[4:23] Here in the chamber and watching the line, it is 630, we'll call the September 3rd, 2026 meeting of the

[4:30] Percival Planning Commission Order.

[4:34] Chair-Gat, Chair-Fabre is absent tonight, as Vice Chair,

[4:38] I will be presiding police silence for phones and candle can you confirm the public reporting

[4:43] is running.

[4:46] For the record, roll call, we will show that Commissioner Vertoe is absent, vice

[4:54] to your Davis as president.

[4:56] Chair, favor is absent, commissioner harding.

[5:00] Commissioner Kelly and Commissioner McConville are present. Let the record reflect that a quorum is present.

[5:09] Commissioner McConville, will you please lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

[5:17] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America into the Republic for which it stands.

[5:24] One nation, under God, the individual, with liberty and justice for all.

[5:36] Our next agenda item is the agenda amendments and approval.

[5:42] A couple notes prior to setting the agenda.

[5:48] Or request has been made regarding the VR-2601 for the fence.

[5:54] There is a the resonance our present and they have me on ones that would like to get out of here before bedtime.

[6:02] We, I guess, know, we do not have to discuss this.

[6:07] This is, it is an option for the planning commission to make a recommendation.

[6:13] So as part of setting this agenda, I think part of that needs to be a decision amongst the planning commission

[6:20] of whether we want to hear this and make a recommendation.

[6:24] Or if there is, if we do not, then we don't have to make a recommendation.

[6:29] So we can just strike this item or hear the residents and just move on.

[6:38] So I'll open it up to any amendments.

[6:49] If I may, Vice Chair.

[6:51] I'm going to introduce myself a bit later.

[6:53] Jordan Andrew's planning manager just came back on Monday.

[6:56] And I think he did also propose to just move it up.

[6:59] I know they came out to make some comments.

[7:02] You certainly able to move it to a higher point in the agenda.

[7:06] And discuss it there briefly if you'd like as a alternative, anybody

[7:25] have any agenda amendments, they're like proposed.

[7:30] Do you want to move it prior to the public hearing, just kind of get them moving forward and so they know what's going on?

[7:42] Discussions items up to just 11A.

[7:48] Yes, yes, just a little bit of a new year.

[7:57] I can take a straw poll.

[7:59] Does everybody want to discuss?

[8:01] Or do we want to just have them make their comments and make

[8:05] a recommendation to the AR?

[8:10] Do they have a formal presentation that they'd like to make?

[8:16] I don't believe so.

[8:17] I think there's staff report.

[8:18] I believe they just had public comments they can make.

[8:21] And we have some information report as well.

[8:23] Would you like to review that?

[8:30] To do well, vote on moving the agenda item up.

[8:33] All those in favor?

[8:35] All right.

[8:38] All right.

[8:38] So that will be now be prior to the public hearing for the Percivil Fire Rescue.

[8:54] And then do you want to take a vote on whether we want to make a recommendation or just

[8:58] hear the item?

[9:06] Let's just keep it as a discussion item for tonight.

[9:09] Unless we're after the discussion, let's make that decision if we want to vote

[9:13] on it or not.

[9:14] Let's go.

[9:15] Thank you.

[9:15] Okay.

[9:16] I agree. Any other amendments?

[9:29] All right. Hearing none.

[9:31] And we will, and I get a motion to adopt the tonight's agenda as

[9:39] presented to move 11A to after approval of minutes and everything else

[9:45] as is.

[9:50] Still moved.

[9:52] Do I hear a second?

[9:55] All in favor say aye.

[9:56] Aye.

[9:57] motion carries.

[10:02] Commissioner's closures do any members of the disclosure of the body have any disclosures evening. Please note that we do have public hearings. And so this is a little bit more important than normal.

[10:18] I need to disclose that I am currently in employee attendance, so I will step out during

[10:25] the discussions and reduce myself from the voting on the Perseveral Fire and Rescue.

[10:36] Any other disclosures?

[10:38] And I also need to disclose that I am a volunteer member of both the Perseveral Volunteer

[10:42] Fire Company and the Perseveral Volunteer Rescue Squad, which are tenants in the station.

[10:49] Can I get a staff pin here, I guess then if we have only three, does that, do we have a

[10:54] quorum that we can even take up on that or how does that work?

[11:00] We have a vacancy on the commission currently, if the chair is out, and then two of the

[11:09] Yes, so we don't have three votes.

[11:13] I think for a vote, and we can certainly, and so I mean, the other thing I would say is

[11:25] disclosing a gentle conflict of incident doesn't necessarily disqualify you from being able to take action.

[11:30] certainly a personal preference if members felt that they were able to objectively evaluate

[11:38] and make a recommendation and part of it and maybe we're getting a little bit into it,

[11:43] but this might affect your decision.

[11:46] The application tonight is a commission permit whereby we're not going to be getting into

[11:51] the nuts and bolts of the exactly out.

[11:54] The really commission permit is the planning commission looking at the application to identify

[11:59] if it's consistent with the comp plan, as far as a public use.

[12:04] In this specific case, we've actually already had a commission permit for the fire station

[12:08] issued in 2007.

[12:11] A new commission permit is being requested because it's being expanded.

[12:14] The footprint, additional structures and storage of things of that nature.

[12:20] So, as commission permits go, this is in my mind not a heavy lift or very controversial

[12:25] to one because it's been issued.

[12:27] The fire station is actually identified directly

[12:28] on the complaint, just east of the Hearst East District.

[12:34] So it's the salvage it's there.

[12:36] If that affects any of our decisions to recuse or not,

[12:41] that's certainly your personalest distinction.

[12:44] I would err on the side of saying,

[12:45] if we only had three members voting,

[12:47] if two recusels were present, then we might not have a vote

[12:51] to approve it.

[12:53] Mission permits are unique in that.

[12:55] It's not forwarded afterwards to the Town Council for approval.

[12:58] It's one of the only items that the Planning Commission

[13:01] you know, are really approves.

[13:06] So I have a question here.

[13:08] So the problem is not that we don't have a quorum,

[13:10] but we might not have enough votes for it to pass.

[13:13] If it came to a vote, it's not a voting quorum.

[13:15] voting quorum.

[13:17] The other piece, and if you refuse yourself,

[13:21] it doesn't require that you naturally have to physically

[13:23] step out again, that's your personal preference.

[13:26] If we went through and heard the presentation with the staff report, we wanted to further

[13:31] an action to a subcutting meeting, we can certainly do that when we had a full decorum.

[13:37] That's certainly that's that year discretion.

[13:39] Well with respect to my situation, can I propose the following course of action that I remain

[13:43] a party to the presentation that I not recuse myself formally, but when it comes to the

[13:58] I'm trying to make a work, okay, but I want to make sure that my hands are clean, okay?

[14:04] I believe that under Robert's rules of stensions are considered a vote.

[14:12] Meaning you voted.

[14:16] So, as I can't basically participate at all, I can't.

[14:21] Sounds like what he's trying to say, as you could abstain.

[14:24] Your technical vote could be an extension.

[14:26] All right, but could the motion still pass with with the remainder of the past three?

[14:35] It would pass?

[14:35] Well, that's my course.

[14:41] We would probably have a bit of an answer for that.

[14:45] It would seem to me that this isn't a case where we're requiring a supermajority.

[14:51] If the vote passes, if there are, again,

[14:54] an assumption as a vote. If there are three, potentially, if there are three, yay votes.

