[00:00:05] IS STAFF READY? COMMISSION MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO CALL THE ORDER OF [I. Call to order] THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FOR MONDAY, JUNE THE 3RD, 2024. CAN I GET A ROLL, PLEASE? MR. KIRBY? PRESENT. MR. WALLACE. PRESENT. MR. SHELL PRESENT. MISS BRIGGS, MR. LARSON. PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER. WILTROUT. COUNCIL MEMBER. BRISK. YES PRESENT. THERE ARE FOUR VOTING [III. Action on minutes: May 6, 2024 May 20, 2024] MEMBERS PRESENT. WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. ITEM THREE IS ACTION ON THE MINUTES, ON THE MAY 6TH MINUTES ON PAGE. LET'S SEE. THERE'S A THERE'S A TYPO SOMEWHERE, BUT THERE'S ALSO A QUESTION ON PAGE THREE AT THE TOP, LAW DIRECTOR SAID WOULD LOOK INTO THIS. HI. DID WE LOOK INTO THIS? LOOK INTO WHAT? HAVING A, HIGHER RATE THAN THE REGULAR COMMUNITY AUTHORITY FOR THE, IMPROMPTU SUBDIVISIONS OR SOMETHING ELSE FOR IT? WE DID LOOK INTO THAT. AND CHRIS DID SOME RESEARCH AND LOOKING INTO IT AND FOUND THAT IT'S NOT AN APPLICABLE ISSUE BECAUSE THE CRA HAS EXPIRED. IS THAT RIGHT, CHRIS? THE AUTHORITY'S EXPIRED. SO WE LOOKED INTO IT, BUT IT'S CALLED THE FRANKLIN COUNTY ISSUE. BOTH FRANKLIN COUNTY HAS EXPIRED. THEY PAID ALL THEIR BONDS. YEP. OKAY. HOW'S THE SCHOOL GOING TO GO? BUILDINGS WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY AUTHORITY. ALL RIGHT, ARE THERE OTHER? AND THERE'S A TYPO SOMEWHERE ON THE OTHER MINUTES. YOU'RE YOU'RE. YOU MEAN YOU'RE NOT PAYING 90 WATER MILLS ANYMORE? TRUST ME, IT'S SOMETHING. AND ON THE OTHER MAN'S ON PAGE THREE. IPHONE IS MISSPELLED NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF CAMERA IT WAS. IT SAYS I FOUND GREAT. THAT'S A MINOR TYPO. OTHER QUESTIONS? ONE QUICK, ONE QUICK, CORRECTION. AND THAT IS ON PAGE SIX. COMMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO ME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, AS FOR LOCATION OF THE REQUIREMENT THAT FOR COUNCIL REVIEW, I THINK THE EXTRA THAT SHOULD COME OUT. ALTHOUGH I SUPPOSE IT'S POSSIBLE I SAID THAT. ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS TO THE MAY 6TH OR MAY 20TH MINUTES? NO. OKAY YOU ARE ALL PRESENT. DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE MINUTES? MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE. WHAT AM I LOOKING AT? IT MAY. SIXTH. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AS CORRECTED. I'LL SECOND THAT AND DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FOR THE MAY 6TH MINUTES. CAN YOU THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. WALLACE? YES. MR. KIRBY? YES, MR. SHELL. YES. MR. LARSON YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED . DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR THE MAY 20TH MINUTES? ANY CHANGES? NO. OKAY. I'M GONNA MOVE TO. I'M SORRY. ARE YOU GOING? DO YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES? I DO, GO AHEAD . YEAH, I WAS GOING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, SO GO AHEAD. OH YOU'RE GOING TO DO A MOTION? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. PAGE THREE. JUST TYPE HERE TO BE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, COMMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO ME IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE. I THINK, PLANNING MANAGER, MAYOR, BUT THEN SAY ONLY CONSIDERING, I THINK THE WORD A SHOULD GO BEFORE LANDSCAPING PLAN, COMMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO CHAIRMAN KIRBY. WHICH WERE LOWERED DOWN, IT JUST AS IT SAYS, THE ACTUAL TEXT VERSUS AND I THINK IT JUST RESPELLED TO VERSE US AS OPPOSED TO VERSUS, FOR CLARITY. AND THEN, AS A REFERENCE TO AN IPHONE THAT SHOULD BE SPELLING SHOULD BE CORRECTED AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE. PAGE FIVE. JUST SO THERE'S A REFERENCE TO STAFF REPORT IN ONE OF MY ONE OF THE STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO ME. AND IT SHOULD BE REPORT JUST TO TYPOGRAPHICAL CORRECTION. AND THEN ON PAGE SEVEN, COMMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO ME TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE, THE PHRASE BECAUSE HE THOUGHT HE WAS HEARING, I THINK IT SHOULD READ BECAUSE WHAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS HEARING IS THAT PRIOR TO THE [00:05:02] TIME THE TREES WERE REMOVED, THERE WERE FEWER BULBS. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL I FLAG. YES. SO THOSE WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. CORRECTIONS DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR THE MAY 20TH MEETING? ARE THERE OTHER CORRECTIONS FOR MAY 20TH HEARING? NONE TO A HEAR A MOTION. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 2024 MEETING AS CORRECTED. DO I HEAR A SECOND? A SECOND AND DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FROM MAY 20TH? OKAY. THE ROLL PLEASE. MR. WALLACE? YES, MR. LARSON? YES, MR. SHELL? YES MR. KIRBY? YES. MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO OUR AGENDA TONIGHT? NONE FROM STAFF. THANK YOU, ITEM FIVE IS HEARING, VISITORS FOR ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY SUCH VISITORS? MOVING ON TO OUR FIRST CASE. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. GOOD POINT, EVERYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE RISE. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. AND IT'S ALSO A GOOD TIME TO PUT YOUR PHONE IN SILENT MODE. TAKES US TO OUR CASES. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS THE [VI. Cases] 22, 22 AND 24 2024. CAN WE HEAR FROM STAFF? YES. THANK YOU. SO THE THREE CASES ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT ARE ALL RELATED TO A PROPOSED PANDA EXPRESS DEVELOPMENT FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE'LL PRESENT THE CONDITIONAL USE VARIANCES TOGETHER. GREAT SO AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED PANDA EXPRESS. IT WILL IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEASTERN CORNER WHICH IS THE SITE IS OUTLINED HERE IN RED, SMITH'S MILL ROAD OR WALTON PARKWAY HERE . OOPS. MY I THINK THIS IS DYING. SORRY IS HERE. US 62 IS HERE, SOME FAMILIAR LANDMARKS IN THE AREA. THE DUNKIN DONUTS HERE AND THE TURKEY HILL GAS STATION. SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO, CONSTRUCT A 2600 SQUARE FOOT PANDA EXPRESS RESTAURANT. THE, RESTAURANT IS ALSO PROPOSED TO HAVE TWO DRIVE THRUS ASSOCIATED WITH IT TO DRIVE THROUGH LANES, AS MOST OF YOU ARE PROBABLY REALLY FAMILIAR, ANY, RESTAURANT THAT'S DEVELOPED WITH A DRIVE THRU REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE, TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THIS BOARD, WE HAVE REVIEWED OR EVALUATED THE PROPOSAL, AND OUR STAFF REPORT THE CONDITIONAL USE STAFF REPORT, EVERYTHING APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DRIVE THRUS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, THE SITE WILL BE ACCESSED OFF OF TWO CURB CUTS. SO THIS IS US 62 HERE AND SMITH'S MILL ROAD. SO THIS EXTENSION OF WOODCREST WAY EXISTS TODAY. THEY PROPOSE A FULL ACCESS CURB CUT OFF OF THIS PRIVATE ROAD HERE. WOODCREST WAY. AND THEY PROPOSE TO SHARE AND, ACCESS. THIS IS THE EXISTING TURKEY HILL, RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT ACCESS DRIVE ON US 62. THEY PROPOSE TO EXPAND OR EXTEND A PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD TO THE PANDA EXPRESS SITE, LEAVING, OR PROVIDING ACCESS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITES, OFF OF THIS ROAD