[0:04] Good evening.

[0:05] Welcome to the Nolensville,

[0:08] Tennessee Planning Commission meeting of August 11th, 2026.

[0:15] I'm calling the meeting to order, and we do have a quorum,

[0:22] so please rise and join me in saying the pledge.

[0:27] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of

[0:33] America, Okay, we have the next item on the agenda is the

[0:39] approval of the July 14th, 2026 minutes. Is there a motion?

[0:46] Motion to approve.

[0:48] Second.

[0:49] Okay, there it is. Okay, any discussion?

[0:52] Hearing none, all those in favor please signify by saying aye.

[0:57] Aye.

[0:58] Opposed? Passed unanimously. Announcements, staff?

[1:01] Uh, one thing I did want to mention was I sent out an email, I don't know,

[1:07] a couple weeks ago regarding a training session that was videotaped regarding I

[1:13] don't know if it's section or whatever that the new state law 1044 was as it

[1:18] that the new state law 1044 was as it relates

[1:19] to various procedural requirements for planning departments and submittal

[1:25] requirements. I do think that it would be beneficial.

[1:29] We have been trying to send out any and all training opportunities that we find.

[1:35] Just reminder is that if you weren't able to attend Uh, there is a,

[1:40] a videotaped recording of that, of that session.

[1:43] And, uh, to make sure you're logging any and all training hours you have,

[1:49] there is a requirement for 4 training hours through the calendar year.

[1:54] So as we get closer to that November, October fall, uh, I'm gonna—

[1:59] we're gonna really need to start getting those certification memos,

[2:05] and I'm happy to send those out. Whenever you're ready.

[2:09] I just need them when you've completed all 4 hours of training.

[2:14] Did you mention how they can access that online version?

[2:18] I believe it was on the online— I believe it was the link I sent.

[2:21] I believe there's the, the thing there.

[2:23] And if not, do me a favor, would you send it again please for everyone,

[2:26] just in case people get busy?

[2:28] Sure, be happy to.

[2:29] Thank you very much.

[2:30] I will say, having participated in that, and I know some of you did as well,

[2:35] Even though it's directed primarily at people who work full-time in planning,

[2:40] there's a new bit of legislation that will affect the way a lot of things are done.

[2:46] So it is really valuable for planning commissioners to have the opportunity to

[2:51] commissioners to have the opportunity to grasp

[2:51] some of that because it does matter.

[2:56] Okay.

[2:57] Citizen comments. So far no one has signed up.

[2:59] Is there anyone here who would like to speak?

[3:02] Yes.

[3:04] Okay, I'll close citizen comments.

[3:06] Consent agenda— I don't believe we have anything on the consent

[3:11] agenda. Surety actions, staff.

[3:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[3:15] This is a request for a surety for 7209 Nolensville Road requesting transition

[3:20] Nolensville Road requesting transition from

[3:20] performance to maintenance.

[3:22] They are requesting, following the most recent extension request,

[3:27] allowing additional time to complete Um, at the time,

[3:30] all the required improvements are completed and the applicant has provided

[3:35] completed and the applicant has provided the

[3:35] required supporting documentation and paid the fee,

[3:39] and the surety amount will remain the same, and staff recommends approval.

[3:44] Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

[3:50] Motion to approve.

[3:53] Is there a second?

[3:55] I second.

[3:56] Discussion? Is there anyone here from the vape shop?

[4:01] Yes, sir.

[4:02] Okay, why don't you come forward and maybe you'll— if you can,

[4:06] if you have something you'd like to tell us, that's great.

[4:10] If you just want to be prepared to answer questions, that's fine as well.

[4:14] Okay, Mike, any discussion?

[4:15] Just a comment for staff.

[4:17] The timeline that— I don't know which one of you all JoJo, that was excellent and,

[4:24] and really helpful. So appreciate those kinds of things. Thank you.

[4:29] Any additional discussion?

[4:32] Hearing none, all those in favor please

[4:37] signify by saying aye.

[4:39] Aye.

[4:40] Opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

[4:44] Okay, surety report.

[4:46] Anybody have anything they'd like to say about that?

[4:52] This is not a voting item. Okay, unfinished business?

[4:57] None.

[4:58] New business? Ordinance 26-16,

[5:01] an ordinance amending the zoning map of Nolensville,

[5:05] Tennessee to rezone property referenced as 0 Rocky Fork Road,

[5:11] also referenced as Motion to change the zoning of the property at the address on

[5:17] map 056, parcel 11701,

[5:19] in the Williamson County tax maps from rural large character district CD-2L to

[5:26] neighborhood center character district CD-4. Greenbrook East rezoned. Staff?

[5:32] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair.

[5:34] I wanted to point out that we have an error in the staff report regarding the

[5:41] acreage that was reported. We accidentally said it was 9.22 acres.

[5:46] It's actually 19.22 acres.

[5:49] So we will get that amended for the records and update the staff report.

[5:55] Just wanted to point that out to you guys first.

[5:59] But yes, this is the rezoning request of Map 56, Parcel 11701.

[6:04] They are requesting CD-4. They are currently CD-2L.

[6:08] This parcel is located at the triangle of Newsome Lane and Nolensville Park Road and

[6:15] Rocky Fork Road. Staff is recommending an approval to the Board of Commissioners.

[6:22] Would you discuss a little bit what they want, what their concept plan suggests?

[6:25] Sure.

[6:26] Yeah, they, they have submitted a concept plan which is non-binding as part of our

[6:31] checklist. Um, so it's, it's there.

[6:34] How many units? What type of units?

[6:35] 21 townhomes.

[6:37] Thank you. OK. Is there anyone here from— please identify yourself, sir.

[6:43] Eric Olson, Anderson DelGaps.

[6:45] Yeah, the purpose of this rezoning is kind of continuation of the Green Book North,

[6:49] kind of there to the west. It'll be the similar type townhomes.

[6:52] I know also one other point is, you know, we're showing a right-of-way dedication,

[6:56] and that is to dedicate the right-of-way that, you know,

[6:59] the town has provided us with a plan that they're doing the improvements on that

[7:03] intersection. I've got copies if anybody would like to see those.

[7:06] And we're also working with Metro Sewer as far as providing some easement for them

[7:10] to upgrade that sewer trunk as well.

[7:12] So if there's any questions, I'd be glad to answer.

[7:15] Thank you. Would you repeat your name again?

[7:16] Eric Olson.

[7:18] Eric Olson?

[7:19] Yes, sir.

[7:19] Thank you. Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

[7:22] For discussion, I'll move approval with staff recommendations.

[7:31] And I'll second. Discussion?

[7:32] Do we know how much space is actually usable for this?

[7:37] Of the 19.22 acres, how much space you can actually—

[7:43] Yeah, we got the flood line there and it kind of hugs those units,

[7:46] so there'll be some cut and fill on that,

[7:48] but a good portion of it is in the floodplain.

[7:50] And I know there have been some discussions with the town as far as

[7:53] discussions with the town as far as dedicating as a

[7:54] park area because I know he's done that To the south of Greenbrook South and also

[7:58] Greenbrook North.

[7:59] So...

[7:59] We don't have an acreage estimate of those?

[8:04] I don't have an acreage on here, no, I don't.

[8:05] The townhomes themselves,

[8:09] are they located within the flood

[8:14] zone?

[8:14] Some of them are sitting right on it,

[8:16] but they'll all have to be filled above the floodplain to meet floodplain

[8:18] requirements. So— and then we'll have to offset any fill with some cut.

[8:24] So what does that do to the floodplain on units?

[8:27] You've got 19, 20, and 21 sitting in the 100-year plan,

[8:31] which basically means 1% chance annually.

[8:34] And it has— we have certainly had several 100-year floods in the last few years.

[8:39] I assume what you're saying— let me make sure I understand.

[8:43] You're saying you basically build up where those are going to be?

[8:48] Yes.

[8:48] What does that do to push the water? Where does the water then go?

[8:52] Since that's what we're saying, like we fill up right here, we'll cut right here.

[8:56] So you're provided storage volume. Okay.

[8:57] So normally when we do that, we'll offset,

[8:59] provide a little extra just to be as a factor of safety.

[9:01] So we'll raise those units above the flood elevation,

[9:04] which I think we've got some flood sections on there with the elevation.

[9:07] So it'll be kind of a cut-fill balance to make sure we're not reducing that volume

[9:10] of stormwater that can be stored there.

[9:12] So, okay. Thank you.

[9:14] I know you're not bound by the concept plan,

[9:18] but you have 20 acres roughly.

[9:21] What's your thinking? If—

[9:23] is it— What was that?

[9:25] What's your thinking about—

[9:26] are you thinking along the lines of this is really what you want to do?

[9:30] You're not bound by it. I'm just asking.

[9:32] Yeah, this is what he had planned because, you know,

[9:34] he has the similar townhomes to the west there at Greenbrook North.

[9:37] Okay.

[9:37] So that's kind of what he wants to do is kind of continue that out,

[9:40] kind of make it a nice little road front. So Okay.

[9:43] Yeah, I kind of agree, Len, or what you're— maybe I'm thinking what you're

[9:48] you're— maybe I'm thinking what you're thinking,

[9:49] you know, going from CD-2 to CD-4.

[9:51] Not saying there's a rug pull, but, you know, I'm thinking if there's—

[9:56] with this parcel, what'd be like best use for it?

[9:59] And I do think townhomes do look, look nice.

[10:04] The—

[10:05] not the issue is, is if this project doesn't go forth,

[10:09] the townhomes We've just rezoned it for CD-4, which means retail, multifamily,

[10:16] senior living, multi-use— yeah, multi-use, multifamily.

[10:20] And not sure that's the direction that I would go with that.

[10:25] The thing about that is, that's important, it might not be what we would want.

[10:30] Correct.

[10:31] But if we make this approval, they could come in with something like that,

[10:37] and if they satisfy all of the zoning requirements,

[10:41] including protecting the—

[10:43] Yeah.

[10:43] —the homes from flood,

[10:45] they would have the opportunity to go ahead with that project.

[10:51] So without speculating as to what they may or may not do, you know,

[10:57] the question really comes down to whether we believe that a CD-4 zone is

[11:04] appropriate in that space. Staff has suggested that it is.

[11:09] The piece to keep in mind, too, is that because it is greater than 10 acres,

[11:16] 10 acres or greater, only 85% of the structures can be residential.

[11:22] 15— at least minimum 15% have to be Non-residential according to our zoning

[11:29] ordinance right now.

[11:31] So this would be in violation because there's—

[11:33] That would, just as it is right now, that would be in violation.

[11:36] Again, this would be if this was actually what they were presenting.

[11:39] Right, I understand. Okay. And that's what I'm saying.

[11:41] Are you aware, sir, of what Commissioner—

[11:44] I think we have a list here at 9.22 acres.

[11:47] Pardon?

[11:47] I think we have it listed as 9.22 acres.

[11:49] You do, but we're— we were just told that it's actually almost 20 acres.

[11:53] It's 19.22.

[11:54] That's what we were just told.

[11:55] I mean, we could break off some and dedicate that to the town right away and

[11:58] dedicate that to the town right away and break

[11:58] that off if that would make you more comfortable.

[12:00] You mean you only want to use the 9.22?

[12:02] Yeah, I mean, we— our only intention is to do residential,

[12:05] so anything that would limit that, I'm fine with that.

[12:07] Well, thank you, but whether the town would,

[12:10] would want to accept that land is not something that we're going to decide here

[12:14] tonight.

[12:15] Yeah.

[12:15] Okay.

[12:16] I would like to amend my motion Given that there are some concerns,

[12:22] I would move that we approve or a recommendation for rezoning or to— excuse

[12:28] recommendation for rezoning or to— excuse me—

[12:29] to just simply remove that it stays right now as Character District CD-2L until—

[12:36] 2012. Uh, we can't— I mean,

[12:38] it's either that or table it because we're kind of in that position of, all right,

[12:45] well, now you're saying you're going to shorten it.

[12:50] Well, we need to see how that looks.

[12:53] So I don't know whether it's to defer it if you wish to withdraw till you come back

[13:00] and take a look at that, or if we just need, uh,

[13:04] to not approve because it's already in the town. I'm sorry, I was—

[13:10] You really want to withdraw the motion? You want to withdraw your motion?

[13:13] Yeah, I want to withdraw my motion, I think, at this point.

[13:16] So I'm going to— for discussion purposes,

[13:20] I'm going to make a motion that we approve this request with

[13:27] staff comments. And is there a second?

[13:31] Okay, the motion fails without a second.

[13:37] So, Charles, we— that means it moves on with a negative recommendation.

[13:44] It becomes a negative recommendation or no recommendation?

[13:47] I mean, it's the same.