[15:00] And of ascension and a recusal, I wouldn't make a promise. I don't want to overform some under deliver.

[15:09] But it seemed to me that it would carry.

[15:12] And again, if the consequence of that is that it's not, and we have to follow up with a quick action on the

[15:19] Southern Flint Planning Commission meeting, we could do that if it was, you know, if questions and things were answered here,

[15:26] we're confident with or without using the applicant being here, we potentially

[15:31] resolve that if there was an issue in the event of a abstention vote.

[15:36] Okay, well, thank you again, that's my intended course of action.

[15:46] Any other disclosures to approval of minutes, do we have any amendments to the July

[16:00] Second, meeting minutes or a motion to approve as is.

[16:07] Motion to approve as is.

[16:09] Second.

[16:11] All favors say aye.

[16:13] Motion carries.

[16:16] Our next agenda item is now the VR2601.

[16:37] This VR2601 is a various application for offense.

[16:40] at 220 south 29th stream. This is listed as a discussion item. It wouldn't be clear about

[16:49] our role or the variance is decided by the Board of the Zoning Appeals, not by us. We have

[16:56] the commission as a rate, the option of the obligation to send the recommendation to the

[17:09] application and let us know when the BZA scheduled to hear it.

[17:18] I'm sorry, could you say that one more time you were asking when the bar is going to be hearing the product?

[17:23] You can go ahead and present your staff report on the application and then if you can let us know when the BZA scheduled to hear it.

[17:29] The BZA is scheduled to hear it on the 20th period of this month.

[17:36] So just to give an overview of this application.

[17:39] The applicant is requesting a variance to place a six foot tall fence in their front yard that is about roughly about 14.75 feet from the street.

[17:54] Table D of the fence height in section 5.14 of the zoning ordinance states that fences in the front yard are allowed to be a maximum four feet in height.

[18:05] section 1.6.6, states that corner lots will have two front yards with the yards facing

[18:16] the public right away being the front yards.

[18:19] The applicant is citing issues of concern privacy and that they are corner lot as the

[18:24] primary reason for requesting a variance.

[18:29] Quick description of the law itself, it's located at 2-2-0,

[18:34] south-20s, 29th Street, also known at, not gonna repeat that.

[18:41] Those numbers, but it is a, the house itself is on two locks,

[18:50] with, yeah, are basically located on two locks

[18:53] with the public identification numbers listed there.

[18:58] The property itself is listed as R2 single family

[19:01] detached for residential low density.

[19:04] With all the surrounding properties zone at the same.

[19:08] In the background,

[19:12] and so the entire software

[19:18] was not provided for this just for convenience

[19:21] but as a quick background, the applicant for special exception,

[19:27] excuse me.

[19:46] I apologize. It looks like there might have been a mix up in the information

[19:52] that was put onto the staff report. Let me pull up the original. Give me one moment, please.

[20:21] And some of the information, as Mr. Sullivan mentioned, is in the staff report, but essentially it's for a six foot, and Kendall has the diagram there.

[20:32] A six foot fence in that portion of the yard would be otherwise prohibited by the zoning ordinance for a front yard fence.

[20:41] On a corner lot, you have two front yards, so in your front yard, your fence per the zoning ordinance would be limited to a height of four feet.

[20:48] So, the variance you're seeking is to provide that six-foot fence along that portion of the front yard of that corner of West J Street.

[20:58] And there's more details, but that's kind of the quick summary of it.

[21:02] And I believe that the Belluses would like to make a brief comment if you'd have them ahead of the performance.

[21:09] The, yeah, as Mr. Anderson said, that's more or less of summary, the one final detail I would really add is that the front, you know, when it goes for a sense of society a lot, or a corner of life should say where it becomes eight, if it goes from the side yard to the front yard is when it passes the front face of the house.

[21:38] So, you can kind of see the I dotted red line that is perpendicular, yeah, that's a left

[21:48] handle.

[21:50] Yeah, because basically where the green needs to red, that is the front face of the house

[21:55] and so up to that face, they can have a six foot tall fence, but beyond that it would have

[22:05] to be reduced to our four foot fence.

[22:21] And that's, well, why was you, and that's, most of the summary of ours, if again, if

[22:26] we'd like to invite the applicant to give any public comment and to purchase the podium.

[22:40] But, none of the center.

[22:41] Yeah.

[22:43] We'll go to the right to the rain.

[22:45] The rain needs is on.

[22:47] Okay.

[22:57] Well, good evening.

[22:59] I'm not the best of public speaking, so I've written down some of the, uh, my thoughts

[23:03] on the matter.

[23:04] I hope that's okay.

[23:07] My name is James Sharon, my wife, Alexandra Denali is here tonight with me, just to make

[23:14] a public comment on the matter.

[23:16] We are requesting a variance at 220 South 29th Street for the variance height phase strictly

[23:24] on the unique physical hardship of our property.

[23:28] Our hardship is purely site-specific and structural.

[23:31] First, our house sits directly across two combined plotted lots.

[23:37] Second, the lack of a three-way stop at the intersection allows times for cars to accelerate two blocks before slowing to the next stop.

[23:46] This creates added noise and unsafe conditions because of the structural layout.

[23:52] Our primary private outdoor space is entirely exposed to heavy public traffic,

[23:56] heading to Emmerke Elementary, the Community Center, and Fireman's Field.

[24:02] Additionally, the presence of the telephone poles in the front, in the side yard,

[24:06] forces the fence to be set back far enough that there is enough room to park on the grass,

[24:11] and several times there has been someone that we don't know park on our property,

[24:15] and approach our kids and dogs.

[24:18] This configuration creates an exceptional hardship.

[24:21] We are physically unable to secure basic privacy or adequate home security.

[24:25] crucial after two recent break-in attempts on our neighbor's houses. We do not create this

[24:32] condition. It is inherent to the land. Our requested six-foot variants narrowly tailored

[24:37] to alleviate the specific hardship is set back 15 feet from the road and 94 feet from

[24:43] the stop sign. It fully preserves public sightlines. We respectfully ask for this variance to grant

[24:49] us the same reasonable use and enjoyment available to our neighbors

[24:56] so that's all I have.

[24:59] Thank you.

[25:03] Do you have any questions for that kind of staff?

[25:08] I do have a question, please. Do you have an image or a drawing? What the proposed replacement

[25:16] Fence will look like? What will the materials be? Is the style?

[25:22] So it would be a horizontal-slatted fence just in, you know, the same kind of, you know,

[25:32] horizontal, horizontal, horizontal fence, okay, these are vertical.

[25:37] Well those aren't photos of my house, okay, I believe somebody came by and maybe took some photos of

[25:47] I can discuss those photos after I thought these were photos from them.

[25:54] I guess if you go to the Senate next page,

[26:01] if you could keep going to the photos part.

[26:06] Yeah, so that's our current fence.

[26:08] Obviously it's pretty ragged.

[26:10] Right. I mean, it would be replaced with something that looks, you know, nice cedar fence or a treated fence that's been, that's going to either be painted or stained.

[26:21] You know, we're hoping that it would, you know, make the neighborhood look nicer, make our house look nicer, you know, and then the next photo after this one, so of the neighborhood of the neighboring houses.

[26:38] So this is a house on our same block, but on the corner as you're going from our house towards

[26:47] Fireman's Field.

[26:49] And this is a four foot fence, but it's only five feet away from the road.

