[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.