[13:49] Can I— I'll go ahead and second it so we can have further discussion.

[13:53] Okay. Can they come back? Is there a timeline?

[13:57] How— if we don't pass this, can they come back?

[14:01] There's no limit to how quickly they can come Nothing is actually being denied

[14:06] tonight.

[14:07] It is just a recommendation item.

[14:09] Well, at this point we have got the motion back on the table, Charles.

[14:13] And so we are having discussion. It may be denied. It may be approved.

[14:18] Okay. All right. Well, regardless, it is a recommendation or a—

[14:22] Yes, it is a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Correct.

[14:26] Yes.

[14:26] Okay.

[14:27] Do we have some further discussion?

[14:29] Do you have— and so I'm looking on this, right?

[14:32] And I don't know the answer to this, so I'm going to ask the question.

[14:35] That's Rocky Fork where they would be coming in and out of, correct?

[14:39] Yes.

[14:39] Okay, so that's really congested.

[14:42] Um, as someone that has been driving in school traffic for the last 3 hours,

[14:47] which I know it's just the start of school and it happens,

[14:52] but I know in the morning,

[14:54] I know when there's baseball and we have a very popular baseball team right now.

[14:59] Like, you've got traffic that I feel is super congested that I don't know it makes

[15:06] super congested that I don't know it makes a

[15:06] lot of sense for us to add to that congestion.

[15:09] Um, and secondly, I wanted to ask if we know if all the townhomes in Greenbrook

[15:15] North are, are, uh, spoken for. I believe they're all sold.

[15:19] Yes, everything in Greenbrook North. Greenbrook North is—

[15:24] Yeah. And Greenbrook South is the one he's about to start.

[15:26] I think there's some delay on that, working out the sewer with the public.

[15:30] So, okay.

[15:31] And do you have a timeline on the sewer upgrades?

[15:34] Because I'm understanding that that's going to take time.

[15:37] Yeah, that's Metro. I know the one up north near Mill Creek is—

[15:39] that's supposed to be in operation within the next year or so.

[15:42] So, I mean, he still wouldn't be able to tie into that.

[15:45] We wouldn't be able to get plans approved through Metro Sewer until that capacity is

[15:49] granted.

[15:49] So Do you have any idea on the timeline?

[15:52] No, I know they're still working on easements because I know they've

[15:55] easements because I know they've approached him

[15:56] about working with him on easements on here. So I think they're still at that

[15:59] here. So I think they're still at that stage.

[15:59] So it may be 2, 3 years.

[16:00] Staff, I'd like to ask, to Commissioner Adams' point, if this were a 9.22-acre

[16:07] Adams' point, if this were a 9.22-acre plot,

[16:07] would a— would it— for them to be able to build Those 21 townhomes,

[16:13] would they need a CD-4? Yeah, that's what I thought.

[16:18] And so the idea of deferring it— postponing it, I should say—

[16:23] wouldn't change anything, actually.

[16:26] So I think this is a situation where we either move forward with a recommendation,

[16:33] a positive recommendation, recommendation,

[16:37] or we move forward with a recommendation to say no.

[16:42] And we will be making recommendations.

[16:45] The Board of Commissioners, I hope you understand, would have the final say.

[16:52] Yeah.

[16:52] Okay, further discussion?

[16:54] Can we just get some clarification on what Commissioner Adams brought up with the

[17:00] percentages on the total parcel?

[17:03] Because I feel like there's a lot of variables that's happening right now on

[17:08] possible donating land to the town, and that's out of our scope and above our

[17:14] that's out of our scope and above our heads.

[17:17] So what— what—

[17:18] Commissioner Adams, I was just going to say, let me just— Adam,

[17:25] if you can bring up, uh, I think it's 5.9.1.

[17:29] Okay, that's— that's just under the— under the codes. It's written down.

[17:36] I don't have it memorized. I think it's either— there it is.

[17:42] And there's a table if you go the other direction. Up or down? Up.

[17:49] That should be it right there. Principal use.

[17:53] No, there's another chart.

[17:55] Are you sure? That's your 85% residential.

[17:58] Oh, okay.

[17:59] Yeah.

[18:00] Yeah. OK. I'm sorry. There it is. Yeah.

[18:03] So I guess what I'm saying to the applicant is our concern is you're

[18:08] applicant is our concern is you're building

[18:09] townhouses. And I don't have a problem. I have mixed feelings about it.

[18:14] But I mean, we're trying to work it out because if you've got—

[18:19] if you want to be strictly residential and you've got 19 acres,

[18:24] That says you got to put 15% into something other than your residential, and

[18:30] something other than your residential, and that's—

[18:31] and that would, I think, be a problem for what you all are wanting to do.

[18:36] Mm-hmm.

[18:36] So we're just— that's what we're— at least that's what I'm struggling with,

[18:42] is how do we get it for you all?

[18:44] And rather than approving it necessarily now, let you all come back with, okay,

[18:49] here's 9.9 acres that we can make this work so that you don't have to—

[18:54] that you'll be under that requirement, because the requirement kicks in at 10%—

[19:00] at 10 acres.

[19:01] Mr. Olson, having heard Commissioner Adams' point, what's your pleasure?

[19:05] Um, can we also grant, you know, conditional on a variance, you know,

[19:09] saying that we can do 100% residential? Is that a possibility as well?

[19:12] I'm not sure I follow you.

[19:15] You would have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals to ask for a variance of

[19:18] Zoning Appeals to ask for a variance of the

[19:19] zoning ordinance. Then I'm not so sure that that would—

[19:21] You want to defer it and get this sorted out, or—

[19:24] We can defer a meeting if that's what's needed.

[19:26] Okay.

[19:27] Yeah, you have—

[19:29] I'd say we should— would you at least want to—

[19:32] you'd be in the same place if we say yes or no, really, correct?

[19:35] Correct.

[19:36] So would you want to know what our choice is before you—

[19:39] What do you mean we'd be in the same place?

[19:41] Like, if we, if we make the recommendation and let's say we vote No, or on this,

[19:46] they're okay with a postponement.

[19:49] Okay, I would say, should they know which way or which way or the other?

[19:53] I mean, are you allowed to add why you said no to your recommendation?

[19:57] Well, at this point we're talking postponement, which is neither yes nor no.

[20:01] Well, if you made the recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that this was

[20:03] your reasoning behind it,

[20:04] and by the time we get to Board of Commissioners we had that problem

[20:07] Commissioners we had that problem resolved.

[20:07] Yes.

[20:12] I'm just having PTSD from last time we said— we looked through this,

[20:16] where then we had to— a little bit of a fire drill to—

[20:18] Yeah, I think we need an address. We need to give him an answer.

[20:22] It— even if you come back with the amendments and everything you do, I,

[20:27] I do not believe that CD-4 is appropriate for this location. I will still be a no.

[20:31] Okay.

[20:32] Okay, maybe we have a motion on the floor.

[20:35] Maybe the best thing we can do, if there's no further discussion,

[20:40] is to simply call a vote.

[20:42] Or does anyone, before I do that, have something else they'd like to say?

[20:47] I'm talking to the commissioners at this point. Call the question.

[20:52] I'm fine.

[20:53] Yep.

[20:53] Okay, we can defer. He's fine waiting for the next meeting.

[20:57] I've already called the question.

[20:58] All those in favor of Approving the request for rezoning

[21:04] with staff comments as a recommendation to the Board of

[21:09] Commissioners, signify by saying aye. All those opposed?

[21:15] Aye. Nay.

[21:17] Okay, thank you.

[21:21] Okay.

[21:30] I believe we're ready to move into our discussion,

[21:34] and tonight we are going to be focused, I believe,

[21:38] on Article 8.

[21:39] Yes, sir.

[21:42] Staff?

[21:42] Um, yes, Mr. Chairman, it was— I guess the first thing I want to ask is,

[21:48] was there anything else of any of the other articles we wanted to touch on

[21:54] other articles we wanted to touch on before

[21:55] moving into Article 8, either 3 through 7.

[21:58] If there was anything else, this would be the good time to talk about it.

[22:04] And again, reminder, we will bring this all back together in, you know,

[22:09] in a unified document.

[22:11] But we left it, you know, last month with Article 7, and we've—

[22:16] I've sent a revision to you all.

[22:19] So if nothing else, We can move on to 8, or let me know.

[22:23] I know I owe you comments on the section.

[22:27] Sure.

[22:28] About the tree, the tree canopy.

[22:31] Sure. And that's on— that'll be on— that'll be on 6.

[22:34] Yeah, I know we talked about it yesterday,

[22:36] and I apologize I did not get my comments in, but it's okay.

[22:39] Um, so hearing none—

[22:42] Terry's comment earlier about the percentage For retail for CD4.

[22:47] I was looking through that.

[22:49] I had the new CD4 up from, um, here,

[22:52] and I don't see anything listed in there for a retail requirement.

[22:58] Is that going to be a separate table in there, or am I just missing that piece?

[23:04] I would— I don't know the answer off the top of my head if that was either

[23:09] relocated, that, that matrix, or, or where we may have We,

[23:14] we may have put it in Article 4 because that would—

[23:18] because I'm looking at right now Article 4, commercial districts,

[23:21] in your accepted comments. I don't see—

[23:24] then it might be in 5. That's kind of where I'm like, I'm not sure.

[23:26] It was in 5.

[23:27] It's in 5 currently, and I couldn't remember if we moved it when we were in—

[23:33] the idea originally was 4 would be your districts, your zoning,

[23:38] 5 would be transportation, 6 would be landscape, 7 was signs, 8 is procedures,

[23:43] and so on and so forth. And then 9 would be definitions.

[23:47] So unfortunately, I, I didn't know that this would come up, and, you know,

[23:53] I didn't look at this section to know where it is.

[23:57] You know, one additional thing that we were talking about a little bit with

[24:02] were talking about a little bit with regards

[24:03] to that section that,

[24:04] that was being discussed was the language even that it mentions,

[24:09] because there's a definition of development parcel that has been kind of a

[24:15] challenging, I think, definition throughout the entire zoning ordinance.

[24:20] And development parcel is defined as 10 or more acres, something else,

[24:25] and then a road through it.

[24:27] But what was interesting is about the section that Adam and I were speaking

[24:33] section that Adam and I were speaking about

[24:33] was that one section mentions 5.1.10:

[24:36] within each district of a development parcel of 10 or more acres,

[24:41] there shall be a mix So that may be something that we need to even think

[24:46] something that we need to even think about,

[24:46] is that, you know, given tonight's discussion, we may need to think— is that—

[24:52] discussion, we may need to think— is that— do—

[24:52] there's been other times where, uh,

[24:55] we may just need to give extra attention to it wherever it is.

[25:00] Or if it was removed, does it need to return in a different form?

[25:04] I don't know if that answered any question at all, but I, I—

[25:09] it's helpful. I mean, I think tonight this gave us a lot to think about, right?

[25:14] Like, we have, you know, they came with 9.22 is what he was referencing, right?

[25:20] But even in that space, having that 85%, 15% concept seemed like—

[25:24] I don't know if that makes sense, if we need to change the acreage, sir,

[25:29] or think about it at least.

[25:31] Sure.

[25:33] What is it that doesn't I think the density in that space—

[25:36] and I think we have to keep acknowledging we have 2-lane roads.

[25:40] And I don't know if developmentally, from a development perspective,

[25:44] it makes sense for us just to ignore that,

[25:47] like keep acting like they're going to change sometime.

[25:50] And we don't have control of that.

[25:52] But we can control congestion, and people already get frustrated.

[25:57] So why add to the frustration and make the In essence, we,

[26:01] we can control whether we allow an upzone, right, in that area, right?

[26:06] Okay, understood. So, so are we still talking about what we—

[26:11] I have something, um, prior, prior to 8.

[26:15] 7.1.2, my favorite one.

[26:17] Is this window signs?

[26:19] Yes, sir. Um, so, uh, I'm seeing the 33% was initiated.

[26:23] Um, I do feel like there needs to be a limitation, the overall glass front.

[26:30] So right now, I believe the way it reads is you can have 33% max on each window.

[26:36] So if I have 8 windows on my storefront,

[26:40] I'm able to have a sign that takes up a third on every single one.

[26:45] I do feel like we need to Also say 33% of your total frontage.

[26:50] So if you have 3 glass panels, you can have 1 sign in the window.

[26:56] If you have 6 panels, you can have 2. If you have 9 panels, you can have 3.

[27:02] So I think there should be a limitation both on the window and on the total

[27:08] aggregate.

[27:09] Why do you think that? I'm not disagreeing, I just like to know.

[27:17] Yeah, unfortunately I deal with sign codes in a lot of municipalities.

[27:22] Um, that is quite normal, I would say.