[26:58] So the setback is only five feet here.

[27:00] So it's not exactly, I know there's some photos taken for maybe, you know, to kind of

[27:06] to say like, these are similar circumstances, but this is in, you know, somebody's, you know,

[27:14] our name is backyard, but it's only five feet from the road, not 15 feet from the road,

[27:21] like ours would be. There's another white picket fence with photos, which is also, this

[27:30] their front yard, our variance request is for the back yard, and then also the site line

[27:37] here. I mean I have a trouble seen around this corner every time I, you know, on my way

[27:44] home. Like this bush here on the, if you go to the next photo, or the one prior, you know,

[27:51] our request for a six foot fence is going to impact site lines of traffic, you know, not

[27:57] all, but even just as blitz, she's a bigger impact to sightlands than the fence we're

[28:05] requesting is, in the same thing where they parked their cars.

[28:12] So you're proposing a fence that looks something like this.

[28:15] It would be a style of vertical slats, maybe separated.

[28:19] Not continuous, not a straight wall.

[28:22] I mean, it's only one.

[28:24] Ideally, we would be requesting a privacy fence, but it would be solid,

[28:30] vertical planks, I'll hold it up to six feet, but this is my first go at any

[28:37] thing like this, so I know that coming to some sort of like agreement and

[28:45] making some sort of tailored decision is better than just being told no.

[28:52] Okay, it's just wondering what it would look like when it's done.

[28:57] Have you thought about keeping the four-foot fence and then just putting up bigger trees to help alleviate the noise?

[29:06] I did, so it's a matter of financials, buying trees and putting them up to create privacy and reducing the noise is twice to three times more expensive than putting a fence in.

[29:20] And mature tree is what $2,000 to $3,000 a tree.

[29:25] So then we got to pay somebody to come do site visits

[29:28] and dig up the surrounding land and everything

[29:34] and plant the trees and then there's telephone poles

[29:38] right there.

[29:38] The telephone company, or the Verizon,

[29:41] is just going to come and chop them to pieces

[29:44] in however many years.

[29:48] So we just moved into this house

[29:50] probably four years ago.

[29:52] We've had two kids since then.

[29:53] We've saved up enough money for to make our house

[29:56] a nicer, we've done some basic home renovations.

[29:58] and you have both.

[30:00] We'd like the fence to be part of it. And, you know, all the interior lots have unrestricted ability to put up a six foot fence, and we just don't have that, that, I guess, we're sort of looking forward that ability to do so without asking for permission.

[30:24] Have you talked to your neighbors about this?

[30:26] Yes, sir.

[30:27] and they're they're totally fine with it you know the more neighbor the

[30:32] list directly behind us is you know like oh send some of those guys that are

[30:37] going to build your friends to us if they do a good job because they were

[30:40] thinking about doing something the neighbor across the street was you know just totally

[30:47] fine with it and I haven't had any opposition to discussing with anybody

[30:56] place, as a reminder, there are still 23 days out or based three weeks out from public

[31:02] here.

[31:02] And so part of that notice will be adjacent property owner, notification, signs,

[31:06] and things.

[31:07] So they, all the neighbors will be made aware.

[31:16] And the other comments or questions,

[31:20] here you know, their comments or questions.

[31:23] We have a motion to either make a recommendation to transmit this to, with a recommendation

[31:30] to the BCA or to not make a recommendation?

[31:39] I'm sorry, just can I, there was a few things I wanted to clarify, if I, if I, if it's okay.

[31:46] Thank you.

[31:47] Can you go back to the site plan that was provided?

[31:54] So as was mentioned in the summary,

[32:01] the corner lots are divided into,

[32:04] into front yards and rear yards, they don't because of their nature, they are not considered

[32:13] to have a rear yard. And that distinction going from the side yard to the front yard

[32:20] is when they go past the front of the house. And so, again, as you see there with the

[32:28] red dotted line, they are able to put up a six-foot fence up to that line, and so there's nothing

[32:37] preventing them from doing that. The red dotted line over the thicker one, as you can see,

[32:44] thank you. That is where the four-foot fence would have to be. Kindle, if you could show some of the

[32:52] neighboring fences again please.

[32:57] Thank you.

[32:58] So as shown in here and so the other pictures,

[33:03] all the neighboring fences are a maximum of four feet.

[33:11] None of them have six feet.

[33:13] So yes, they are interior locks.

[33:15] But all of these are only four feet put into the front yard

[33:21] or in that case, and for the white pick at fence,

[33:25] and Kinnel, could you also show the other one

[33:27] where they actual corner?

[33:29] That is also only four feet as well.

[33:35] Another thing I should mention is that the applicant

[33:40] does make comparison to the other interior lots,

[33:44] but we're referring here to corner lots.

[33:47] So corner lots are treated differently from interior lots for various reasons, part of issues being a line of sites and things like that.

[34:01] And during, and if the commissioners would want it, during my fuller analysis, I couldn't find anything specific for this lot that distinguished it from other corner lots.

[34:15] other than just a desire to not be treated as a corner line, be treated as an interior

[34:23] lot, but even then if treat as an interior lot, the fence being that close to the right

[34:30] away would still only be four feet because it is that part is not their rear yard, it is not

[34:40] a rear yard or a side yard, it's considered a front yard.

[34:44] Any questions, clarifications?

[34:46] Thanks.

[34:53] Thank you for additional comments.

[34:55] All right.

[34:56] Here you know, additional questions or comments.

[35:00] And then we have a motion to either transmit a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals or to not do so.

[35:15] I personally don't feel the need to make a recommendation to the VZA and what the VZA do. It's thing, but that's I can't make that motion.

[35:31] We have to either vote to make recommendation or not, but we don't, we do not have to make a recommendation to the VCA, but we need to decide if we're doing so or not.

[35:47] I have a question for staff, and that is of these two streets that it's on the corner of which one gets more traffic.

[36:00] My thought is it might be 29th, I may be incorrect.

[36:05] I would defer to the homeowners, as far as which one got more traffic.

[36:11] I'm sure I can end on time of day and whether schools in Bound are outbound.

[36:20] I believe it's shown, Kindle, if you could, do me a favor and zoom in on the applicant's

[36:30] location on that.

[36:31] Yeah, that specific map that you have right there, two blocks uninterrupted stop with close

[36:38] proximity.

[36:38] So, if I believe, if I'm reading that correctly, the West J Street does not have a stop sign at it on it,

[36:49] but the line that is 29th Street does have a stop sign.

[36:55] I believe our GIS folks had done either analysis or gone analysis from BGOT about it,

[37:06] because there was a request, at least in the past,

[37:09] to put a stop sign at West J Street, and V.D.

[37:15] that there was enough traffic.

[37:19] There was enough traffic, the Dean Necessary stop sign

[37:23] at that location.

[37:25] If I could comment on that, we were actually told

[37:27] that there must be an incident before there

[37:30] would be a stop sign installed.

[37:34] It wasn't just that there was enough traffic.

[37:36] It was that there had been no recorded incident there, so I mean, it's, you

[37:49] know,

[37:49] I can check with engineering and see what again, get the specific language.

[37:56] Again, from what I remember, it was that there was not enough traffic, not that there was any incidents there,

[38:06] but I can double check on that.

[38:10] I mean, my sense is that of the sides, or between the two front yards, the placement or

[38:21] proposed placement of the fence, is would have the most beneficial impact for the home

[38:30] And as noted, there's no interruption of sight lines, which is often the driving concern for limiting fence height on corner lots.