AS WELL. YOU WILL SEE YOU PROBABLY NOTED IN OUR STAFF REPORT, BUT I'LL GO OVER IT WITH YOU TONIGHT. WE DO, RECOMMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THE, THIS DRIVE ALONG US 62 BE MODIFIED IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT IT, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THIS, THIS, DRIVEWAY IS A LITTLE SKEWED. IT COMES INTO THE SITE AND THEN GOES DOWN AND THEN OVER TO THE PANDA EXPRESS RESTAURANT. BUT, IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S HAPPENED ALL ALONG OR WITHIN THE CORE ALONG US 62, WE HAVE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THAT DRIVEWAY BE STRAIGHTENED OUT. SORRY, MY CLICKER IS NOT WORKING HERE. THE DRIVEWAY BE STRAIGHTENED OUT SO THAT, IT IS A STRAIGHT LINE. IT ALSO ALIGNS WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITES TO THE NORTH OF IT. AND AS WELL AS THE TURKEY HILL, GAS STATION HERE. YOU'LL SEE NEXT MONTH WE HAVE A WRIGHT-PATT CREDIT UNION BUILDING THAT'S COMING, FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL. RIGHT. NEXT TO THE SITE. SO, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF THINKING ABOUT JUST MAKING SURE THIS IS ALL CHANGING GEARS HERE, MAKING SURE THIS IS ALL UNIFORM AND LINED UP BETWEEN SITES HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN THE REST OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD BE CARRIED OVER HERE. IT WILL REQUIRE SOME MODIFICATION TO THEIR PARKING SPACES, THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE RELOCATED. WE HAD OUR CITY LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN CONSULTANT MXS TAKE A LOOK AT IT. AND THEY BELIEVE THAT THE DRIVEWAY CAN BE MODIFIED TO BE STRAIGHTENED OUT, BUT ALSO RELOCATING SOME OF THOSE PARKING SPACES SO THEY DON'T LOSE ANY OF THOSE. THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT A LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND [00:10:02] APPROVAL. ALL OF THE LANDSCAPE, CODE REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET ON THE SITE, WHAT THEY PROPOSE IS, IS HERE ON YOUR LEFT. THE CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL AND JUST RECOMMENDED SOME MODIFICATIONS, JUST TO ENSURE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH LANDSCAPE TREATMENTS, THE LANDSCAPE TREATMENT ON ADJACENT SITES THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE ZONING DISTRICT, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE WORTH NOTING ARE EXTENDING THE PROPOSED MEDIAN. YOU CAN SEE IT HERE ON THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. JUST EXTENDING THAT A LITTLE BIT AND HAVING THAT BE GREEN JUST TO BREAK UP SOME MORE OF THE PAVEMENT THAT THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE SITE JUST TO MAKE IT, MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE, ESTHETICALLY PLEASING. THESE ARE THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS, FOR THE PROPOSED PANDA EXPRESS. SO THIS ELEVATION HERE IS THE DRIVE THROUGH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS THE US 62 ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS THE SIDE THAT WILL FACE MILL ROAD. AND THEN THIS IS THE REAR ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL FACE ONTO THE PRIVATE ROAD. THE APPLICANT DOES REQUEST A VARIANCE, THERE'S TWO VARIANCES THAT ARE LISTED IN THE VARIANCE STAFF REPORT. ONE, TO ALLOW FOR A SIGN TO BE INSTALLED ON THIS DRIVE THROUGH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. AFTER FURTHER REVIEW OF THE CODE, STAFF DETERMINED THAT THAT VARIANCE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. CODE ALLOWS ONE SIGN TO BE INSTALLED FOR EVERY BUILDING FRONTAGE, EITHER ON A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE STREET. THE BUILDING