[27:25] Um, you know, at our restaurant,

[27:28] if I wanted to put a sign in every window in Davidson County, in Franklin,

[27:33] in Wilson County— Wilson County may allow it, but the others won't.

[27:39] So it does start to look a little maybe unpleasant to the eye when you start to

[27:45] unpleasant to the eye when you start to have

[27:45] a, a window or a sign in every single one.

[27:48] I also think we should talk about like colors and so forth.

[27:53] Like, do we allow a single color, a multicolored, like if it's,

[27:58] if it's lit and so forth?

[28:00] So I do think that we could be a little bit more stringent in what we're maybe

[28:06] allowing some businesses to to put up.

[28:09] I would agree with that.

[28:10] And I would like to see, particularly for the lit windows, that—

[28:14] and I don't know if we can do that—

[28:17] is limit the lighting during hours of operation so that you don't at 2 o'clock

[28:22] operation so that you don't at 2 o'clock in

[28:22] the morning have a storefront all lit up, uh, with their,

[28:26] their glaring signs so you look like the fireworks stands down in Jasper.

[28:35] Staff, you've taken that? Yeah. Do you have any questions?

[28:40] We'll just ultimately need some determination amongst the greater

[28:45] determination amongst the greater commission,

[28:46] you know. Point being, you know, Commissioner Gray says I want 33%.

[28:51] Is there an additional things you can— is there additional—

[28:55] can we apply it 33% to the total facade area?

[28:58] Well, then we got to quantify that, which is fine,

[29:02] but we got to quantify that Is that okay? Right.

[29:05] I mean, like, from my perspective, I hear Commissioner Gray.

[29:10] Is there something else that— is there— is there— is there— does everyone agree?

[29:15] Is there a concern?

[29:17] I agree. Okay. Anyone else?

[29:19] So you're asking us for a head shake?

[29:21] Correct. Is there— is it— you get what I mean?

[29:23] Is that if there was just one member that says I want that and everybody shakes

[29:27] their head no, you know, I want to make sure that But that's being discussed.

[29:31] Okay, so we can add something to that.

[29:33] It's gonna— for total area is what I'm hearing.

[29:36] Well, I think I just want to add the point, like,

[29:38] so are we expecting staff to monitor that?

[29:40] Yes. Okay, the, the nighttime one, to be honest, I'm not sure how we—

[29:46] you know, codes enforcement goes home and so do we.

[29:50] And so we could have—

[29:52] they could do complaints of, of Well, if you can't do it in Franklin,

[29:56] how do they monitor it?

[29:57] Don't know. There's—

[30:02] I think it's a rule set type of a deal, because if you don't have a rule,

[30:06] you get what's happened in some of our businesses in town where the whole front

[30:11] businesses in town where the whole front of

[30:12] the building is one big LED sign across every single window at night.

[30:16] And so help me picture which— like, can you give me an example? I'm sorry.

[30:19] Like right across the street.

[30:23] The vape shop? Is that what you're talking about?

[30:26] Okay, because I think of Twice Daily and they're open all night and I'm good with

[30:31] that.

[30:31] Yeah, yeah, I, I, yeah, I don't, I don't see any issue with, with,

[30:35] with what they're, they're doing.

[30:37] I just think if you don't have any rules, you get the wild, wild west.

[30:41] Um, you know, when I get a citation,

[30:43] I might get a citation like once a year from the city saying, hey,

[30:47] just take down this, this picture out the window because you have too many.

[30:52] And I looked at him like, oh, they're right, I do have too many.

[30:56] So I wouldn't say it's an active,

[30:58] but it's just more things like you have it in a tool bag.

[31:01] So if somebody does complain, you're able to point to—

[31:04] It's not something that would have to be constantly monitored, but if you see it—

[31:09] And a lot of stuff is done by complaint, to be honest.

[31:12] I mean, a lot of stuff is enforced, you know.

[31:14] And you've got something to to hang your hat on.

[31:16] We're telling you to stop this because you—

[31:17] Because, right. We can't— if we didn't have a rule—

[31:19] And that kind of thing gets around, and it's less likely to happen.

[31:22] So Franklin—

[31:23] That's how you avoid the Wild West.

[31:24] Franklin, for example, has a— in case where windows are grouped,

[31:28] the sign area shall not— excuse me— shall not exceed—

[31:31] but shall not exceed 5 window signs.

[31:33] Would that be easier than doing a percentage-based?

[31:36] I think so. I don't think— I mean, percentage-based just starts to feel—

[31:42] I gotta get a calculator.

[31:43] Yeah, let me get a calculator. And if I'm a business owner, like—

[31:46] But 5 window signs, if I— so if I have a window that's a sheet of, like,

[31:50] size of sheet of plywood, 32 square feet, and I have a,

[31:54] a sign that is 4 foot by 8 foot, which is 32 square feet, could I fill that?

[31:58] And that's one window sign.

[32:00] So now I have 5 of those windows on the front of my building.

[32:04] I fill every single window with that, and that's That's 5 pictures. That's 5 signs.

[32:09] Is it a maximum of 33% of the glass onto which it is applied?

[32:12] So that's—

[32:16] so you're saying that's also in there for the other 33% in addition to 5?

[32:21] Are you saying like add the 5 maximum?

[32:23] I mean, the other part, just to be blunt, that concerns me—

[32:27] and it was funny because I saw a few on my way, uh,

[32:30] driving through town earlier You know, there were signs that were like,

[32:35] end of each window would have like congrats or 2027 or, or some things like

[32:40] congrats or 2027 or, or some things like that.

[32:40] And I'm like, am I gonna have to go, is a number a sign?

[32:44] You know, when we start, generally we consider a sign as,

[32:47] as stating commercial intent is kind of how I would say it.

[32:51] Come try this $5 something or other. Come try this new—

[32:55] And I think we could probably say like, well,

[32:57] this would make that rule ridiculous and that would be Irrelevant.

[33:01] But I think more to Clark's point, it's, it's the, hey, there's,

[33:04] there's people abusing that.

[33:06] And so then that would be a complaint and not necessarily you all going around and

[33:10] saying, you, you wrote, you know,

[33:12] Merry Christmas in your window and that covered more than 33%.

[33:15] I think the 33% is a simple— it's just one-third.

[33:19] Um, it's easier to— because if,

[33:21] if you have a small retail shop and you have 5 windows, Hey, with that rule,

[33:27] I can plaster every single window.

[33:29] If— and so, I mean, that's why you go by a percentage both on the glass and on the

[33:35] total frontage.

[33:36] Okay, y'all tell me what, what should I change or what should I update?

[33:42] Brad, maybe I owe you— can I send you an email with some, some ideas?

[33:47] That would be great.

[33:47] And then you can—

[33:49] And then I'll bring it up, right?

[33:50] And then I'll bring it up and I'll say, do we all like this? Yeah, okay.

[33:54] Um, that's fine, that's fine with me.

[33:55] Okay, are we ready to move to Article 8?

[34:00] Anything else?

[34:02] Are we ready? Article 8? Okay.

[34:06] Okay, Article 8, big picture things to consider. What encompasses Article 8?

[34:12] Article 8 is essentially the procedures and processes Article at the very

[34:18] and processes Article at the very beginning,

[34:19] four and eight were going to be the the bigger problems or the more I think

[34:25] discussion that was going to be there to kind of get it out front at the beginning.

[34:31] I don't imagine we will finish the entirety of Article Eight before we're

[34:37] entirety of Article Eight before we're ready to

[34:38] go, and maybe we do, maybe we don't.

[34:40] But I fully imagine bringing Article Eight back again next month.

[34:46] Regardless whether or not we get it all the way or not,

[34:50] there's enough substance in here.

[34:53] And generally staff has met internally much more to go over some of this.

[34:58] So there's a lot more questions and back and forth and things like that on the in

[35:05] the comment section.

[35:06] The so no matter what, we're planning on bringing this back again next month.

[35:12] Again, Article Eight has to do with essentially. Who are the players?

[35:18] You know, who are the approval bodies?

[35:21] Pre-application review requirements, public notice requirements,

[35:26] and a list of all of the procedures, applications, and what you have to—

[35:32] Submittal requirements, as it currently reads.

[35:35] So I would almost— because there is so much,

[35:39] I would almost want to kind of break it down into sections is that was there

[35:45] anything within the creating or the stating of who the players are, so to

[35:51] stating of who the players are, so to speak,

[35:51] which is about 8.1 to 8.7, I believe it is, or 8.4.

[35:55] Is there anything in the creation of these are who these—

[36:00] whether it's Board of Commissioners, Planning Commission,

[36:04] Historic Zoning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, Zoning Administrator, Uh,

[36:11] design team, design review team, whatever it ended up being titled.

[36:16] Was there any questions on that portion all the way to 8.5?

[36:21] So page 1 to page 17, if you have comments on.

[36:24] Okay, do we need a design review committee per se, or is that required,

[36:31] or because we're using a third party Do we even need a design review committee

[36:37] in it?

[36:38] Unsure. So we have mentioned, you know,

[36:42] that commission was created prior and exists,

[36:46] and we've kind of tried to mention that this role can be done by

[36:53] this third-party aspect.

[36:55] That's a good question and one I'm not fully sure on what the—

[37:01] Right answer is—

[37:03] Okay, that would be one I don't think we necessarily need.

[37:07] And then you have that, uh, Development Review Committee,

[37:12] and since it's all in-house— and I think on the side note, you use the—

[37:17] there's a DRT, so I assume that's team.

[37:20] I think it would be more appropriate to call it a team since it's in-house,

[37:26] because a committee, you tend to think, okay,

[37:30] they're going to be other people from the community or whatever on a,

[37:35] on a committee. So I would just encourage to say, yeah, make it a team,

[37:41] it's in-house, and, and, and leave it at that.

[37:45] Uh, somebody, one of you all made the comment DAR.

[37:49] What is DA and R on that chart that's down on, uh, 8.5.3?

[37:53] You've got D's and A's and R's. It's page 20.

[37:57] Yeah, there's comments that got removed.

[38:00] That is essentially a, a table that is going to showcase essentially, um, okay,

[38:08] essentially who— where does the buck stop? Okay, who is the decision maker?

[38:15] Who reviews it? Who do you appeal it to?

[38:19] I got you. Okay.

[38:20] And, and you, you can see that, that That legend still exists in the current one.

[38:24] Okay. It just wasn't there.

[38:26] It just didn't— it didn't transcribe for some reason.

[38:29] Why are you removing nonprofits?

[38:32] Coming from the nonprofit world,

[38:34] I don't mind giving us a break. You removed it from—

[38:39] You're referencing the fee schedule?

[38:41] From the fee schedule.

[38:42] Our fees are still the same. So that's my recommendation.

[38:48] Okay.

[38:50] Our costs still exist.

[38:52] And, um, the— yeah, yeah, I understand. I just gotta speak up for my nonprofits.

[38:58] Sure.

[38:59] I think it was like $200 or $100.

[39:01] So, uh, the other one where you have, uh, this is under D-1 in that same section,

[39:08] you have, uh, how to contact or Yes. Or how to make notice.

[39:12] It's about notifications.

[39:14] I'd like to see something in there that if you're making a zoning change to

[39:21] connecting properties, that it's mailed to them.

[39:25] Particularly, I'm thinking as we get into more of our urban growth and you've got

[39:31] older residents who have properties,

[39:34] they may not be able to pull off on the side of the road to look at a zoning sign.

[39:41] Uh, may not have at this point necessarily the, the wherewithal, skills to look on,

[39:48] come to town hall or whatever.

[39:50] But I think if we're going to do, uh, any kind of, uh, change like that,

[39:56] that we ought to notify the, the immediate neighbors by mail.

[40:01] And we have that listed as any rezoning is, is marked as Published, posted,

[40:07] and mailed. So rezonings are included in all 3 of those, those categories.

[40:13] Okay. So it would be mailed to the neighbors?

[40:14] It would be mailed.

[40:16] And I'm checking just to make sure that it says—

[40:18] Because I didn't see it specific.

[40:19] Is it on page 26?

[40:20] 26 is where it begins.

[40:21] I just want to make sure because at one point it did say all adjacent property

[40:26] owners.

[40:26] Okay.

[40:27] Um, but we can verify. There it is.

[40:29] F, letter shall be mailed to all owners of property that

[40:34] Is adjacent to that.

[40:35] I just want to make sure that stays in there. So, okay.

[40:42] When it says mail, are you also able to— is that in for email as well?

[40:46] No, no. And what, what we've removed is one of the big things we've done is a

[40:51] one of the big things we've done is a class—

[40:51] is we're getting rid of first class, or excuse me, certified mail.

[40:55] And also the town was having to bear that cost because this said we'd did.

[40:59] And so we're not— we're going to change that. We'd like to change that.