[38:53] So, I don't know how that plays into the planning commission, making a recommendation one or another.

[39:04] in one of a piece. I think doing a vote or a straw vote kind of shows consensus, but I don't

[39:11] believe you're required to make a vote to recommend or not. I mean if you feel inclined to

[39:17] provide feedback and recommendations, it's certainly beneficial that you have some depiction

[39:23] of the majority direction of the commission. I will tell you that the BZA is pretty consistent with

[39:32] Some of these, I think, in our valuation, it's maybe

[39:36] of, and it's not a very strong case for a variance.

[39:39] When we look at variances, we're looking for things specific

[39:42] to that individual law.

[39:46] And Mr. Sullivan mentioned, there's plenty of corner

[39:50] a lot through town and with similar concerns.

[39:52] And that's not to say that we're not empathetic to their situation.

[39:56] I think there are lots of options to remediate.

[39:59] Thanks for watching, and don't forget to like, share, and subscribe to our channel.

[40:00] Some of these, the four-foot fence could solve some of the issues with parking in those pieces, still.

[40:05] When we get into sightlines, we're also thinking of neighboring properties.

[40:10] Here to their e-sit-411, a six-foot fence would obscure most of that neighbor's driveway, pulling in and backing out.

[40:17] So, those are things that the BZA and will be presented in fuller detail.

[40:22] Again, as Mr. Sullivan mentioned, a six-foot fence would be permitted up to the front face of that

[40:29] front yard of the property, but, and as a homeowner's mentioned, there might be a room for some discussion or compromise with the BZA, and they'll get fuller sacrifices part of that public hearing.

[40:45] Can I ask a question here? Is it possible for us to simply vote to not express any objection to a moving forward to the BZA?

[40:58] Absolutely, that's certainly within you.

[40:59] That's an option?

[41:01] Yes, sir.

[41:02] Okay.

[41:03] Thank you.

[41:09] Based on staff recommendation, I take a straw pose.

[41:12] Anybody want to make a recommendation to the BZM?

[41:22] No.

[41:24] You're good.

[41:26] Okay.

[41:26] All right.

[41:27] Can I do a between the motion?

[41:29] To not make a recommendation, then?

[41:30] I can just move on.

[41:32] You can certainly move on.

[41:33] And we'll, you know, in our stack briefing to the BSA, we'll reflect the discussion here.

[41:40] Thank you for the discussion.

[41:41] Thank you.

[41:42] Thank you.

[41:43] All right.

[41:44] The next item on the agenda is a public hearing.

[41:48] All persons wishing to speak re-heard of this public hearing should request a complete request to speak form.

[41:54] It presented to the clerk.

[41:56] Public hearing is not open for the commission to discuss, consider, and make a recommendation for

[42:03] will fire and rescue station addition. Everyone wishing to speak this evening on the topic

[42:08] of this public hearing, we will be given an opportunity, an official recording is being made

[42:14] of this hearing, therefore persons addressing the commission are requested to begin by stating

[42:19] their name and address speakers will have three minutes. Would like to call upon staff who will

[42:30] provide a brief introduction.

[42:48] I'm trying to find out where it is in the packet.

[42:59] All right.

[43:00] So this is item number SUP26802, the personal fire

[43:06] and rescue station edition.

[43:08] The Latin County Department of Transportation

[43:10] and the Latin County Fire and the Rescue Department

[43:13] are applying for a commissioners' permit.

[43:16] It was originally assumed that a SUP was required because they're expanding the use of the

[43:26] fired department there, but that opinion was rescinded because the previous SUP 0707-1 was

[43:39] allow for a use to happen on a lot five acres or more not for the use itself, which is

[43:47] allowed by right. Therefore, staff decided to side that SUV was not required.

[43:55] A commission permit is required because it is a largement of a public area and no major

[44:07] of facility.

[44:11] To continue on the one concern about this, is that the site itself is already over

[44:24] the impervious surface ratio and the open space ratio requirements for institutional

[44:34] government. These restrictions were not originally there of when SUP-070-1 was issued.

[44:46] The zoning ordinance does not offer any options that allow for a change or relief from

[44:56] I-S-R or the O-S-R-O-S-R.

[45:00] Our requirements.

[45:05] And at this point, the application, expanding the use, would bring the location further out of compliance with current zoning ordinance requirements.

[45:19] We are in discussions with the applicant to find ways for them to be in compliance and thus has by all parties.

[45:30] And

[45:36] again, as Mr. Sullivan said, you know, the details of the site plan and exact compliance

[45:41] with the zoning ordinance are still in process, a commission firm is sort of the 10,000,

[45:47] or 30,000 foot view that it applies with the location there of the complaint.

[45:54] And so some of the next steps will have to be resolved as far as the zoning ordinance as well.

[46:00] I would ever, processes are next,

[46:12] just to do a brief overview of the details of the

[46:19] port.

[46:19] The site is located at 504th Naval Avenue, also known as Public Identification Number 452166477,

[46:32] and the loud and counter land records.

[46:34] The site itself is on a lot that is 6.02 A.V.

[46:39] large and is known as institutional government.

[46:43] To the immediate self is the W and O D trail with R3 single family

[46:52] detached residential medium development on the other side of it.

[46:56] to the West is a lot zoned as IB Industrial Business, which is undeveloped.

[47:02] And to the east is the seven and two 87 interchange into the north is the root seven bypass.

[47:13] So, quick background about the site. The site was undeveloped in 2007, but it's like plan,

[47:21] TPO7, dash of four, the Particle Fire and Rescue Center,

[47:24] preliminary final site plan was approved by the town council

[47:29] on December 11, 2007,

[47:35] and was also approved with SUPO7-O1

[47:40] approved in January 8, 2008, with the conditions that the applicant

[47:47] provide the fire and rescue companies with remote control over the traffic signal at the Berlin

[47:52] Turbhike in her subroad.

[47:57] The NS mentioned earlier the SUP was required because section 2.1 for our 2.14.2.

[48:08] As it says there, the maximum lot area shall be 5 acres unless approved through a specific

[48:15] use permit as described in article 10.

[48:23] So applications, SUP 20602 and CP 20601 were submitted on June 4th, 2006, or 26, sorry.

[48:37] The applicant is requesting to add roughly 800 square feet to the site's footprint. This

[48:43] includes expanding the main structure by roughly 7,000 square feet and adding a 1,000 square

[48:51] foot shed and updating the ramps to be in ADA compliant as well as extending some sidewalks.

[49:04] The proposed changes are intended to help facilitate the existing fire and rescue use by providing

[49:09] more office space and storage.

[49:16] As mentioned earlier, a commission permit is required

[49:19] because of section 10.8.1 of the zoning

[49:23] or in its which states widening, narrowing, extension,

[49:27] enlarging, which is the key point here.

[49:30] Vacation or change of use of use, excuse me.

[49:35] Or change of use of streets or public areas,

[49:39] shall likewise be submitted for approval.

[49:41] but paving, repairing, reconstruction, improvements, and drainage or similar work and normal service extensions of public utilities or public services, public service corporations shall not require approval unless such work involves a change in location or extent of a street or public area.

[50:01] Going on, there is no expectation of higher traffic due to the requested changes. A traffic study waiver was issued to the applicant on April 29, 2020.

[50:16] And as the going on, it was identified in the second submission by the applicant, where the identified that they were over the ISR requirement and under the OSR requirement.

