTIONS THAT THEY HAVE THERE. SO RIGHT NOW, THEIR CURRENT FLAGPOLES, AS LONG AS THEY ARE REMAINING STANDING, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE IN EXISTENCE. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME, COMMISSIONER PURDY. YES. THE QUESTION I WROTE DOWN HERE WAS AROUND THIS DISTRICT BEING, YOU KNOW, A SWEET SPOT FOR BRANDING AND PLACE MAKING WITH THESE RULES. ARE WE GOING TO MUTE ANY OF THAT FROM OUR CORPORATE PARTNERS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT, WHERE THEY WANT TO BE VERY PROMINENT AND KIND OF EASY TO SEE FROM THE STREETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK FROM WHAT WE HAVE INCORPORATED INTO ALLOWING CORPORATE FLAGS AND EMBLEMS AND LOGOS, THAT THEY STILL HAVE THE ABILITY AND TO HAVE FLAG OUT THERE PROPORTIONAL TO HOW BIG THEIR SITE IS, BUT THEY ARE STILL ALLOWED TO HAVE A FLAG OUT THERE WITH, WITH OR WITHOUT ANOTHER FLAG. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY IN THIS CASE. SO AS THE APPLICANT CITY HAVE ANY OTHER REMARKS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? I DON'T. THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN EITHER FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST? SEEING NONE, I'D MOVE THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER PURDY.
SECONDED. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. I THINK THIS IS FAIRLY CLEAR CUT THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BRING THIS DISTRICT IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE CITY AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONING FILE 26-18 AS PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER. CLERK, I'LL SECOND, I HAVE A SECOND DISCUSSION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. SO THAT MOVES US TO ITEM NUMBER
[4. Staff report on pending development, zoning permits, and planning matters. ]
FOUR ON THE AGENDA. THE STAFF REPORT ON PENDING DEVELOPMENT, ZONING PERMITS AND PLANNING[00:15:01]
MATTERS. THANK YOU CHAIR. SO IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE YOU GUYS HAVE MET. AND SO GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT PAST AGENDAS, WE HAVE HAD ONE ZONING CASE THAT WAS ACTED ON BY CITY COUNCIL SINCE THE LAST TIME YOU ALL MET BACK IN AUGUST. AND SO THAT IS, IF YOU RECALL A ZONING CASE THAT WE HAD AT 200 SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE. IT WAS ON THE WEST SIDE OF COTTONWOOD, JUST SOUTH OF WEST BELTLINE. THAT PROPERTY WAS APPROVED WITH ITS REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE IT FROM THE OFFICE DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THAT ALLOWED FOR A HANDFUL OF ADDITIONAL USES. THE RETAIL SERVICES COME TO MIND AND BAKERY, AND THERE WAS A BARBER SHOP I THINK WAS THE OTHER ONE. SO BUT THAT WAS APPROVED. OTHERWISE, IT'S BEEN A LITTLE QUIET ON THE ZONING FRONT. WE DO HAVE SEVERAL APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND ARE WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH OUR REVIEW PROCESS. SO WE HAVE SEVERAL CASES THAT ARE WORKING TOWARDS TRYING TO MAKE YOUR OCTOBER 8TH MEETING. SO WE WILL HAVE THAT MEETING, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THE CASE THAT WE HAD CONTINUED EARLIER ON YOUR AGENDA, AND THEN WE'LL WE MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL CASES FROM FROM THAT STANDPOINT, I BELIEVE YOU ALL DO RECEIVE THE DEVELOPMENT STATUS REPORT THAT HAS THAT INFORMATION FOR THOSE CASES, IF YOU'RE INTERESTED. SO OTHERWISE, THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO IT ONE MORE TIME. NATIONAL NIGHT OUT IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6TH, WHICH WOULD BE OUR NORMAL MEETING NIGHT FIRST TUESDAY OF THE MONTH. SO IT'S WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT TO OCTOBER 8TH AT 6 P.M. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED A* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.