[41:03] So it's not going to be certified mail and it's only going to be regular USPS mail?

[41:08] It'll be first-class mail and the applicant will be required to do so.

[41:12] Okay.

[41:14] Versus us having— I mean,

[41:15] I have to keep a line item on my budget annually for mailing others for their

[41:19] project. That's not how Franklin does it and it's not how I've ever done it.

[41:24] I mean, I don't have a problem with the mail.

[41:27] I'm just I was thinking about people that disregard mail.

[41:31] You know, there's some point— there's an email.

[41:34] The public notice requirement at any time, and my— it is, you can only do so much,

[41:40] right? We've got— if we put it on the property, we put it on the website,

[41:45] which we're required to by state law, we do agenda postings, we mail you,

[41:49] put it in 3 places around town, and it even sometimes goes to the paper for some—

[41:55] for certain things. And I have,

[41:57] I have various questions about the what we can and can't do with, um,

[42:01] notice requirements to a newspaper of general circulation, but that's another—

[42:06] that's a bigger question.

[42:08] Yeah, I just wondered about, you know, honestly,

[42:11] the social media opportunity with it.

[42:13] Yeah, and there's that opera, and, and there's that too.

[42:16] I mean, I honestly feel like that's where—

[42:17] I would, I would agree.

[42:19] And, and as we're also batting a little bit against state law.

[42:23] So there is a public notice requirement.

[42:26] I don't want to speak fully for it,

[42:28] but I've tried to verse up a little more on it with— I'm trying to remember— 2

[42:33] on it with— I'm trying to remember— 2 days,

[42:33] 2 places. It should be 2 days, 3 places.

[42:36] Something like that is kind of your general thing.

[42:39] And if I recall, my state law history is that they've essentially You—

[42:44] the Tennessee Supreme Court essentially said, yeah,

[42:47] you kind of know it when you see it, kind of a, you know,

[42:51] if it's adequate public notice or not.

[42:53] So not a lot to hang the hat on, but what has generally been accepted was—

[42:58] and I'm probably misquoting something— but post it multiple places.

[43:03] A new state law that just went into effect required any and all agendas to be posted

[43:08] on a town website if you have one. We do have one. We post it already.

[43:13] Okay.

[43:14] On our agenda.

[43:15] So again, just trying to think culturally where everybody's at, you know,

[43:20] not saying you're not doing it. I get— I hear you, I get you, I agree with you.

[43:25] I just try to think culturally of player—

[43:28] Agree. This just doesn't mean this is where we can only place it,

[43:32] the only ways to do it. There's other avenues we can use.

[43:35] This is just the minimum standard for us, right?

[43:37] So we can explore those later, and they can And this is just minimum standard.

[43:42] I just didn't know if we could do it based on what was in here, that's all.

[43:44] But then you're setting a minimum standard then.

[43:47] If you're calling something out, that's what we have to do.

[43:50] And that might be something that's passed at that point. So yeah.

[43:53] So the published is kind of at least how I— is how I'm interpreting.

[43:57] The published can be published on a website.

[44:00] And then how that information is done, I mean, we'd post it on that CHAMPS website,

[44:06] live streams, agendas, that same how everybody gets to it.

[44:10] Go down to Planning Commission, click it, and our agenda is posted when we do it,

[44:15] however many days prior.

[44:19] Okay, we're in the first section.

[44:22] Yeah, if there's anything— I mean, we—

[44:24] anybody have anything else in the first section?

[44:26] Kind of trying to keep us between 8.1 and 8.5.

[44:30] If you have something else, let's stick with Okay.

[44:37] One other— so 8.5.1,

[44:38] we've talked a little bit about the summary of review authority, who does

[44:44] summary of review authority, who does what.

[44:44] Common review procedures, which is essentially this impacts any and all

[44:49] essentially this impacts any and all review,

[44:50] any and all applications. Public notice that we just talked about. Okay.

[44:55] And then the differing requirements, you know, as such, whether published, posted,

[45:01] mailed, we have a list of the applications that are required to do those.

[45:06] So, you know, some are going to have to have, you know, annexations are published,

[45:12] posted, and mailed, so on and so forth.

[45:15] Rezonings and what we're ultimately calling development plans,

[45:19] would require those as well, and we'll get to those.

[45:23] The next portion then gets into essentially the different types of

[45:28] essentially the different types of applications.

[45:29] The real big one that we've talked about,

[45:32] and there was some supplementary information in that,

[45:36] is one of the things we're looking to do is implement modification of standard.

[45:41] We've talked about this now for a little bit of time,

[45:45] and so Essentially what it would be is that if you think of it kind of the—

[45:51] if you start from the very beginning of any type of development application that,

[45:57] you know, do the longest thing you could do, let's say you're not in the town,

[46:02] you need to be annexed.

[46:04] You need to be annexed, you would need to be— and you ask for rezoning.

[46:09] Then the question then becomes, are— is your proposed development by right?

[46:14] Does it follow whatever's Zoning classification that you have requested and

[46:20] classification that you have requested and in

[46:20] theory been granted, or does it not?

[46:23] Are there some modifications as to which you are requesting?

[46:27] If the answer is you are doing it by right, it is a site plan.

[46:31] It is a excuse me a site plan if you are non-resi do you have any non-residential

[46:37] non-resi do you have any non-residential or

[46:37] attached residential? If the answer to that question is yes, you're a site plan.

[46:43] If the answer is no. You're you're you're going through the platting process.

[46:49] You're going to plat different lots for to from one larger tract.

[46:54] Now going back up, if your development plan or excuse me,

[46:58] if you are asking for development and you say there there's some things in this

[47:03] zoning ordinance that I cannot or would like to discuss if I'm able to achieve

[47:09] like to discuss if I'm able to achieve those

[47:09] rules and regs. We're talking about the possibility of a modification of standard.

[47:15] Modification of standard is, I believe,

[47:18] a little bit different than the PUDs from the previous time.

[47:23] And what I mean by that is that how we've attempted to write— to draft this up,

[47:28] and the other document that we sent kind of gave into more detail on that.

[47:34] Is that there would be a list of things that you could ask for modifications of.

[47:39] And if we wanted to be more specific,

[47:42] we could say these are items or sections that you cannot ask for modifications.

[47:48] Staff has talked internally about density. You cannot vary from density.

[47:53] There's been discussions about height. So on and so forth.

[47:57] If you ask for a modification of standard, you would—

[48:01] very similar to the other processes that we have currently that come to this

[48:07] commission, get a recommendation,

[48:09] and then ultimately go to the Board of Commissioners for a resolution.

[48:14] So, and each one of those modifications of standard would be separately voted on

[48:20] from the development plan. This is how, you know, a sister city of ours handles

[48:26] you know, a sister city of ours handles it.

[48:26] Okay.

[48:27] Was, let's say for example, there is the—

[48:30] there is a site and they are asking for 3 modifications to standard.

[48:35] One is for instead of 25— I'm making numbers up— 25-foot setback,

[48:39] front yard setbacks, they want 20.

[48:41] And another one, they want to throw away all the standards and the window signs

[48:47] because they want— they love window signs. And C, they want to do something else.

[48:53] Okay.

[48:53] Something unrelated.

[48:54] The Board of Commissioners could essentially say, on modification of

[49:00] essentially say, on modification of Standard 1,

[49:01] do I have a vote? Aye. All, you know, they pass it. Number 2, they deny it.

[49:06] And number modification of Standard 3, they approve it.

[49:10] Then they would go back to the original development plan with the requisite

[49:16] modification of standards and then approve or deny the entirety of the development.

[49:23] Plan. It's a different change.

[49:25] It is a little bit— it is different from how we currently do it.

[49:30] Currently we have site development plan, then you have to do a preliminary plat,

[49:36] even if you are by right.

[49:38] And, you know, there's development that,

[49:41] that down the street essentially that came in under CD-3 and had Site development

[49:47] plan, preliminary plat, and a final plat.

[49:50] This would, you know, if you were by right and you had no non-residential—

[49:56] Yes, correct.

[49:57] If you had no non-residential, no attached residential,

[50:01] you could go just a preliminary plat, which is, I think, fairly standard.

[50:06] That is a process, and maybe not sure if I explained it Well,

[50:10] but the idea is that it allows a little bit of flexibility but still enough

[50:15] bit of flexibility but still enough control

[50:16] that it goes ultimately to the Board of Commissioners as well for them to do.

[50:21] And it doesn't add— it's not an ordinance to do so, it is a resolution to do so,

[50:27] at least that's how I understand it.

[50:29] So you're discussing this bottom document,

[50:33] it was the last document, 10 pages on the list on,

[50:37] on our agenda.

[50:38] Yes.

[50:38] Item. It's the last one.

[50:39] Yes.

[50:39] Okay, then I do have some questions about this,

[50:43] if that's what we're discussing now.

[50:46] Okay, um, under the first section,

[50:49] it's got an A through E proposed modification will enhance design.

[50:55] Is that an all or none, or if a developer comes in and says, well,

[51:01] I've met this one, am I okay to go?

[51:06] Um, let me pull— let me pull it.

[51:07] Yeah, go ahead. Because it's confusing.

[51:10] You have a modification of standard allows the consideration of a request to modify

[51:17] a development standard of this ordinance where, and then you have a number of

[51:23] where, and then you have a number of items.

[51:23] But then on the 3rd page under Section 8,

[51:26] You have approval criteria for modification of standards,

[51:31] and no modification may be granted under this section unless— and again,

[51:37] there's a new list, A, B, C, D, E, and it's different from the front list.

[51:43] So it's kind of like, all right, so which one do I have to meet?

[51:48] One is more of you have the ability to request— and that's kind of—

[51:51] and it's highlighted, and there's a comment in there.

[51:53] Don't— I wouldn't pay too much attention to what those are, right?

[51:57] Because we may say, well, I think open space Should never be, or should be.

[52:00] That's just an example of different things, right? Where—

[52:03] Well, no, I'm above that.

[52:05] I don't think that's the question he's asking.

[52:06] I understand. I'm getting there.

[52:08] Yeah.

[52:08] Those are the sections to which you can ask for that modification of

[52:15] standard. The second one in 8A through E is—

[52:20] I think it's more of a how Board of Zoning Appeals makes the decision.

[52:27] It has 3 state law requirements that, that,

[52:31] that govern essentially what is an apt one or not.

[52:36] So it is an all or none, just like in the Board of Zoning Appeals.

[52:41] You've got to meet all the criteria.

[52:44] It does seem to be. Let's be sure that everyone's clear on this.

[52:48] Yeah, this is not what you are proposing that we do.

[52:51] This is a document that you're giving us to look at, to ask us, how does this look?

[52:56] What changes would you make?

[52:58] For example, if I said— I'm just using it as an example—

[53:02] there is no way we should ever allow a modification of standard for parking,

[53:06] we might all come to an agreement on that, or we might not.

[53:10] But ultimately, every bit of this document is something for us to be looking at and

[53:15] scrutinizing carefully. It's really important.

[53:18] I want to emphasize that because right now, there are no modification of

[53:23] now, there are no modification of standards.

[53:24] You either satisfy the requirements in the zoning ordinances or you don't.

[53:28] This says that a developer can come in and say, yeah, I like all this stuff,

[53:33] but you know what? I think it'd be really great if we didn't have to use those

[53:38] setbacks here. Here's why we want to do it. Here's what we want to do.

[53:42] A couple of things that I've noticed in I think there are 2 things that are

[53:47] important here. One is that it stipulates minor—

[53:50] grant minor relief from development standards.

[53:53] The key word being minor and how we define that. I think that really does matter.

[53:58] Yes.

[53:58] The other is that it does appear to me that as it's written,

[54:02] to Commissioner Adams' question,

[54:04] it seems to me that you do have to satisfy A through E.

[54:07] That any one of these that you want to change must at least satisfy A through E.

[54:12] And I'm a bit confused too about this, the second list.

[54:15] That's, that's what—

[54:16] yeah, yeah, exactly.

[54:18] That, that summed it up. Thank you.

[54:21] The— and it then has, you know, the Planning Commission review.

[54:26] It limits us to— we can make recommendations to the BOC That the

[54:30] recommendations to the BOC That the modification of

[54:32] standard will not be detrimental to public safety, health, general welfare,

[54:37] or be injurious to other property or improvements to a neighboring property.

[54:43] So we don't get to consider— I would, you know, all these other items,

[54:48] and I would think we would be the initial screening for that A through E,

[54:54] or maybe it's A through F, G, H, I, J.

[54:56] I think that's A through J if you combine those 2 lists on page 1 and page 3.

[55:02] But whatever, I mean, it kind of says to, to the Planning Commission, well,

[55:08] the only thing you need to be concerned about is public safety and health.