[50:35] IISR, their current IISR is point, the impervious service ratio is 0.42, the ordinance requires

[50:48] 0.31, the open space requirement is 0.53, but the zoning ordinance requires a minimum

[51:00] of 0.69. Again, these did not exist when the original site plan in SUP were approved.

[51:11] So when it comes to an analyzing whether or not it meets with the Comprehensive Plan,

[51:21] we have the staff did find that it did meet with the Comprehensive Plan as mentioned earlier,

[51:25] the site for the, was a press bill's 2030, at that location was already, I used as a fire

[51:38] and rescue location and is identified in the complaint as a government use.

[51:46] So in the end, staff does, how should I say, staff does find that the,

[51:55] Commissioner, it does meet the requirement for a commissioner's permit. However, we are recommending that conditions be put onto the permit as well.

[52:09] Ideally, that the two suggested is first, the applicant can meet the impervious service ratio and the open space ratio laid out in the zoning ordinance.

[52:23] Or attain a variance for some other such approval allowing it to not strictly hear to the zoning

[52:33] ordinance.

[52:34] Thank you.

[52:38] And with that, I believe the applicant, which is on behalf of a lot of the county, we have

[52:43] some thought and county representation here, but Patrick Venn always is with Timmins.

[52:47] They have a brief presentation to go over.

[52:49] And as Mr. Salvin said, the Commission Department speaks to just the location and the expansion

[52:55] that use a lot of the pieces, too, as we're getting into the further development of the process.

[53:02] We'll seek to resolve any discrepancies with some of those other pieces.

[53:10] Apple can go ahead.

[53:27] Good evening fellow commissioners.

[53:29] We're here tonight to discuss the personal fire and rescue station addition.

[53:34] With me tonight, I'm going to introduce myself, Patrick and I, with Tim and his group as the engineer,

[53:38] with me tonight is Daniel Anderson, with Mosley Architects as the architect and John Campbell,

[53:46] part of Lawn County Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure.

[53:51] The agenda tonight is to discuss the project needs, discuss cycles,

[53:56] and then go into the design of the existing conditions proposed plans

[54:00] in some exterior views, and then request for the commission permit.

[54:09] So, going into the project needs, this project is a Board of Supervisors and Capital Improvement Plan

[54:17] approved project.

[54:18] It's increased office space, additional storage fire staff and increased locker space.

[54:26] In addition to the increase in needs of the staff, the station also houses a variety

[54:29] of fire and rescue apparatuses and station parking facilities are most accommodating the

[54:36] needs of the station and the apron and drive-iles are necessary for the safe and efficient movement for these

[54:43] apparatuses and a reduction in these facilities would have a significant operational impact and would

[54:50] actively affect the ability to respond to any emergencies. So going into the goals, sustainable design strategy.

[55:00] May 18, the existing circulations, as it will see in the plans, and then minimize any impact to any existing

[55:08] stormwater management facilities.

[55:12] So, as Mr. Sullivan said, the existing conditions is on 500 North

[55:16] Maple Avenue on the corner of herst in Maple. It is zoned as institutional government IG. It currently

[55:23] has over roughly around 24,000 square feet of fire and rescue use that houses the fire and

[55:30] rescue companies to and 14. Again, as Mr. Sullivan said, this project is also associated

[55:38] with the SUP0701 that established this fire and rescue use on the property and then allowed

[55:45] the use of the load to be located in a parcel larger than five acres and also was approved under

[55:52] the pre-2020-25 town of Perthville, Zoning Ordinance.

[55:59] Going into the proposed conditions for the existing building

[56:03] additions, we plan on adding storage office in a many

[56:07] space, approximately 7,000 total square feet.

[56:12] As you can see, there are additions to the north, east,

[56:16] south, and west of the existing building.

[56:18] And then approximately 1,000 square feet,

[56:20] a standalone storage building located at southeast

[56:23] the site and also for the plan to reconfigure internal spaces of the existing building.

[56:32] Furthermore, there is a shift kind of in the western parking lot to the west to make room for

[56:38] the western edition. There's minor modifications to the eastern site circulation. However,

[56:45] we're utilizing the maintain existing entrances from her throat and North maple Avenue.

[56:51] There is no anticipated changes to traffic flow, nor staff counts, and as Mr. Sullivan said,

[56:58] we did get a pie and approved traffic waiver to not go to a traffic study.

[57:05] Also, there's no changes to current facility operations in terms of noise or apparatuses

[57:10] with drainage and turnling things of that nature,

[57:16] and they know handed over to Danielle

[57:17] to explain kind of the views.

[57:18] My name is Daniel Anderson, I'm the Musley Architects and the Project Manager for this project.

[57:25] In reference to the existing conditions, we're keeping and maintaining the building.

[57:29] We wanted to run over that for you tonight.

[57:32] It's using a cementitious signing style and also using a brick water table.

[57:38] We're going to maintain this look.

[57:40] We're going to try to hide and plain sight.

[57:42] Some of the additions, so that hopefully by the time we're done,

[57:44] we will never have noticed that we added onto the front of the building.

[57:47] Basically, what we're doing is we're going to fill in what is now a bump into the building with the additions on the front.

[57:55] And if you continue onward,

[57:59] again, filling in on either side so that it remains symmetrical.

[58:02] Adding on to the fire bay off of the side for that additional attached storage to the bay that is a need.

[58:12] On the other side, we will actually not be renovating the rescue side of the bay.

[58:16] They have sufficient storage, so we have maintained that existing facade.

[58:20] And then on the center of the rear of the building and the center of the front of the building, we're adding a vestibule, a formal vestibule, and off the back of the building in order to allow for better use and function, we're relocating some of the amenities spaces in order to make way for a better standardized use of this station and conjunction with all the other stations.

[58:40] The look and the feel of this station is not going to change on overall, we're using reusing all of the existing elements in a new form.

[58:53] Thank you, Daniel, and then we're just to close up, we're here tonight for a commission

[58:57] permit request.

[58:59] Again, to have the permitted existing fire and rescue use and for those additions to be

[59:04] extended or enlarged for public area, and as Mr. Sullivan said, for the plan, Perseville,

[59:11] 2030, comprehensive plan, and also as designated in the future land map, the subject

[59:17] properties within designated institutional government land use, which allows fire and rescue

[59:22] by right, which the additions will be associated with.

[59:27] Thank you for your time and with that open up for any questions.

[59:33] I have one question.

[59:36] So what is the calculated impervious surface ratio,

[59:40] an open space ratio, as proposed?

[59:44] We know what they were today and we know what they are today,

[59:49] but what are you proposing to change them to?

[59:51] or what are the changes that you're proposing,

[59:54] change those ratios to?

[59:56] Well, we're adding approximately 8,000.

[1:00:00] So we're a feet of impervious area. So that could change though. So obviously increasing the

[1:00:11] the impervious surface area and increasing the open space.

[1:00:21] But you're not working. So the calculations, though, as Mr. Sullivan said, in his staff report, though, that is what is proposed

[1:00:31] of a impervious ratio of 0.42 and then open space of 0.53 and

[1:00:42] I will say the existing

[1:00:43] conditions are currently non-econformance which was approved under the pre- 2025 zoning

[1:00:51] ordinance where ISR and OSR were did not exist

[1:01:00] and the existing conditions for impervious

[1:01:04] service ratio, or 0.38, and open space is 0.58.