HAS THREE FRONTAGES. SMITH'S MILL ROAD US 62 AND WOODCREST WAY. THEREFORE, THREE THREE WALL SIGNS ARE ALLOWED TO BE INSTALLED SO AGAIN, APOLOGIES FOR THAT MISTAKE AND OUR STAFF REPORT, BUT THAT VARIANCE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. THERE IS THE OTHER VARIANCE. THE ONLY OTHER VARIANCE THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING IS A VARIANCE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BOARD, FOR MANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. AND THE SURROUNDING AREA IS TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE AN ACTIVE AND OPERABLE DOOR ON ALL BUILDING ELEVATION ON THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS THAT FACE PUBLIC STREETS. SO THIS IS THE WOODCREST WAY, ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING, THIS IS REALLY THE SERVICE ENTRANCE, THIS THIS THIS REQUEST IS VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH SIMILAR REQUESTS ALONG THESE PRIVATE ACCESS ROADS, TO ALLOW THOSE, BUILDINGS TO NOT HAVE ACTIVE, INOPERABLE DOORS. THIS IS THE US 62 ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING, AS YOU PROBABLY NOTICED IN OUR STAFF REPORT, THIS IS WHERE WE THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT AN ACTIVE AND OPERABLE FRONT DOOR ON THIS, ON THIS ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. WE DO THINK THAT IT IS POSSIBLE, AND WE DO ENCOURAGE, A DOOR TO BE INSTALLED ON THIS ELEVATION JUST TO ENSURE THAT THE SPIRIT INTENT OF THE REQUIREMENT IS BEING MET, WHICH IS JUST A PROPER, APPROPRIATELY AND PROPERLY PROPERLY ADDRESSED. THE, THE USE OF US 62 FRONTAGE OF, OF THIS THE SITE. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES, IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WHERE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS GRANTED VARIANCES TO ELIMINATE THIS REQUIREMENT ALONG THE US 62 FRONTAGE. THIS IS THE POPEYES ON YOUR LEFT AND THE DUNKIN DONUTS ON YOUR RIGHT. AND WHILE THESE BUILDINGS, NEITHER ONE OF WHICH HAVE AN ACTIVE, INOPERABLE DOOR ON THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THEIR BUILDING, THEY CERTAINLY HAVE A LOT MORE, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURAL ARTICULATION WITH, YOU KNOW, THE THEY BOTH UTILIZE CANOPY SYSTEMS, JUST REALLY DEFINE MINE. YOU KNOW, THIS, THIS STOREFRONT, PIECE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S THAT'S ACHIEVED ON BOTH OF THEM. AND THERE'S JUST A LOT MORE WINDOWS AND GLASS. IT JUST FEELS MORE LIKE A FRONT ELEVATION COMPARED TO HOW THE PANDA EXPRESS, US, US 62 ELEVATION IS BEING TREATED, SO WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO, YOU KNOW, RESOLVE THAT EITHER BY A DOOR OR, YOU KNOW, INSTALLING AN ACTUAL DOOR AND ACTIVE FRONT DOOR ON THE ELEVATION IS THE IS THE DESIRED GOAL. BUT IF IN LIEU OF THAT, WE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO SEE ELEVATION DRESSED UP A LITTLE BIT MORE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER SITES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. GOING OVER SIGNAGE. SO JUST RUN THROUGH THIS REALLY QUICK OUTSIDE OF THE WALL SIGNS. SO THEY ARE PROPOSING TO INSTALL , TWO, TWO GROUND SIGNS AND TWO DRIVE THROUGH MENU BOARD SIGNS, BOTH OF WHICH ARE PERMITTED, BY OUR CODE, THE SIGNS, THE DIGITAL MENU BOARD SIGNS BOTH FALL UNDER THE MAXIMUM, SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR DIGITAL SIGNS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUST PASSED AS REGULATIONS, THIS YEAR. BUT I THINK IT WAS LAST YEAR, I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY ALMOST A YEAR AGO, BUT BOTH OF THESE SIGNS, BOTH THE DRIVE THRU MENU BOARD SIGNS ARE IN LINE WITH ALL OF OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS. I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, FOR THOSE SIGNS, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY, MEET SOME OF THE MAKE SURE HERE CARRY OVER THAT ONE. THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL, STANDARDS IN OUR CODE FOR DRIVE THROUGH MENU BOARD SIGNS IN TERMS OF ANIMATION, HOW MUCH OF THE SCREEN CAN BE, ANIMATED AND, THAT IT BE SHUT OFF AFTER THE BUSINESS IS CLOSED. SO THOSE [00:15:06] CONDITIONS, COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS WILL CONTINUE TO BE VERIFIED THROUGHOUT THE PERMITTING PROCESS. THE MONUMENT SIGNS, THESE LOOK VERY FAMILIAR BECAUSE THERE'S THEY'RE KIND OF ALL OVER THE PLACE OUT THERE ALONG US 62, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE A MULTI-TENANT SIGN AND, A JUST A STANDALONE PANDA EXPRESS MONUMENT SIGN. I'LL JUMP OVER TO THE SITE PLAN HERE. THERE ARE THERE ARE A COUPLE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. JUST WANTED TO WALK YOU THROUGH RELATED TO THESE SIGNS. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS, JUST TO KIND OF PREVENT ANY OVER SIGNING ALONG US 62. WE RECOMMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THIS, DUAL OR MULTI-TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGN BE MOVED CLOSER TO THE WRIGHT-PATT CREDIT UNION, PROPERTY LINE. SO IT'S SHARED BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM AND THAT IT BE A MULTI-TENANT SIGN JUST, AGAIN, JUST TO ELIMINATE OVERSIGNING ALONG US 62. AND THEN THE OTHER MONUMENT SIGN IS PROPOSED TO BE ON WOODCREST WAY, BUT ORIENTED TOWARDS SMITH'S MILL ROAD. WE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF THAT SIGN. ALSO BE A MULTI-TENANT SIGN, JUST TO ALLOW FOR SOME IDENTIFICATION OF AN ADJACENT SITE WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, OVER SIGNING THIS PRIVATE ROAD AS WELL. OOPS. SO WITH THAT, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, THERE ARE SEVERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO WALK THROUGH THOSE WITH YOU. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY. HEY, CHRIS, JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE FLOW. SO THERE'S TWO LANES, CORRECT? YES AND SO THIS WILL COME UP AND SERVE FOOD. IS THIS JUST A WAY OUT, I WOULD LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THAT QUESTION, CAN WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, PLEASE? GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MIKE MCPHERSON. I'M WITH CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTING FOR THE PROJECT, YEAH. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SO THIS IS WHAT THE, TERM, A12 CONFIGURATION. SO IT'S A SINGLE ENTRY INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH, THERE'S TWO ORDERING STATIONS, DURING, LIKE, BUSINESS HOURS, THEY WILL MERGE BACK TO ONE AT THE DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW WITH, MOVABLE ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL. BASICALLY, THAT STAFF PUTS OUT DURING HEAVY OPERATIONS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF CUSTOMERS IN LINE. THEY WILL ACTUALLY HAVE STAFF THAT, WALKS OUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE YIELDS TO THE FOLKS IN THAT SECOND DRIVE THROUGH LINE. AND THEY'LL BOTH THEN BE ABLE TO OPERATE FASTER THAT WAY. SO IT'S KIND OF A FLEXIBLE OPTION THAT THEY HAVE NOWADAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE, THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH THE DRIVE THROUGH. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO THE PRESENTATION, JUST A COUPLE MINOR THINGS, THANKS, CHRIS DID A GREAT JOB, SO, I KNOW WE MENTIONED THE FRONT DRIVE ALIGNMENT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I CAME TONIGHT TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE WE HAD TALKED TO THE CREDIT UNION FOLKS AND WORKED IT OUT, WITH THIS LOCATION. AND IT DOESN'T MAKE THAT FUNKY. IT WOULDN'T MAKE THAT FUNKY JOG AT THE END. IT WOULD ACTUALLY KIND OF JUST TIE IN TO THAT, EXISTING A LITTLE BIT MORE SMOOTHLY THAN WHAT YOU SEE THERE. BUT IN TALKING WITH CHRIS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CREDIT UNION IS GETTING THE SAME COMMENT OR HAS AGREED TO FLIP THEIR DRIVE ALREADY JUST RECENTLY. SO IF THEY HAVE AGREED TO DO THAT, THEN I SUPPOSE THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO AGREE TO DO IT SO THAT WE'RE NOT DISJOINTED AT THE PROPERTY LINE. SO, THAT WAS ONE OF THE TOPICS, THE OTHER ITEMS REGARDING KIND OF THE, THE CURBING AREAS, DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH EXTENDING THE, THE, THE LANDSCAPE ISLAND IN THE, IN THE DRIVE THRU LANE A LITTLE BIT MORE NORTH SOUTH TO ADD SOME PLANTINGS THAT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT ANYTHING, I WOULD ASK SOME FLEXIBILITY ON THE CURB LINES THAT ARE, COMING OFF OF WOODCREST WAY. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WE'VE GOT KIND OF A STRIPED OUT AREA AND THAT CURB KIND OF PULLED BACK A LITTLE BIT. YOU WANT TO SHOW US? THANK YOU. THANKS SO, RIGHT HERE WE'VE GOT WE'VE KIND OF GOT THIS CURB PULLED BACK AND THIS IS SCRATCHED OUT AND IT'S SOMEWHERE HERE. AND THIS IS ON PURPOSE, SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IF ANYBODY'S COMING ALONG, WOODCREST GOING WESTBOUND AND TRYING TO MAKE THIS TURN, THAT THEY HAVE AMPLE SWING ROOM HERE, AND THAT'S SOMEWHERE FOR ACCESS FOR THE GARBAGE TRUCK TO GET TO THE DUMPSTERS, WE JUST DON'T WANT ONGOING MAINTENANCE IN THESE AREAS WITH THEM RUNNING OVER THE CURB. NOW, WE'LL LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF WE CAN PULL THIS CURB OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE. AND, YOU KNOW, HAPPY TO WORK WITH STAFF ON THAT. BUT I DON'T SEE US, YOU KNOW, COMPLETELY ELIMINATING THIS WITH GIVEN THIS THE MOVEMENTS THAT, SOME OF THE [00:20:01] FOLKS WILL HAVE TO MAKE THERE. SO JUST KIND OF WANTED TO POINT THAT PARTICULAR ITEM OUT, IS THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL? YES. AND I CAN WALK YOU THROUGH THAT REALLY QUICK. JUST EVERYONE IS CAUGHT UP TO SPEED, SO OUR CITY, LANDSCAPE AND URBAN DESIGN CONSULTANT RECOMMENDED THAT THIS CURB CUT ESSENTIALLY BE REDUCED, AT THIS LOCATION HERE. AND THEN THIS, THIS STRIPED OUT SPACE HERE THAT THIS ISLAND BE EXPANDED INTO THE PRIVATE DRIVE JUST TO REDUCE SOME ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT THAT'S ON THE SITE. THERE SHOULD BE AN ILLUSTRATION OF IT IN YOUR, IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE HARD TO SEE AND KIND OF SEE IT HERE. SO YOU SEE HERE, THEY RECOMMENDED THAT THAT JUST KIND OF BE BUMPED OUT A LITTLE BIT HERE. AND THEN THAT GREENERY BE EXTENDED INTO THE DRIVEWAY THERE. THIS IS CONDITION ONE. SEE IN THE PROBABLY LET'S TAKE A LOOK HERE. THAT IS YES ONE. SEE YEP. OKAY. YEAH. SO WE WOULD ASK FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH STAFF ON THAT PARTICULAR CONDITION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T COME UP WITH AN ONGOING KIND OF MAINTENANCE PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE DRIVING OVER THAT CURB THERE. AND THE FINAL ITEM, I GUESS I WANTED TO BRING UP WAS THAT OVER ON THE, ON THE FRONT, I THINK CHRIS HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD THERE. AND AGAIN, WE JUST ASKED FOR FLEXIBILITY TO WORK WITH, STAFF ON EITHER ACCOMMODATING THE DOOR, IF ARCHITECTURALLY FEASIBLE, OR DRESSING UP THE FRONT ELEVATION WITH MAYBE SOME MORE GLAZING OR OTHER ITEMS, ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF AT