[55:13] The rest of it—

[55:14] Where does it say that?

[55:16] If you look at number 7.

[55:17] Okay.

[55:18] Planning Commission review.

[55:20] In reviewing a modification of standards,

[55:22] the Planning Commission shall make findings of fact establishing

[55:27] findings of fact establishing circumstances

[55:28] justifying the need for modification.

[55:30] Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of

[55:34] recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that

[55:36] the modification standard will not be detrimental to public health, safety,

[55:41] detrimental to public health, safety, general—

[55:41] and, and that's it. And I would think we would be wanting to look at those other

[55:47] criteria even before the Board of Commissioners.

[55:50] Well, interestingly enough, The second one— no, go ahead.

[55:54] The Board of Commissioners action is identical.

[55:57] It may be that the wording— maybe that the wording really needs to be broader.

[56:02] That's, that's it. I just think we— yeah.

[56:04] Well, I think that, you know, Charles, are we able to, in our capacity,

[56:10] to make those other determinations,

[56:12] or are we limited only to findings of fact such as public health and safety,

[56:18] things No, you can go through both the lists that—

[56:22] In the capacity that we are doing here?

[56:25] Yeah, because you're not actually approving anything. You're recommending.

[56:29] Correct. We will be a recommending body when someone

[56:34] requests— when a developer requests a modification to

[56:40] standards.

[56:43] Is there any issue— I know this discussion came up last week about the monuments for

[56:48] communities, and there was a concern that we were trying to think of more nuanced

[56:54] ways, I guess, is the best way to put it,

[56:57] to have these kind of really nice monuments like McFarland Woods is putting

[57:02] monuments like McFarland Woods is putting in that

[57:02] according to our new zoning ordinance does not comply.

[57:06] So we said, well, is there a way we could Have it where we can use judgment and

[57:11] approve something like that?

[57:13] And the consensus was, well, no,

[57:15] because then it's very much opening ourselves up to, well,

[57:19] why is that okay based on an ordinance approved and someone else can,

[57:24] can request a variance and we go, no, we're not going to approve that one?

[57:29] Like, does that— And, and Charles,

[57:31] I know your stance is it's a recommendation and not Really an approval

[57:36] recommendation and not Really an approval denial,

[57:36] but does that cause us legal issues where we could potentially, for one applicant,

[57:42] approve something that we would then turn around and deny for another applicant with

[57:47] no real statute we're citing other than we don't like it?

[57:51] I think it's a great— I mean, we had—

[57:53] that's exactly what we talked about last meeting.

[57:56] Yeah, that's the tricky part of even, you know, we were joking, right,

[58:00] about If they want to be that bougie, let them be that bougie.

[58:03] And it was like, well, they can't put an obelisk in.

[58:06] Yeah. All right.

[58:08] And, you know, so it is as firm as we can be because again, for all of us,

[58:13] we might all move to Bora Bora and we don't know who's going to sit in our

[58:17] don't know who's going to sit in our seats.

[58:18] So if we leave it open, we don't know who's going to—

[58:21] Charles, it looks like you're going to say something. Is that— is that a challenge?

[58:24] Is that a cause for concern?

[58:26] Depends on context. I mean,

[58:27] I can't tell you one way or the other right now if you deny one thing and allow

[58:31] another thing. It's—

[58:32] Yeah.

[58:35] But does that— I guess earlier you said since it's a recommendation and not an

[58:38] approval or denial, it shouldn't matter.

[58:40] Well, at some point it would matter.

[58:44] I mean, because it's got to still go up to the BOC. But at this body, I mean, no.

[58:53] I would just— to continue on just real quickly, and then I'm, I'm done.

[58:58] On the number 3, the standards may be considered height.

[59:01] I would have a real problem with somebody being able to go more than 3 stories.

[59:06] I think the community has loudly said that over and over,

[59:10] and we've got it within our, our new zoning ordinances limiting it to 3.

[59:14] Uh, density.

[59:18] I don't think we need to do anything with density.

[59:21] We've got reasonable densities throughout.

[59:24] I think the Town Square Program that when we originally started talking about

[59:30] character districts,

[59:31] we had a character district of 5 with 24 density that we reduced to 18 that was

[59:37] eventually part of the agreement Yes.

[59:40] With Town Square and they've actually reduced the density.

[59:44] So I think that— I don't think there's a need for us to give that much wiggle room

[59:50] because I think every developer will come in and go, well, I really need more.

[59:55] They're always going to want more. And so that one.

[59:59] And I would want to take a look at open space because we've got some percentages

[1:00:04] where we're wanting to maintain our open space and I don't know how much We would

[1:00:10] space and I don't know how much We would be

[1:00:10] wanting to take a look at those, but those would be my 3 concerns on this.

[1:00:16] There are some ways, as I understood it from our meeting yesterday,

[1:00:20] that using the height example,

[1:00:22] that we could put some parameters that the word height alone need not stand alone.

[1:00:28] That in effect, you could say you can request a modification of standard related

[1:00:33] request a modification of standard related to

[1:00:33] height, but it will not exceed 4 floors.

[1:00:36] Using that as an example, and that's one way to handle this, correct?

[1:00:40] Yes. And this may go in a different direction, so stop me if it—

[1:00:45] but one of the notes, and this was, I thought, a pretty good segue for it,

[1:00:51] one of the notes that we wanted to also ask this board was the—

[1:00:55] within the modification of standard, whatever we choose,

[1:01:00] let's kind of put that over here, and whatever we say is allowable to be

[1:01:05] whatever we say is allowable to be modified.

[1:01:06] If we say you can modify this, let's use height as just an example,

[1:01:11] do we want to give additional parameters around it,

[1:01:14] I think was kind of the question.

[1:01:17] Yes.

[1:01:17] Where, yes, you could ask for modification of— maybe height's a bad one.

[1:01:23] Let's do setbacks or something that's— A little less troublesome.

[1:01:28] If you wanted to do a setback, you could ask for modification of standard,

[1:01:34] but it could only be 50% of the existing standard, something to that nature.

[1:01:39] Yeah.

[1:01:40] And that was even one that staff has kind of gone back and forth.

[1:01:44] Again, to my point of we haven't really come to a—

[1:01:47] a lot of times we have generally come to a consensus other than a few things,

[1:01:51] but this is a more troublesome article, and so there's a lot more.

[1:01:55] So one of the questions that we've had batted back and forth internally was

[1:02:00] batted back and forth internally was within—

[1:02:00] and I'd almost like to go back to the beginning— do we even want these?

[1:02:04] But if we do want these,

[1:02:06] and if modification to standard is something continuing that we want to

[1:02:10] something continuing that we want to continue to

[1:02:10] talk about and think about, if yes, then which modifications are appropriate?

[1:02:15] And from there, are there any additional guardrail or whatever word you want to

[1:02:19] guardrail or whatever word you want to put,

[1:02:20] additional standards Standards that we kind of place that, yes,

[1:02:23] you may ask for a modification of standard of X,

[1:02:26] but it can only be varied or changed by a percentage amount of Y.

[1:02:30] When you raise the question— I'm sorry, please.

[1:02:34] Go ahead.

[1:02:34] When you raise the question, do we want modification of standards,

[1:02:38] it probably helps, I think,

[1:02:40] to point out for us what are the advantages to having them,

[1:02:44] what are the disadvantages.

[1:02:52] Sir?

[1:02:52] To— even if we just talk about window signs,

[1:02:56] a fairly benign minor thing in the totality of the world, to be honest,

[1:03:02] there are so many variables that it is impossible to regulate it with any—

[1:03:08] and it is I should back that up a little bit. It is very difficult to regulate it.

[1:03:15] There will always be a what about. What about this one? What about that one?

[1:03:21] Well, they didn't think of this. Or what about this other portion?

[1:03:27] A minor amount of flexibility, an amount of flexibility can be helpful.

[1:03:32] Can be helpful to say the rigidity of rules and regu—

[1:03:37] and of these rules and regs when on certain things can be permissible as long

[1:03:43] certain things can be permissible as long as it

[1:03:44] then follows a path of approval.

[1:03:46] And, and the path we've asked is that it goes ultimately to the fully elected

[1:03:53] goes ultimately to the fully elected board.

[1:03:53] Um, so there is a cost, so to speak, for that flexibility.

[1:03:58] You can do by right and you can do this path, it's quicker,

[1:04:03] or you can ask for flexibility and it takes a little longer.

[1:04:09] Does a modification of standards ultimately say, just the existence of one,

[1:04:14] that when you write zoning ordinances,

[1:04:17] all the requirements and how detailed they are,

[1:04:20] that it's not likely that you can get it right 100% of the time?

[1:04:24] And that as time goes on, certain things change, even materials, building

[1:04:29] change, even materials, building materials,

[1:04:30] costs, there are lots of variables.

[1:04:32] Which would lend to the argument,

[1:04:34] which would favor the argument that that's why you have modifications of standard,

[1:04:40] because what we have right now leaves zero flexibility.

[1:04:44] Agreed.

[1:04:44] And we have heard from developers that it's a struggle.

[1:04:47] Agreed. And then it is up to ultimately this Commission and then the Board to say

[1:04:52] if, you know, kind of follow that train back,

[1:04:55] is that if modifications of standards are appropriate, is the path, is the,

[1:05:00] you know, all the Accoutrements that go along with it.

[1:05:04] What we've asked for are these six, seven, eight, ten, fifteen,

[1:05:08] a hundred things you can ask for appropriate, and if so, what amount?

[1:05:13] And if so, what? But but to answer your question, absolutely,

[1:05:17] it is the the amount of breadth that this document,

[1:05:20] even with being four hundred and sixty-one pages,

[1:05:23] that attempts to cover is anything and everything.

[1:05:27] And so this allows to the— there will be various—

[1:05:30] If I may do a quick poll,

[1:05:32] is there anyone on the Commission at this point who feels that modification of

[1:05:37] standards is not something we should be discussing, we don't need these?

[1:05:41] So we should proceed then on the basis that we do think that these are a good

[1:05:46] that we do think that these are a good idea

[1:05:46] and our real task here is to determine which items make the most sense and under

[1:05:51] Under what conditions?

[1:05:53] Like, I have, for example, some concerns about using the word minor.

[1:05:57] I think it's very hard to define.

[1:05:59] I think it's somewhat in the eye of the beholder, and there are some risks there.

[1:06:04] We should also acknowledge the fact that in approving modifications of standards,

[1:06:10] there are some real risks here.

[1:06:12] You know, you— if I'm a developer and I see an opportunity to make some changes

[1:06:17] see an opportunity to make some changes here

[1:06:17] that would reduce Reduce my costs, make my build go faster.

[1:06:21] There's no harm in me asking, but it could bog us down pretty severely.

[1:06:25] And then there's also the risk that you get into, maybe without trying,

[1:06:30] but you can get into a situation where you're heading towards a quid pro quo.

[1:06:35] Well, if you want to do that, what are you going to do for us?

[1:06:39] Yeah.

[1:06:39] I think that's a very slippery slope,

[1:06:41] one that we really should try our best to protect That said, though,

[1:06:46] I think it would be great to walk through this document and let everyone make their

[1:06:52] thoughts known and any recommendations or suggestions that we have.

[1:06:57] We can do that. We haven't even really come to a full consensus as staff on this

[1:07:02] either, but it doesn't mean that I don't want to—

[1:07:06] if there are any very large items or Items on number 3,

[1:07:10] the ones that are highlighted, like Commissioner Adams mentioned with open

[1:07:15] Commissioner Adams mentioned with open space,

[1:07:15] height, and density.

[1:07:17] If there's any other ones that, that, that say, whoa, I really want to talk about X,

[1:07:23] Y, and Z, that'll help guide our direction.

[1:07:26] So I may say or recommend that, that the discussion be mainly on those.

[1:07:31] Let's get the big ones in terms of if there's at least a general acceptance to

[1:07:36] there's at least a general acceptance to let's

[1:07:36] continue to discuss When we discuss modifications to standard,

[1:07:41] which of these are either the non-negotiables or the— negotiable is the

[1:07:46] non-negotiables or the— negotiable is the wrong word,

[1:07:47] but the allowables?

[1:07:48] I hate to say this, but for example, just the first one, parking.

[1:07:52] I didn't memorize what the standards are.

[1:07:55] I don't know what the standards are for parking off the top of my head.

[1:07:59] I'd have to go look at that, but that might be a great place to start.

[1:08:04] for us to be able to say, yeah,

[1:08:06] we probably should be able to allow for some room there, or not.

[1:08:10] Right. And just a thought.