[1:01:29] Maybe there's a question mark for the architect,

[1:01:31] who running alternative storage locations

[1:01:36] considered, for instance, inside the resources,

[1:01:39] with additional structural support,

[1:01:42] rather than doing additions.

[1:01:48] We have looked at it.

[1:01:49] They do have storage up on the mechanical,

[1:01:53] as a name.

[1:01:54] They're not supposed to store anything up there for code.

[1:01:56] have actually, I believe the story is that they have so much storage over there that the

[1:02:01] mechanical system has overheated and shut down before and so they actually already

[1:02:06] have several other miscellaneous storage pods that are on site and what we've been, what

[1:02:12] we were anticipating doing is we were just playing a replacing it with a permanent storage

[1:02:16] solution with a mezzanine above. We are also very little away that the purge will have to

[1:02:25] But the structural component of the building is a type 3B.

[1:02:29] It just has steel CFSF traces up above.

[1:02:32] So it's not something that we want to go back and augment the structure

[1:02:36] of a much more expensive than to actually put a miscellaneous site building

[1:02:40] than to go back and reinforce everything.

[1:02:43] That was also a consideration with the way that the roof of the addition

[1:02:47] is going on as we're trying to avoid augmenting existing structure

[1:02:51] because of cost.

[1:02:53] And then I will add to what Daniel was saying, if we can look at the crew, back to the

[1:02:58] stove, we're all one of the stove, we're all one of the proposed,

[1:03:05] yeah, one more above, yeah.

[1:03:07] So we did look, especially storage in the Eastern addition as well.

[1:03:14] However, that would push the drive aisle and is stated furthermore from earlier on with the

[1:03:20] needs of the fire and rescue staff to bring back

[1:03:24] the fire apparatus and have that circulation plan.

[1:03:33] Yeah, I did, I can speak to that a little bit.

[1:03:36] During the schematic design process, we explored an option

[1:03:39] where we actually cut off that vehicular access road

[1:03:43] right there in order to make more attached storage area.

[1:03:48] And that was probably the most pushback I received from all parties, volunteers, careers, and everyone they would not give up their additional circulation because of the way that the apparatus circulate through the site, being that they pull in off of maple road, and either the fire apparatus will

[1:04:12] pull in off of maple road, and the apparatus will circulate through the back and pull through.

[1:04:20] or they will circulate around.

[1:04:22] Additionally, this station is used as a base station currently.

[1:04:27] So people will stop on the outside here.

[1:04:32] There's an oxygen storage component over here

[1:04:36] where people will refill their O2 tanks and everything like that.

[1:04:40] So the apparatus having access to this room is very important.

[1:04:43] And we just turning it into some level of impervious service

[1:04:48] It's not something that I believe the district holders will accept.

[1:04:54] I'm going to get sorry, just to further explain that to you.

[1:04:57] Due to we were trying to mitigate again.

[1:05:00] The existing stormwater facility right there too. So if we were to push that out, we still needed access to

[1:05:07] these either drivile or access to the parking lot too. So that would further push out that parking

[1:05:14] lot into the existing stormwater facility.

[1:05:23] I have a comment. Excuse me. To the best of my knowledge,

[1:05:26] The official name of this facility is the Perseval Public Safety Center, not the Perseval

[1:05:33] Fire and Rescue Station.

[1:05:35] As a practical matter, it's a fire and rescue station.

[1:05:37] But I think the official name is the Perseval Public Safety Center.

[1:05:42] If I'm correct in that case, I respectfully suggest that the naming convention be applied

[1:05:48] correctly for the rest of the project.

[1:05:54] Also, for the young ladies' information, firefighter SCBAs are not filled with oxygen,

[1:06:02] they're filled with compressed air.

[1:06:08] So they don't walk around with bombs on their backs.

[1:06:11] It's just compressed air.

[1:06:14] You're welcome.

[1:06:29] Any further questions from the commission?

[1:06:35] I do, actually.

[1:06:36] Any insight into the timeline that

[1:06:42] I ask a tough question?

[1:06:45] The architect holds all the dates.

[1:06:50] But inside to the timeline, our optimal timeline was hopefully to have site and civil

[1:06:56] wrapped up and approved and through all the processes by the end of November.

[1:07:02] We previously rented the impression that we were going through an SAP process and we had

[1:07:06] gone through that process, but upon further review it was changed, and so now we're working

[1:07:12] to change.

[1:07:12] All right, so optimistically, what's the earliest that you think that construction could start and be efficient?

[1:07:19] Well, construction never would be next year.

[1:07:24] Yeah, of course, yeah.

[1:07:26] I think it's in May, yeah, because we'll be, but this is optimistically considering the fact that we can back into Latin County's permitting process.

[1:07:35] All right, so maybe start May 2027, how long is the project expected to take?

[1:07:40] It's expected to take 10 months to read here.

[1:07:43] Thank you.

[1:07:44] It's okay.

[1:07:47] And Vice Chair for Health, just a two points of clarification.

[1:07:51] The fire rescue or police station is how the use appears on a use table.

[1:07:55] That could be where we were speaking clarity and why you might see that more here.

[1:07:59] Just clarifying an IG.

[1:08:01] It's a permitted by-right use.

[1:08:03] Obviously with the caveat that is meeting the zoning standards otherwise.

[1:08:06] And we had an opportunity to double-check the question earlier about

[1:08:10] Quorum and vote counts. So as the mayor had mentioned an

[1:08:14] Absention counts as a non vote, but still a

[1:08:17] And also a refusal. So if two members had been saying either through Absention or Recusal

[1:08:24] Three out of three vote, but still be a majority. This is absent any

[1:08:29] Condition otherwise in our commission permit or state requirements, which there are none so we're

[1:08:34] We would be following standard Robert rules for this, so it could carry with a vote of three tonight.

[1:08:40] If you were so inclined.

[1:08:41] That's correct.

[1:08:44] Okay, clarification is those dates with a best case scenario.

[1:08:47] We do have a secondary schedule with a very more scarce scenario, which would be pushing out to 29.

[1:08:53] I understand.

[1:08:54] We carry those.

[1:08:55] This will have to get a general idea, thank you.

[1:08:58] Trying to think optimistically.

[1:09:07] Thanks for your presentation.

[1:09:08] I would now call upon any citizens who would like to speak.

[1:09:11] No one's on mine.

[1:09:13] Hold on then.

[1:09:17] Is there anyone else who has not spoken and wishes to or any additional questions?

[1:09:29] Hearing none.

[1:09:31] If there are a couple drafts, potential motions in the staff report.

[1:09:38] Do we have any motions to advance?

[1:09:47] Chair does the planning commission have a rule against voting on the subject of a public hearing

[1:09:53] in the same evening, in which case we would need to wave that, or vote to wave that.

[1:09:59] Not that I'm aware.

[1:10:04] If it hadn't already been done, we'd close the actual public hearing, which is a common portion, if we were proposing to take action.

[1:10:17] This might all close the public hearing,

[1:10:35] then.

[1:10:35] Does anybody have any motions to proceed with this tonight?

[1:10:45] I move that the Planning Commission to approve CP2601 subject to the following conditions

[1:10:51] and or the following recommendation, specifically number two to obtain a variance

[1:10:57] or other such approval allowing it to not strictly adhere to that section of the zoning ordinance.

[1:11:14] say hi. I, I, I'm staying. Okay. And yeah, I won the

[1:11:19] furl. So I guess my passion passes.

[1:11:32] That's it. Yeah, it's someone I want to.

[1:11:36] He had you. He had you. He was. Yeah, he was. Yeah, he was. Yeah, he was. Yeah, he was.

[1:11:38] Yeah, he was himself out of the room. Okay. I said he was going to do that. He'll be back.

[1:11:43] Oh, wait. I'm going to come back. Yeah.

[1:11:46] She's out. She's out. She's out. She's out. Great.

[1:11:55] And I would ask if we're wrap that out of that we could excuse the rough setups and the presenters here.

[1:12:09] The next item is being deferred, which is SCP-2603.

[1:12:15] I think we're still waiting on information from the applicant.

[1:12:19] So we're deferring that to future date.

[1:12:23] Next agenda item is planning commissioner comments.

[1:12:28] Mr.

[1:12:33] McConnell, start with the group.

[1:12:35] You have any comments?

[1:12:37] No comments.

[1:12:40] No comments.

[1:12:41] All right.

[1:12:43] No comments, but I'd like to know,

[1:12:44] are we going to meet in September 17th or not?

[1:12:47] The intention is to cancel that meeting.

[1:12:50] Thank you.

[1:12:57] Mr. Bertrand, I guess we can do the, if you have any comments or council member report.

[1:13:03] Certainly. Thank you, Chair. Like you know that we have two planning commissioners who are up for

[1:13:13] reappointment and I'll be working with the town council to help move that forward.

[1:13:19] I'm liking the focus of the discussion that we've had in recent meetings, particularly wrapped around the comprehensive plan amendments that we're working on.

[1:13:32] I see several goals here for the planning commission to package these amendments for the

[1:13:41] town council.

[1:13:41] One is that we want to have the information for each amendment very clearly identify with

[1:13:51] the pre and post states would be with respect to changes recommended by the planning commission

[1:13:59] and also to have some uniformity of presentations so that as the Council members walk through

[1:14:07] the package of these, they're not misdirected in one direction or another but a very clear

[1:14:13] idea of what it is that's being proposed, why and how the planning commission has,

[1:14:36] planning

[1:14:36] And the item is a planning staff report.

[1:15:09] So, the planning staff report, this is just an overview of various projects and conditions of the

[1:15:19] for the Department of Planning and Community Development.

[1:15:24] The first part is just talking about

[1:15:27] very special reviews and permits that the department is working on.

[1:15:32] We have six going on right now.

[1:15:37] First one, the variance we heard details about that tonight.

[1:15:43] There are one, two, three items going in front of the Board of Architectural Review.

[1:15:49] ones involving the traffic circle on the Berlin term hike.

[1:15:55] There's a request for a demolition happening at 501 West Main Street and a canopy being put

[1:16:09] above gas pumps located at 117 North Bailey Lane.

[1:16:17] Next one is just an easement request as part of a subdivision that has been put in front of the,

[1:16:27] excuse me, that's been requested to the Plank, or was there a Plank Department.

[1:16:32] The sports lighting for the high school, that was deferred, and then we are also continuing to work with the county for their,

[1:16:44] reviewing their county-wide transportation plan.

[1:16:49] Violations are giving updates on the number of violations

[1:16:56] that we are currently investigating or dealing with,

[1:16:59] not necessarily going into specific details

[1:17:02] because of concerns for the people that are involved with

[1:17:08] and just other privacy concerns.

[1:17:11] Right now, there are seven active cases of those seven or three are in the investigation

[1:17:19] stage, which is us verifying if there's actually is a violation there, someone has made

[1:17:27] a complaint, we're investigating and see if that complaint was legitimate.

[1:17:34] And so, but of the seven in total, three have been found, have been in violation, right there below that we just have given numbers on whether a preliminary determination letter or a final determination letter has been issued.

[1:17:56] The difference between them is that a preliminary one is saying, hey, we have found that there's a violation here, please get a compliance contact us if you have any questions.

[1:18:08] A file determination letter is saying, if you do not get a compliance by this date, then we're going to take further legal actions, which could include fines, removing the, you know, the, the thing that's causing the issue.

[1:18:26] or taking other, you know, the town taking other direct action to make sure that the issue

[1:18:30] has been resolved.

[1:18:38] This last month or in month of October or not, October, August when this was written, two cases

[1:18:47] had come into compliance and were closed that month.

[1:18:51] One was because the person came into compliance and the other one was, there was insufficient evidence found for there to be a case.

[1:19:05] Special projects, the department is almost finished with creating the short term rental registry, so we will be able to start accepting applications for that and start enforcing

[1:19:21] seen that ordinance, because as some of you are aware, there are several short-term rentals

[1:19:28] being operate in town that are unregistered and operating outside of compliance.

[1:19:35] And the last one is for no open events, which we have Jordan Andrews going to join us back

[1:19:42] here at the town of Parsville.

[1:19:46] Thank you, and just a quickly, I know I have jumped in a bit earlier, but yeah, excited to be back the town I was here in the Plain Department from 2022 to October of last year, and I was with the county in their proper division.

[1:20:00] In plain in a zoning. But happy to be back here and kind of be a part of the team and working with you all. I've worked with so many before excited to work with new folks here and across our different committees and councils and all the boards. So excited to get to work and make personal kind of everything it can be. And it is.

[1:20:22] Any questions about the report?

[1:20:28] Okay,

[1:20:35] the next gen item is the very covered 11A for the VR, so we have our subcommittee findings.

[1:20:50] So we totally want to start.

[1:21:04] All right,

[1:21:17] so this is what was mine and Lloyd's project here to get started.

[1:21:22] So we looked at the impacts of various projects outside of town,

[1:21:26] specifically Valley Commerce, the Western Loud and Recreation Center, and the Route 7, 690,

[1:21:33] When piecing this together, you know, I looked at, we looked at different social impacts,

[1:21:39] economic impacts, transportation impacts, and trying to think outside the boxes for as

[1:21:45] unintensive consequences.

[1:21:48] We also went through item two, which was, I have a before and after, to remove the 2006

[1:21:57] land use category, so remove in those columns, looking at the Hearst West Focus area,

[1:22:06] trying to call out areas one and two, as you see on page 54 kind of going through these,

[1:22:16] showing that some of them are actually professional businesses as opposed to the industrial

[1:22:21] area is we had discussed earlier going through the comprehensive plan and then we put together

[1:22:29] a work in progress, so I'm open to options, suggestions, wordsmithing, whatever for the

[1:22:40] the 7,690 interchange, center field farm, drive, the new water tower, got mountain view, middle

[1:22:51] school, and woodgrove high school, so this is just something we put together. I think

[1:22:58] I thought we were going to be discussing a lot of these tonight, so I'm opening it out

[1:23:03] in front of everybody, open to suggestions, thoughts, anything. Lloyd and I had discussed

[1:23:10] through this. I'm trying to come out with the idea to best put the information out there in front of

[1:23:16] everybody. And so this is more of a discussion item of how we put it together. And if there's

[1:23:23] anything to move forward or just kind of look at.

[1:23:38] I think from my perspective, some of the new items

[1:23:41] would need probably further discussion before being advanced. I was supposed to have a recommendation

[1:23:50] to make tonight, but soon that's kind of a greater conversation for commission

[1:23:54] and staff, honestly, too.

[1:23:56] Right.

[1:24:02] So this was more of a starting point, so like I said, I'm more open to any kind of

[1:24:06] feedback and everything.