[1:08:12] And even with parking, if you recall back to Article 5, we took— we,

[1:08:16] we kind of have already— we built that in a little bit, essentially,

[1:08:21] in a very kind of similar context where we said we were, instead of,

[1:08:26] of stating thou shalt have for a— I mean, think of the most obscure use possible,

[1:08:31] 4 spaces per 100 square foot of a textile mill or, you know,

[1:08:35] something of that nature. We said these are the ones we care about.

[1:08:40] These are the, the big land uses that, that we have standards for, and we, we—

[1:08:45] these are the important pillars.

[1:08:48] The other ones, show your work, show us how you got here,

[1:08:52] and then we can present it essentially in a way.

[1:08:55] Now, whether or not that kind of falls into the same category as this, that'll

[1:09:00] into the same category as this, that'll be—

[1:09:00] that's a great example of one that something we talked about in Article 5.

[1:09:06] Yep.

[1:09:06] And then how that relates to our understanding of, of, of the systems now.

[1:09:11] But I think parking is one that could, you know,

[1:09:14] I may advocate that for it to remain because, for example, if,

[1:09:18] if they say 20 parking spaces is appropriate and you all say no,

[1:09:22] or Or something to that— maybe that one gets a little more contentious,

[1:09:27] but essentially, could they ask for a modification of standard to ask for that?

[1:09:32] For example, where I could see— and since we're talking parking,

[1:09:36] I've got a warehouse with so many square feet, and the standard is, what,

[1:09:41] 4 spaces per 1,000 or whatever the square footage is.

[1:09:45] The owner or the whoever comes back or the guy who's building it says, look,

[1:09:51] this is going to be a situation where there's only going to be 5 people here at

[1:09:56] there's only going to be 5 people here at any

[1:09:56] one time because that's what this whole building is designed for.

[1:10:01] There just won't be any more.

[1:10:03] Can I use this parking space to pull my trucks into rather than having a dedicated

[1:10:09] parking spot or, you know, to load or unload or something like that?

[1:10:14] That makes sense to It's when they start kind of like Len was saying,

[1:10:19] when they start getting into things like, well, you know, we want to— you know,

[1:10:24] I'm like on density.

[1:10:26] Well, if we just had 5 more, you know, or whatever,

[1:10:29] and you start getting into the wheeling and dealing.

[1:10:33] And that, I think, was one of the issues when we first developed this new zoning

[1:10:39] when we first developed this new zoning was

[1:10:39] to try to get away from, well,

[1:10:41] you give us this and then you give us 10 acres here for that,

[1:10:45] and trying to avoid all of that, uh, that we need to stick to.

[1:10:50] But I think there are— the, the word is minimum, minor relief,

[1:10:54] and that's the question I think that probably for all of these needs to get

[1:11:00] identified. What's minor relief? And I agree with, with Len on that.

[1:11:04] Yes, because I could say minors— I'm only changing one thing.

[1:11:09] Or minor is I'm just fudging every single thing across, like,

[1:11:13] just a little bit.

[1:11:14] Yeah, I would almost ask— Len has brought up guardrails. Yeah. Okay.

[1:11:18] So we could— is there an agreement about guardrail limitations to the modification

[1:11:24] of standards, or is it something we can come and show you?

[1:11:27] I think there should be limitations, but I'm— how do you—

[1:11:31] I feel like this is too open, but like,

[1:11:33] I'm almost thinking we shouldn't say here's the things you could modify.

[1:11:38] If we're allowing a modification of standard,

[1:11:41] it could say here's examples of things that could be modified,

[1:11:45] but this shouldn't be a holistic list.

[1:11:47] Yeah.

[1:11:47] Because I know there was things when I was building that, like, I was fine,

[1:11:51] but this one thing just— we can't figure out how to fit it in the code.

[1:11:55] But it could be some oddball thing that we might run into Once every 10 years.

[1:12:00] And I don't want us to limit ourselves of, well, if only it was this other thing,

[1:12:04] we could have done it, right?

[1:12:06] I agree. Um, I don't think we should have listed anything.

[1:12:09] We can always say no, right? Yeah, modification.

[1:12:12] Because here's the deal, there's new techniques that come,

[1:12:15] there's stuff that gets outdated.

[1:12:17] I grease containment systems, which it's the latest and greatest,

[1:12:21] but yet I can't put them in because it's archaic, because it's 30 years old,

[1:12:25] because they wrote the laws 30 years ago.

[1:12:27] So things are always going to progress with building materials and so forth.

[1:12:32] Would, would there be— well,

[1:12:34] that was one of the discussion points even internally amongst staff,

[1:12:38] was we should have some limitations to these things.

[1:12:42] And then the other side of it essentially said they're already asking for the

[1:12:48] modification, they're asking for the thing to modify.

[1:12:52] And so For example, at the BZA level, the variance level,

[1:12:56] there's no limits to your variance. You can ask for a variance.

[1:13:00] And, and you want to change your front yard setback from the required 1,000 feet

[1:13:06] yard setback from the required 1,000 feet to

[1:13:06] 1? Yeah, they probably— more than likely going to say no, but there's not a,

[1:13:11] a rule and regulation from either the state or the municipality that says you

[1:13:17] state or the municipality that says you must

[1:13:17] limit your request for the exception or whatever it may be.

[1:13:21] So what if I— what if I maybe turned it a little bit?

[1:13:25] What if instead of listing the things in which a modification may be allowed,

[1:13:31] are there any non-negotiable— in no way are we interested in something?

[1:13:36] So, I mean, for some food for thought, like I've just been looking, right?

[1:13:40] 'Cause we're on this conversation today.

[1:13:43] I like the idea that I don't know that we— I agree not to not have a list,

[1:13:48] number one. And number two is I think we can at least have categories and talk

[1:13:52] can at least have categories and talk about

[1:13:53] things we encourage and things we would discourage,

[1:13:56] is what I found in one of the guidelines that I've been able to look at that seems

[1:14:01] to make— it seems applicable for us.

[1:14:03] Because we can't cover everything, but we have to have some guidelines.

[1:14:08] Yeah.

[1:14:09] And I'm wondering if that is a way to write it so that we are

[1:14:13] open to what people may bring, but we have some way to say—

[1:14:18] The only issue I would have with that is that the zoning ordinance is essentially a

[1:14:25] rulebook, and it almost has to be very binary in a way.

[1:14:29] We, we could add those, those things.

[1:14:32] Like, these are things that we imagine they would be, but they would—

[1:14:38] at least as they would not really have any weight. They would be additional.

[1:14:44] Like, it would need to say, you know, we need to say you shall do this.

[1:14:50] And, and the zoning ordinance is your rule book, is how I've always—

[1:14:56] Mm-hmm.

[1:14:56] Your comp plan or some of these other things can be more of the Inspirational or

[1:15:02] aspirational documents.

[1:15:04] And but the zoning ordinance is your thou shalt do 25 feet, you know,

[1:15:09] or whatever it may be.

[1:15:10] So understanding that, and we, we could, we could create guidelines,

[1:15:15] but they would be unenforceable.

[1:15:17] Mm-hmm.

[1:15:18] So, right, it would say, what can you ask a modification—

[1:15:22] what can you ask a modification of standard from?

[1:15:25] The answer is anything, for example. Then the answer is anything.

[1:15:29] We would recommend you do not do XYZ, but you can still ask.

[1:15:33] And that would be more of a, almost an administrative, put it on the website or,

[1:15:38] or discuss with something like that is kind of what I would say.

[1:15:43] Yeah, because I could see, you know, you could justify any— like,

[1:15:45] there's always something you can find for a reason.

[1:15:48] So I think limiting what they can ask for, you already have You kind of do that,

[1:15:53] right, in 1A through E?

[1:15:55] Yep.

[1:15:56] You're kind of already laying out—

[1:15:57] Yeah.

[1:15:58] —things you cannot ask or we would not accept.

[1:16:01] Maybe we can expand that list if you want to, but you're already generally doing—

[1:16:06] like, doesn't, you know, diminish the ability of town to provide service,

[1:16:10] doesn't impact future plans or things like that.

[1:16:14] So you're already kind of saying these are things you cannot ask for modification.

[1:16:19] And I agree, we wouldn't be able to guess, you know,

[1:16:22] like a list of everything you can ask for. So I agree, don't put a list.

[1:16:27] Like, for example, one statement that—

[1:16:29] or one kind of floating thought that has been mentioned internally has been,

[1:16:34] you know, are there things within Article 5— let's just pick that one,

[1:16:39] which is transportation— you know,

[1:16:41] do we say you can ask for modifications to standard within Article 5?

[1:16:46] Article 6, Article 7. Do you limit it in terms of full articles?

[1:16:50] But then you're essentially just— I thought I'd throw it out there.

[1:16:55] I mean, I'm almost hearing it's kind of split in a way.

[1:16:59] So what I'm thinking is we will come back with revisions to this and either we'll

[1:17:04] show you what we got, is— unless I'm reading it wrong. No, I think that's

[1:17:09] reading it wrong. No, I think that's right.

[1:17:10] Regardless of whether we have a list, the guiding principle is in those 5 items.

[1:17:16] You can ask for anything you want, but if it doesn't meet or satisfy these things,

[1:17:22] it's not happening.

[1:17:23] Sure. And we could— it could meet those things and we could still say no.

[1:17:27] Right. But we could say yes.

[1:17:29] And I guess part of, you know, if I was going to plant my flag on anything,

[1:17:34] it would just be density. I can look at other things.

[1:17:38] But I think density is one of those. Don't even come to us.

[1:17:42] We've set our density because what it will become is a used car lot.

[1:17:47] Well, we want to increase density.

[1:17:49] Well, they're not going to want to go 5,

[1:17:52] but let's ask 5 and maybe we can come to doing 3 more and just say, you know,

[1:17:57] I think that's one that I would definitely go, no, it is what it is.

[1:18:02] Yes.

[1:18:03] We're not going to be changing that.

[1:18:05] Things like lot size because there's a heritage tree in the middle of,

[1:18:10] of something and somebody's saying, can I— I've got 2 lots,

[1:18:14] if I can make them a little bit less than a quarter of an acre rather than the

[1:18:20] required quarter acre to get so I don't have to cut this tree down or work around

[1:18:25] whatever.

[1:18:26] Yeah.

[1:18:28] I think those are the kinds of things that I would consider minor.

[1:18:31] But so just as a thought experiment here, so we're looking at—

[1:18:36] let's look at the piece of property that just came in, asked for rezoning,

[1:18:42] 9.22 acres, let's say.

[1:18:43] And let's say they gifted us those 10 and they had 9.22 acres.

[1:18:48] Right now it's a CD-2. Under the new— that's 0.5 units per 1 acre.

[1:18:53] So if they said, well, we want to build 5 houses on that property,

[1:18:58] That is too much density by a little bit.

[1:19:01] But 5 single-family homes meeting all—

[1:19:04] meeting all the look and feel of all the neighboring properties, like,

[1:19:09] that's something that we could say.

[1:19:12] Wow.

[1:19:12] Well, yeah, it's close. It's 5 acres really on 19, but we're saying it's only

[1:19:17] really on 19, but we're saying it's only on 10.

[1:19:17] We're okay with it. Like,

[1:19:18] it's just something that we could potentially look at that we would stop

[1:19:23] potentially look at that we would stop there.

[1:19:23] meeting the current zoning.

[1:19:24] But here's where I would get into that.

[1:19:28] I have 8/10 of an acre, okay, in my subdivision.

[1:19:33] I can build 2 units on an acre.

[1:19:36] So can I now go, well, it's just 2/10 of an acre,

[1:19:40] I've got plenty of backyard,

[1:19:43] can't I put a second house back here because I'm, I'm close?

[1:19:50] And that was the option. We can at least look at it. You can always say no.

[1:19:52] Yeah, that's what I mean.

[1:19:54] I guess that's what I'm saying. Like, we can always say no.

[1:19:57] That's like— I, I hate limiting ourselves to say, well,

[1:20:00] this is an absolute no-go when it could be just a fraction different to make it work

[1:20:04] because of a floodplain or something like that.

[1:20:07] Well, maybe that's where we come in with the minor of a, OK,

[1:20:11] you can make an adjustment within a percentage some percentage point or

[1:20:16] percentage some percentage point or something if

[1:20:17] you're going to do that.

[1:20:19] But, but I just don't want us to get into, well, if I built 10 townhouses,

[1:20:25] can I build 12?

[1:20:26] Or we can say no. I guess that's my big thing. We can always say no.

[1:20:31] There's— why, why limit what we can approve?

[1:20:34] Because, because boards change and membership changes.

[1:20:37] And that would be my concern,

[1:20:39] is that say in 3 years the next members of the board come in and go, yeah, let's—

[1:20:44] sure, we'll increase density on this lot, on this property,

[1:20:47] and then we're increasing density on the next developer and the next developer.