[1:24:23] And we can move this to discussion next meeting, but I just want to get it out in front of

[1:24:27] everybody.

[1:24:28] So you can go through it, add to it, take away from it.

[1:24:37] Since we don't have a editable PDF, correct of the comp plan, we're doing

[1:24:46] editable.

[1:24:53] Like this images, yeah.

[1:24:55] People don't like it.

[1:25:00] Okay?

[1:25:26] For the, uh, it sounds like for the, uh, potential impacts will bring that up for discussion about any recommendations to, in between meetings, and we'll bring it back for discussion and the next meeting, um, for the, uh, items that we've been tracking, and I think we have, have some recommendations with different, different groups, for the language tape.

[1:25:55] in person, there's others that we've been going through, as we've put all this list down.

[1:26:00] It seems like to me that next steps would be to, I think we've kind of all agreed so far

[1:26:06] on recommendations to start having staff put those into a comprehensive plan, a draft update,

[1:26:15] and then we still have further product impacts, we'll have to also get those in eventually,

[1:26:20] But it seems that we're kind of getting to the point where we can start

[1:26:25] formalizing some of those recommendations into the actual

[1:26:27] comprehensive plan.

[1:26:30] Yeah, and I don't want to speak to you soon.

[1:26:33] I'm certainly getting back up the speed with where we were with the

[1:26:35] complaint amendments, but we do have an editable.

[1:26:38] We're document we can start putting those, the changes you wish in a

[1:26:42] track change mode, so it's ready for benchmark public hearing.

[1:26:46] And that wouldn't, again, conclude us from making it as after public

[1:26:48] and things of that nature, but we can start to get that list and that those items together.

[1:26:57] And then that addresses the textual part of the comprehensive plan.

[1:27:03] I think the needs to be some discussion of how we handle changes to maps and things like that.

[1:27:10] Lloyd, I believe that you'd looked at making some changes, for example, to map 25.

[1:27:15] Yeah, I actually actually do have a bad idea of the PTF I received it this afternoon. Okay

[1:27:25] Because that's something that so far in in the discussion was in the planning commission

[1:27:30] Oh, thank you. It printed out black and white because one of my color cartridges ran out

[1:27:36] But I'll only mail it to all of you to see you if you want to hear some black and white version

[1:27:40] But I'll email it to you

[1:27:42] the PDF and you'll see it's color colored, colorized, whatever.

[1:27:47] Because so far in our discussions with in planning commission we have essentially a view

[1:27:53] that says this is what it looks like right now and then there's boxes and brackets and so on

[1:27:57] and these are the changes we're in arrows and these are the changes we want to throw in there

[1:28:04] that's especially difficult with a map because on the map say map 25 what's needed is to remove

[1:28:11] specific roadway segments, and some of the, I know, I know done, but it gets us much closer

[1:28:21] to that view.

[1:28:23] I believe needs to be in front of the town council of the before the after and then some

[1:28:30] text that explains what changes were made so that they can get a good idea if they vote

[1:28:36] one way or another, exactly what the comprehensive plan is going to look like and what it

[1:28:41] contain both of those respect to the maps and to the text that textual changes that we're making.

[1:28:54] This staff had the bandwidth to start preparing some as exhibits of the before and after and start.

[1:29:03] I think maybe for my view a little premature to put some of the project impacts in just yet,

[1:29:08] because we're as a question kind of collectively gotten all on the same page with us just yet,

[1:29:12] But I think some of these, the list of however many was, we had the 20-plus or whatever was,

[1:29:19] and we kind of wilt that down.

[1:29:20] I think we kind of have pretty good agreement on what everyone's recommending there.

[1:29:24] There's at least could probably start getting inserted with exhibits before and afters as Mayor

[1:29:31] suggesting.

[1:29:33] I think, and I know Kennell has worked on some GIS exports of some of these maps in addition

[1:29:38] to, and again, I'm a bit ignored to some of the graphics

[1:29:41] that might have been being worked on in this interim time.

[1:29:46] I know previous Commissioner Humbock had done a lot

[1:29:49] of that work.

[1:29:50] I would say getting the graphic roughed in line isn't critical.

[1:29:57] I think it's probably beneficial if we were replacing a graphic.

[1:30:00] Public hearing purposes if we just refer to it as its table identification.

[1:30:07] Honestly, if we're going to present a new map, we probably don't want to have it in line in the

[1:30:11] Wall of Text. We want to have this as exhibit A. This is the exhibit B. That is proposed replace it.

[1:30:17] Get it in line into the formatting of word, how we might do the, you know, the sausage making, so to speak, we can get to.

[1:30:25] And even if our level graphically on staff isn't exactly where the planning commission

[1:30:31] would like to see it, if we're able to get to close enough in the council and the planning

[1:30:35] commission recommend it's worth it to get some professional services to get it a little

[1:30:40] bit in needor.

[1:30:41] We can consider that as well if the broad strokes are depicted, I think, to your question.

[1:30:47] I think we can get back.

[1:30:50] I'm not sure exactly the list of all the graphics that we're speaking to here, but we certainly

[1:30:54] they have some capacity to assist.

[1:31:07] I suggest that we, because because your favorite has been heading that out, we can each

[1:31:13] soak me reach out to him with their recommended changes, and we can work with staff

[1:31:19] to start getting some of those in.

[1:31:28] What is the direction for the plan?

[1:31:31] In commission, you want to put some time binding on that?

[1:31:41] Eight staff.

[1:31:42] Yeah, I think we're going to probably cancel the September 17th meeting.

[1:31:46] So it gives us 30 days for the next meeting, after the first.

[1:31:55] To come back to the planning commission with the graphics and everything in recommendations

[1:32:00] or just kind of discussion points.

[1:32:03] Sounds like not yet graphics, at least start with the text.

[1:32:13] Yeah, I thought the timeline was to get it before council in October.

[1:32:19] That's why I pushed through to get it at this meeting, but so October meeting is when we're going to try and come together to discuss and then get the maps and everything together and package up.

[1:32:33] May I make a suggestion, then, why don't we have the September 17 meeting and only address

[1:32:42] the textual stuff, because I can see the maps and exhibits taking a bit longer, but

[1:32:48] at least we can push that piece forward rather than delivering it all at once, and that gives

[1:32:57] much better chance of having completed package by first meeting in October for the town council.

[1:33:06] I'd personally agree with that one more.

[1:33:08] As you please, that took a lot of time.

[1:33:11] So we had more on the agenda anticipated tonight than we'd originally expected probably.

[1:33:23] We keep in the September 17 meeting.

[1:33:27] I can attend it if necessary.

[1:33:28] And

[1:33:31] then, if things just aren't ready, we can cancel, because it's easy to cancel as opposed to create a new one.

[1:33:39] So, it's important.

[1:33:40] Yeah, it does.

[1:33:41] We've got to keep this moving here.

[1:33:42] Yeah, we can't lose momentum.

[1:33:44] Yeah, sure.

[1:33:47] All right, so we're going to maintain these September 17th meeting.

[1:34:00] Any other further discussion on this?

[1:34:04] Press on.

[1:34:07] We have any action items, so we just discussed the next meeting will be September 17th.

[1:34:18] Then I will go ahead and adjourn us.

[1:34:28] Thanks everyone.

[1:34:30] Perfect timing, look at that.

Planning Commission

Agenda

Transcript