[1:20:52] So now our density is actually, instead of 10 units per acre,

[1:20:56] it's now 12 because we've allowed all of these changes.

[1:20:59] That would be my concern on density.

[1:21:01] The question, though, that I would ask, just using your 8 tents,

[1:21:05] you want to put 2 houses? Yeah.

[1:21:07] If you go through the A through E, The question ultimately is,

[1:21:11] does it affect any one of those things,

[1:21:14] that putting that second home on 0.8 instead of 1 full acre, does it,

[1:21:18] does it do anything? Does it do violence to any of these things?

[1:21:22] And if the answer is no, then we might approve it.

[1:21:25] And as Brad said, we can also say no.

[1:21:28] I assume, by the way, Charles, that we could say no.

[1:21:31] Yeah. Okay.

[1:21:33] Yes.

[1:21:33] So we can also say no.

[1:21:34] One of the questions that arises is it now becomes really important to be satisfied

[1:21:40] that A through E really covers the waterfront and says it appropriately so

[1:21:45] waterfront and says it appropriately so that we

[1:21:46] don't get ourselves into a situation that is not in the town's best interest.

[1:21:51] That becomes really important now.

[1:21:53] And let me— is there any— is there another, uh,

[1:21:57] large item that falls in the same level as density. Right?

[1:22:03] So great points, I think, made by all.

[1:22:06] But density is one that I can— you know, that's what I brought up essentially as,

[1:22:14] you know, what—

[1:22:15] The only one I don't know about height, if we're talking 3-story versus 4-story,

[1:22:20] that we just say, you know, 3-story is what you get.

[1:22:23] Sure. Those were the two, to be fair.

[1:22:25] Those were the two that— As we discussed it internally,

[1:22:28] density and height were the two that kind of came up as the—

[1:22:32] I think the only one that could sneak up on people that don't think about—

[1:22:36] and Commissioner Gray could probably speak to this a little bit—

[1:22:40] is the mechanical systems placements.

[1:22:42] That's something that seems like, oh yeah, I just think—

[1:22:46] but when you have massive chillers or HVAC units sitting outside that become

[1:22:50] eyesores to the general public, And people go, why the heck did they put that there?

[1:22:55] Like, well, it was easier, so I asked for a variance and we did it.

[1:22:59] That's one of those things that not a lot of people consider but can be a problem.

[1:23:04] And there can be screening requirements,

[1:23:06] and/or other municipalities will do it by actual feet.

[1:23:09] So instead of 3 stories, because you can have a tall 1-story, you know,

[1:23:13] it's where others will put it at.

[1:23:15] Um, I've looked at so many ordinances I can't remember if it was our own or not,

[1:23:19] but it was Like finished foot elevation. It was right.

[1:23:22] It was 42 feet or something like that.

[1:23:24] And that was even though it said a 3-story, you know,

[1:23:27] and it said 3 stories or 42 feet or, you know, something in that range.

[1:23:31] Would you add letter F and just say, you know,

[1:23:34] could be unpleasing to the eye of some formal legal jargon?

[1:23:39] Right. Doesn't look good.

[1:23:42] But I like how HVAC units look.

[1:23:44] Does anyone have any The document is about 4 pages long, I guess.

[1:23:49] Aside from what we've discussed,

[1:23:51] does anyone have any other areas on this document that they want to discuss?

[1:23:56] Yeah, really quickly, because about how is— you know, Charles,

[1:24:00] you mentioned this is a recommendation. We would recommend a modification.

[1:24:05] The commissioners would ultimately accept it or not.

[1:24:08] What if we— so what happens if we do say no?

[1:24:11] Is it a no recommendation and they can It still goes to them?

[1:24:15] Yes.

[1:24:15] Okay.

[1:24:16] That's how— that's how I'm intending for it to be.

[1:24:20] Okay.

[1:24:20] So very similar to the other action that occurred earlier this evening,

[1:24:25] it moves to the Board of Commissioners with a negative recommendation or an

[1:24:30] unfavorable recommendation from the Planning Commission.

[1:24:34] So ultimately similar— and I've said it before—

[1:24:37] similarly to like my staff report is non-binding to you. In that kind of way.

[1:24:42] And is it in this document— sorry, Commissioner Adams,

[1:24:45] you said like it's either a yes or a no,

[1:24:47] there's no like haggling where they're like, I want X number of parking spaces,

[1:24:52] and we're like, well, we won't give you 10, we won't let you lose 10,

[1:24:56] but we'll let you use 5.

[1:24:57] There's non-negotiable where it's either a—

[1:25:00] this is what they're presenting and it's a straight up yes or no,

[1:25:04] not a let's barter. them ask high and then get us to move off of our line a little

[1:25:08] bit. Does that make sense?

[1:25:10] Yes, it does.

[1:25:11] I'm not sure what we can do to limit that.

[1:25:17] Well, one way would simply be to say no.

[1:25:20] We force a resubmittal.

[1:25:22] Yeah, if they ask for 10, we say no.

[1:25:24] They want to come back and ask for 5, I suppose they could.

[1:25:27] Well, what I'm— I think what Commissioner Gray is saying is let's assume it goes

[1:25:33] Somebody wants to do one additional unit somewhere. You guys say yes.

[1:25:37] Goes Board of Commissioners. Commissioners say, yeah, that's nice.

[1:25:42] What about something else? I don't know that I have. I don't have.

[1:25:47] They are the legislative body. I'd look to Charles.

[1:25:51] As long as they're as long as they're abiding by state law, I mean,

[1:25:55] I guess they couldn't do any.

[1:25:57] thing that went against their own— you know, maybe we could.

[1:26:02] Charles, is there legal jargon we can put in?

[1:26:05] I was having a little bit of trouble following that.

[1:26:08] Essentially, if, if it—

[1:26:10] if there's a modification of standards request and it says that, you know,

[1:26:14] request and it says that, you know, they're—

[1:26:15] the zoning ordinance allows them 10 units, 10 residential units by right,

[1:26:20] there's a modification of standard request for 15 units by right,

[1:26:24] or within the modification of standard, uh,

[1:26:26] Planning Commission recommends approval to the Board of Commissioners,

[1:26:31] goes to the Board of Commissioners, they say, yeah, we'll give you 15,

[1:26:35] but something, something, something.

[1:26:38] Would anything— A, I guess, are they allowed to do that?

[1:26:41] B, is there anything we could put within the zoning ordinance that would limit

[1:26:46] the zoning ordinance that would limit that?

[1:26:46] Would to say, is if that modification of standard changes in any capacity Or

[1:26:51] increases in any capacity from the original request,

[1:26:54] it must be returned back to the Planning Commission or something.

[1:26:59] Essentially, because—

[1:27:00] You lost me a little bit. Yeah, that's something, something, something.

[1:27:04] It's but something, something, something. I need something.

[1:27:07] I need to hear something specific to understand it.

[1:27:09] 10 units to 15 units.

[1:27:10] Planning Commission or Board of Commissioners says give me $1 million.

[1:27:14] Or give me a variance, or you need to gift us this land as a variance,

[1:27:18] or a I was trying not to be too specific on something, but I think that's,

[1:27:22] that's a critical point.

[1:27:24] They ask for something else.

[1:27:25] Yeah, they ask for something else because this is essentially an ordinance

[1:27:29] amendment. If it is a change that is significant enough to potentially change

[1:27:33] significant enough to potentially change the

[1:27:34] recommendation of any Planning Commission member, it would need to come back.

[1:27:38] Okay, now it— does this have to be an ordinance?

[1:27:41] And this is one thing we— this is live discussion.

[1:27:43] Does this need to be an ordinance, or could this be a resolution,

[1:27:47] the modification of standard?

[1:27:49] provision, I guess, because if we're changing the ordinance, we,

[1:27:53] we may have added 2 months to the thing, I guess, is the, is the, is the question.

[1:27:57] But we can talk about that.

[1:27:59] Um, Charles, what I was trying to say was if somebody asks, um, you know,

[1:28:04] like if you want money from your parents,

[1:28:07] you ask for a lot thinking that they'll meet me in the middle.

[1:28:12] So what I'm wondering is if there's something we can put to where if they come

[1:28:17] something we can put to where if they come in

[1:28:18] and want kind of a crazy variance to get us to go off of the line.

[1:28:22] Um, like there's no negotiation.

[1:28:25] It's either they ask for what they want and it's a yes or no.

[1:28:29] So it's forcing the commission to,

[1:28:32] to yes or no and not negotiate on the variance that they're wanting.

[1:28:37] I mean, at the end of the day, I think you come back to the same thing of they say,

[1:28:41] well, if you came back to us with 12, then we'd say yes.

[1:28:44] So, okay, but that would still put it back through the— like,

[1:28:48] they couldn't approve 12 in the room.

[1:28:51] They couldn't say, well, we'll approve that at 12, it's now passed.

[1:28:56] They would say come back to us,

[1:28:58] which would then kick it back through here for us to review it again before we get

[1:29:03] to that.

[1:29:04] Is that correct?

[1:29:05] It—

[1:29:09] but if it is, couldn't we pass a resolution that said we will approve this

[1:29:13] resolution that said we will approve this at 12

[1:29:13] units It's not 15.

[1:29:14] Right. And this goes to Charles— yeah,

[1:29:17] I believe this goes to Charles's comment about is if the request substantially

[1:29:22] changes, it should come back.

[1:29:24] I mean, there's been discussions about that on,

[1:29:27] on other rezonings or annexation procedures where if you all gave a

[1:29:31] procedures where if you all gave a recommendation

[1:29:32] for CD3 and there's a request to change it to something else,

[1:29:36] would that be required to come back to you all?

[1:29:40] But I think what the chairman was saying though is if someone submits a request for

[1:29:45] a variance of one thing, it—

[1:29:47] could we approve it at a lower variance without requesting a resubmission?

[1:29:52] So they come in, they can only do 10, they submitted at 15, and we say, well,

[1:29:56] we will approve this at 12, and then it is approved,

[1:30:00] approved at 12 without a resubmission.

[1:30:02] I'm unsure. You as the Planning Commission?

[1:30:08] Yeah, well, that we approve the recommendation of 12 and they would have

[1:30:11] recommendation of 12 and they would have to bring an

[1:30:12] updated plan to the Board of Commissioners.

[1:30:14] I think you could.

[1:30:16] Yeah, it would seem to me that, for example, you would have a motion that

[1:30:21] example, you would have a motion that said, I,

[1:30:21] I'll make a motion that we approve this with staff conditions and an amendment

[1:30:27] with staff conditions and an amendment that

[1:30:27] changes it from 15 to 12. More elegant, of course, but yeah. I'm just—

[1:30:32] and I'm asking, you know, one thing that may be beneficial— now we're,

[1:30:37] now we're truly, you know, I'm not— I'm spitballing here— is, A, is it legal?

[1:30:44] A, is it possible? B, that's a given.

[1:30:47] But B, the next question would be to Commissioner Gray's perspective,

[1:30:52] is that maybe there's some merit in if it changes That it should return,

[1:30:58] so that they've got to be very careful. How much do I roll these dice?

[1:31:04] 100%.

[1:31:05] Do I go— that's what I'm going— do I try to roll for, you know,

[1:31:10] for double 6s here or not?

[1:31:11] Um, because if something for us to maybe chew on, yeah,

[1:31:15] a little bit about is there a— the resubmittal procedure and any changes must

[1:31:20] resubmittal procedure and any changes must do,

[1:31:21] right? And we'll have to be careful with the words too.

[1:31:24] Changes has gotten me in trouble before. We can either say increases or whatever.

[1:31:30] Well, they have to pay a fee again. They got to go through the process again.

[1:31:32] So they need to be very careful of what they're asking for.

[1:31:34] And this is the article in which we would have to specify that.

[1:31:38] Article 8 would be what is the procedure. I need to know exactly when I pay fees.

[1:31:44] I need to know where those fees are located.

[1:31:47] I need to know who— to whom do I submit The fees, so on and so forth.

[1:31:51] So this is the portion for us to consider, though.

[1:31:54] Okay.

[1:31:56] Does anybody have anything else on the modification standards that you'd like to

[1:32:00] discuss?

[1:32:00] And are we allowed to waive those fees for them?

[1:32:03] Are we— do we have the ability to do that?

[1:32:04] Can we recommend that those fees be waived?

[1:32:06] No, no, I don't believe so.

[1:32:08] Or charge them double.

[1:32:12] I think Charles will have a problem with that.

[1:32:14] And $10 for every tree. $1,000 for every tree as well.

[1:32:20] Okay, so, okay, that's it for the modification of standards unless there's

[1:32:24] modification of standards unless there's something

[1:32:25] specific that staff would like to discuss.

[1:32:27] No, I don't think so.

[1:32:29] The other— the only portion I would say is moving on a little bit is that

[1:32:33] development plans, which are now a new application type,

[1:32:37] exist with modification of standards attached to them.

[1:32:41] Essentially, that's the, that's the difference.

[1:32:44] So instead of it being a PUD We work— we,

[1:32:47] we did attempt to be somewhat careful understanding the history with,

[1:32:52] with this community, with PUDs and, and, and some of those,

[1:32:56] those things where we attempted not to just have a PUD district,

[1:33:00] but to say you are going to very specifically ask for what modification you

[1:33:05] specifically ask for what modification you are

[1:33:05] asking for. What— which portion of the ordinance and to what extent are you

[1:33:10] ordinance and to what extent are you asking

[1:33:11] for this flexibility? Is it right-of-way width? Is it this? Is it trees?

[1:33:16] Is it open spaces? What is it?

[1:33:18] Versus a more blanket approach that is allowable, you know,

[1:33:22] and other communities do those,

[1:33:24] but trying to kind of maybe hit a middle ground there.

[1:33:27] So that is— when you see the word development plan, that is what I'm

[1:33:32] development plan, that is what I'm referencing,

[1:33:33] is it is a submittal requirement that— Yes.

[1:33:36] Is, as you would think of it, as a site plan,

[1:33:39] a little not as fleshed out essentially, but a site plan that would go to this,

[1:33:44] to this commission, ask for the modification of standards recommendation,

[1:33:49] goes to the board for either one or whatever process it has to do,

[1:33:54] whether that's a resolution or an ordinance.

[1:33:57] Then if that is approved, they would come back to you.

[1:34:00] Is it a— and again, go back to my question— is,

[1:34:03] does it have non-residential or Or attached housing? Site plan, back to you

[1:34:08] attached housing? Site plan, back to you guys.

[1:34:09] Is it a residential, solely residential preliminary and/or final plat,

[1:34:14] depending on the preliminary and final plat standards?

[1:34:17] So if that kind of helps, I can imagine it well in my head, and I understand we—

[1:34:23] there is a flowchart, but it, you know, it would not matter anymore,

[1:34:27] so we haven't created a new one.

[1:34:29] But I'm trying to kind of, if you think of it, kind of The pyramid shape.

[1:34:34] Are you— do you have a modification to standard? If yes, development plan.

[1:34:39] If not, you know, continue past go. Okay.

[1:34:42] One additional thing I'll say about the entirety—

[1:34:45] Let me—

[1:34:47] I just want to make sure I'm clear.

[1:34:50] So developer says, I'm going to build A subdivision.

[1:34:54] I'm going to have mixed— I'm going to have some townhouses,

[1:34:59] I'm going to have some 55+, and I'm going to have some whatever.

[1:35:04] But I really need— and I want to stay away from density because I don't personally—

[1:35:11] I don't want to see that change. But I want to—

[1:35:15] Setbacks.

[1:35:16] Setbacks.

[1:35:20] Because it's different than what the code is, the setbacks,

[1:35:24] I would do that first and get that approval.

[1:35:26] Yes.

[1:35:27] And then come with my final— not— I don't want to use the word final.

[1:35:33] I come with, here's my plan, and I've made all the minor—

[1:35:38] emphasis on minor.

[1:35:40] I'm just going to delete the word minor.

[1:35:41] Okay. Uh, I'm gonna— I've made those changes,

[1:35:46] and now I'm really making this presentation.

[1:35:50] And from there, there are no really significant changes.

[1:35:55] If you— you are then moving through what would be the whole rest of—

[1:35:58] what would be the normal—

[1:35:59] So it's adding a step up front.

[1:36:01] It's, it's adding a step up front,

[1:36:04] but in some capacities it's removing a site development plan step.

[1:36:08] Sagebrook— I'll just say Sagebrook, for example, did a site development plan,

[1:36:13] a preliminary plat, and a final plat.

[1:36:15] And I don't think that, that, that is the norm.

[1:36:18] So for example, let's say that they did by right, which is what they did.

[1:36:23] They met the standards of the zoning ordinance.

[1:36:26] They would— but let's pretend they didn't. Well, sorry, let's— they did not.

[1:36:31] They would not have to do a development plan.

[1:36:34] They would go right to preliminary plat, final plat.

[1:36:37] Now let's assume that they did want to vary XYZ development plan.

[1:36:41] So preliminary plat, final plat.

[1:36:43] And, and that's a good example because they went to,

[1:36:47] uh, the Zoning Appeals Board, the— for the garages.

[1:36:51] Yes. Sorry. Yes.

[1:36:53] So instead of going to Board of Zoning Appeals, they would come and say, look,

[1:36:59] we would like a modification on these 2 lots for where the garage is.

[1:37:05] Is that— is it— is that what you're saying?

[1:37:08] And then they— we would say yes or nay, and then they would continue on?

[1:37:14] Yes.

[1:37:15] Okay, okay, then I understand. And I could—

[1:37:19] And in theory, it is more a—

[1:37:21] that's a great example because that request was really a development request

[1:37:27] request was really a development request versus

[1:37:27] this individual lot has a topographical or environmental feature or issue that

[1:37:34] provides me complying with it separately.

[1:37:37] So it may seem minor,

[1:37:38] but there are differences between a modification and a variance.

[1:37:43] A variance would say, I cannot put a, uh,

[1:37:46] a shed or an accessory building in the back because it drops off—

[1:37:51] I live off the edge of a cliff, and so I have to put it in the front yard,

[1:37:57] which is a violation of this due to topographical issues.

[1:38:01] I, I'm asking for a variance, and it would go through BZA,

[1:38:06] Which would be quicker and would be different because it is a variance of just

[1:38:12] different because it is a variance of just the

[1:38:12] topographical reasons for that lot, if that makes sense.

[1:38:16] Yeah.

[1:38:19] One other big thing that kind of goes over all of the application submittals,

[1:38:24] you may see one of the things that has been changed through all the applications

[1:38:29] been changed through all the applications is

[1:38:29] we have removed every list of every single submittal requirement.

[1:38:34] That does not mean we've removed them. I was waiting for a gasp.

[1:38:38] But, um, other municipalities,

[1:38:40] instead of keeping those at the zoning ordinance level, which is—

[1:38:44] we've talked about it before—

[1:38:46] it is ultimately approved by the Board of Commissioners, and it is your rule book.

[1:38:52] If there was a reason or rationale to change one of those things,

[1:38:56] you're looking at a 4-month procedure. And let's say it's a minor error.

[1:39:01] Let's say it's Something, something like that.

[1:39:04] Other municipalities do this as well, and this is what I'm advocating for us to do,

[1:39:09] is that we would ultimately state checklists are available on the town's

[1:39:14] checklists are available on the town's website.

[1:39:15] Any changes— and we'll wordsmith it later, but the intent is what matters—

[1:39:20] is that the checklists can be modified and approved and are ultimately approved by

[1:39:25] Planning Commission.

[1:39:27] So we all would have an approved checklist for development plan.

[1:39:31] These are the submittal requirements that you must do for that development plan,

[1:39:36] for site plan, for whatever it may be.

[1:39:39] If we wanted to change one of those, we would bring it forth to you all.

[1:39:44] So we have approval from the Board of Commissioners that checklists can be Found

[1:39:49] here, and they can be modified by whom?

[1:39:51] You know, you think again of that little matrix that is the decision maker,

[1:39:56] the reviewer. The reviewer is us.

[1:39:59] You guys are the decision maker,

[1:40:01] and the Board of Commissioners has bestowed that upon us.

[1:40:05] Because right now, any require— change to those submittal requirements is a—

[1:40:10] ultimately has to go all the way up to the Board of Commissioners.

[1:40:14] We are not giving that latitude, and neither are y'all.

[1:40:18] And what you just described is how— As a proposal,

[1:40:21] is what's frequently done in other municipalities?

[1:40:24] It is what's done in our peer municipalities.

[1:40:27] Anybody have any comments, thoughts on that?

[1:40:35] Okay, moving on. I'm generally on page 50, just to give you an idea.

[1:40:39] Uh, I'm still scrolling, going through the development plans.

[1:40:43] Is there any— you know, so what we would also have, again, just to give an idea,

[1:40:47] is Development plans, site plans,

[1:40:49] preliminary and final plats are still handled through the subdivision regs.

[1:40:54] And then there's some additional permits and sign plans,

[1:40:57] Historic Zoning Commission's role, Board of Zoning Commission's role,

[1:41:01] with some of the— with the same sentiment I just expressed of a lot of their rules

[1:41:06] and regs and submittal requirements being checklists and then them having the

[1:41:11] ability to update their own checklist,

[1:41:13] whether it's Historic Zoning Commission and/or Board of Zoning Appeals,

[1:41:17] similar to how they would do their bylaws.

[1:41:20] And do you foresee us being able to, like, on our website, again,

[1:41:24] for the ease of developers, like,

[1:41:26] have them get a login and they can track where they're at?

[1:41:30] We have that currently with our submittal software.

[1:41:33] Okay.

[1:41:34] Is that what you mean in terms of where are you in the process, in a way?

[1:41:36] Yeah, where are you in the process and what are your options?

[1:41:38] Yes. Well, we have that—

[1:41:40] our online submittal software is how we review plans and

[1:41:45] submittals and requirements and fees and all those things is how

[1:41:50] we manage this now. Did that answer the question?

[1:41:54] I think so.

[1:41:56] So in terms of— are you asking if they're unsure on what to apply for?

[1:42:01] Right.

[1:42:02] Call me. There's no way I could, you know, They could read the document,

[1:42:06] but that's not helpful.

[1:42:07] Yeah, I hear you.

[1:42:10] It, it goes— and maybe that flowchart, that forthcoming flowchart,

[1:42:14] would be helpful. Are you doing development that creates lots? Right.

[1:42:18] Are you, you know, right?

[1:42:19] Let me ask, just for the sake of discussion at the moment,

[1:42:24] we are at about 8:10. How far would you like to go this evening?

[1:42:28] How does everyone feel? Have we made the progress you wanted to make?

[1:42:33] Do we need to do some more tonight?

[1:42:36] We have made— we have made more progress than I thought.

[1:42:40] Okay, okay. How do you folks feel about

[1:42:44] going further, or are we brain fried?

[1:42:48] I can— I can make a motion to close if you're wanting one, Len.

[1:42:52] It's not allowed.

[1:43:00] Okay. Are you okay? Is everyone okay with closing it out now?

[1:43:04] Again, I don't want to— no one is screaming, let's keep going. Okay.

[1:43:09] I'm glad you felt that we've made more progress than we expected.

[1:43:13] And I guess some closing thoughts. This is a lot. This is a big document.

[1:43:18] We are still working through it. It was a relatively light agenda.

[1:43:22] It will not be a light agenda more than likely for next month,

[1:43:25] so wanted to make sure we got at least this in front of you and maybe some of

[1:43:30] this in front of you and maybe some of these

[1:43:30] bigger picture items such as modification of standard, the removal of the checklist,

[1:43:35] or the changing of where checklists are,

[1:43:37] and additional modification of standards questions.

[1:43:40] So I just wanted to make sure that we have that.

[1:43:43] The other big one is surety component is on there.

[1:43:46] I don't even want to begin to talk about that.

[1:43:49] That one's a— That one's for another night,

[1:43:51] and we need to talk about it as well internally. Um, okay, so yeah, that was—

[1:43:56] All right, next item on our agenda is other.

[1:43:58] Does anyone have anything else they feel they need to discuss?

[1:44:00] Can I just get a confirmation that we did move the Planning Commission

[1:44:06] meeting in October due to fall break, or did we keep it on schedule?

[1:44:11] It's going to be whatever we— whatever is published.

[1:44:21] Down below.

[1:44:21] I showed on the 20th of October.

[1:44:23] So we— I remember us talking about it, and so that's good if we did.

[1:44:29] We have it set for October 20th.

[1:44:31] So that is correct. We— okay, perfect. Thank you.

[1:44:33] We did it.

[1:44:34] Anybody have anything else?

[1:44:35] Well, just to call out, if we're planning next year's calendar, uh,

[1:44:39] just so you guys are aware, that won't be the case, uh,

[1:44:42] With spring break being later next year, um, it'll—

[1:44:45] spring break will be the week after our Planning Commission meeting,

[1:44:48] so we'll be good there.

[1:44:50] Okay, anything else? I'll entertain a motion for adjournment.

[1:44:56] Make a motion to adjourn.

[1:45:00] Second.

[1:45:01] All those in favor signify by saying aye.

[1:45:03] Aye.

[1:45:04] Opposed? Motion passed unanimously.

[1:45:06] Thanks everyone for your great input and help tonight.

Regular Meeting

Transcript