THAT POINT. AND IF AMENABLE TO THE COMMISSION, WE JUST LIKE TO KEEP THAT FLEXIBILITY, AS PART OF THE CONDITION, IF POSSIBLE. ALL RIGHT. SO IN THE VARIANT, THIS APPLIES TO THE VARIANCE, I BELIEVE. AND SO IN PART B, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL AND SENSITIVE TO THE JOHNSTOWN ROAD ELEVATION. YEP. OKAY YEAH. THOSE ARE THE THOSE ARE THE MAIN ITEMS, THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP, I KNOW THERE'S QUITE A FEW THINGS IN HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE READ EVERYTHING IN HERE AND DON'T REALLY SEE ANY ISSUES WITH COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER ITEMS, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR WHATNOT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. OKAY NO, THERE'S NO ONE IN THE PUBLIC TO ASK QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. I HAVE A QUESTION UP HERE. BEFORE WE DID THE, ADJUSTMENT TO THE DRIVE AISLE, YOU HAD THIS LITTLE CUTOUT HERE. IS THAT ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT? GOING AWAY WITH THE PARKING ADJUSTMENT, SO WHAT THAT IS INTENDED FOR IS FOR DRIVE THROUGH WAITING, IF NECESSARY. IF SOMEBODY'S FOOD IS TAKING A LONG TIME FOR WHATEVER, THAT'S KIND OF A PULL UP SPOT WHERE THEY COULD GET TO, WE CAN LIKELY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TALK TO THE PEN OPERATIONS FOLKS AND THEY'LL HAVE TO WORK AROUND IT EITHER JUST USING ONE OF THE PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT AND IN LIEU OF, OF THAT PARTICULAR, TYPE OF GEOMETRY IN THIS SCENARIO. BUT AGAIN, IF THE CREDIT UNION HAS AGREED TO MOVE THAT DRIVE, THEN THERE'S REALLY THERE'S REALLY NOTHING ELSE PHYSICALLY. I THINK WE COULD DO TO MAKE THAT WORK THERE. SO, MY ARGUMENT FOR THAT, I GUESS, IS, FOR NOT AT THIS POINT. THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. THIS IS FOR STAFF. OR MAYBE IT'S FOR THE APPLICANT TOO, BUT WHEN I CROSS REFERENCE, THE, CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS THAT WERE LISTED AS CONDITIONS TO THE APPROVAL, I WASN'T SURE THAT THEY ALL LINED UP TO THE ENGINEER'S COMMENTS OR SET FORTH ON PAGE EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT. SO THE ENGINEERING, THERE'S A CONFLICT IN THE ENGINEERING MEMO. AND PAGE EIGHT OF THE STAFF REPORT. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YEAH. I COULDN'T I TRIED TO FOR EXAMPLE, THE SECOND COMMENT OF THE ENGINEER'S COMMENTS IS ADD A MAJOR FLOOD ROUTING ERA TO THE LEGEND AND SHOW MAJOR FLOOD ROUTE FLOOD ROUTING. BUT I DIDN'T SEE A SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE FIVE BULLET POINTS UNDER SIX. IT MAY NOT BE A BIG DEAL IF THE APPLICANT WILL AGREE THAT, THAT THEY'LL THAT THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT TO ALL THE ENGINEER'S COMMENTS AS SET FORTH ON PAGE EIGHT. IN ADDITION TO THE ITEMS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY LAID OUT IN IN IN, CONDITION SIX. YEAH, WE HAVE A COPY OF THE ENGINEER'S COMMENTS, SEPARATELY OR DIRECTLY, AND DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH COMPLYING. OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. AND LET ME ALSO JUST CLARIFY FOR MY PURPOSES, VARIANCE A AND I THINK NEIL MENTIONED THIS, BUT I'M NOT HEARING THAT. WELL, THESE DAYS. [00:25:06] BUT THAT THAT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN. SO WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON A WE'RE ONLY VOTING ON B. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT THERE'S TWO ASPECTS TO B IS THAT RIGHT? YES AND ONE STAFF DIDN'T REALLY TAKE A POSITION ON, BUT THE OTHER STAFF APPEARED TO TAKE A POSITION THAT THEY WEREN'T IN FAVOR OF THAT VARIANCE, THAT ASPECT OF THE VARIANCE. RIGHT, I THINK CORRECT. YEAH SO IT SEEMS TO ME WE SHOULD VOTE ON THE TWO SUB PARTS OF THAT SEPARATELY, PRESUMABLY. AGAIN BECAUSE I GUESS THE SPLIT SO B TALKS ABOUT ACTIVE AND OPERABLE FRONT DOORS. OR ARE WE SEPARATING THE TWO DIFFERENT ROADS. JUST ONE PART RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT DAVE IS GETTING AT. RIGHT. THE WOODCREST ELEVATION IS DIFFERENT THAN OUR OPINION ABOUT WHAT CROSSWAY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE US ROTATION. WOODCREST WAY IS MORE IN LINE AND CONSISTENT WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THEIR AREA, AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME REVISIONS ON THE US ELEVATION. YEAH, WE WOULD REQUEST THE VARIANCE FOR THE WOODCREST WAY, WHICH ARE BACK OF HOUSE. ESSENTIALLY THE FRONT IS WHAT I WAS MENTIONING EARLIER. AS FAR AS JUST POTENTIALLY BEING ABLE TO KEEP SOME FLEXIBILITY WITH EITHER COMPLYING WITH THE DOOR OR ADDING SOME MORE GLAZING, OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD BE SATISFACTORY TO STAFF. SO WOODCREST GETS THE VARIANCE AND YOU WORK WITH STAFF ON DEALING WITH THE JOHNSTOWN ROAD ELEVATION. THAT'S CORRECT. DOES JOHNSTOWN ROAD GET THE VARIANCE FOR NEEDING A DOOR OR IS THAT SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH IS IT WOULD GRANT WOODCREST WAY IT WOULD LEAVE JOHNSTOWN ROAD SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. YES. I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BOTH, BUT WITH A CONDITION OF APPROVAL AT THE JOHNSTOWN ROAD. ONE BE SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL AND THAT THE I GUESS THAT FACADE BE MODIFIED, TO MEET THE INTENT OF A OF AN ACT OF AN OPERABLE FRONT DOOR OR I GUESS, OTHER DESIGN FEATURE. THANK YOU. OKAY, I THINK I GET THAT, BUT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CRAFT A MOTION TO HAVE A SENSE. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ARE YOU STILL LOOKING? I DON'T THINK I HAD ANYTHING ELSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I. DO WE NEED ANY DEPENDENCIES BETWEEN THE THREE DIFFERENT MOTIONS? WE'RE GOING TO MAKE? YEAH, I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS HISTORICALLY DONE THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO, BUT I THINK YOU CERTAINLY CAN IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I WAS JUST LOOKING TO SEE DOES ONE OF THESE NOT MAKE SENSE WITHOUT THE OTHERS? AND MY SUSPICION IS USUALLY IT'S THE VARIANCES IS THE ONE THAT WE HAVE TO KEY ON. BUT YOU COULD STILL PUT A RESTAURANT WITHOUT THE VARIANCES HERE. I DON'T THINK IT'S CRITICAL TO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YOU COULD YOU COULD GET A FINAL DEVELOPMENTOUE VARIANCES IT'D BE A LITTLE HARDER, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE NORMAL STRONG TIE THAT ONE OF THESE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE WITHOUT THE OTHER. YEAH. I THINK YEAH, I THINK I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THE VARIANCE. SEEMS LIKE THE CONDITIONAL USE. YEAH. WOULD PROBABLY BE TIED TO IT THOUGH. OTHERWISE THE VARIANCE GOES AWAY IF WE DON'T. BUT THE VARIANCES I THINK VARIANCE IS MARKED. YEAH I'M TRYING TO GET ALL THAT DONE. THE CONDITIONAL USE GOES AWAY IF IT'S OTHER THAN A RESTAURANT THAT'S BUILT INTO CONDITION ONE. LET'S SAY THAT'S IN THE CONDITIONAL USE OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT THE VARIANCES. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? I DON'T THINK SO OKAY I THINK WE'RE GOOD. WE DON'T HAVE TO TIE THE VARIANCE TO THAT TO THE CASE. YEAH DOING THAT. ALL RIGHT I MOVE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF STAFF REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD FOR FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 22 OF 2024. DO I HEAR A SECOND ON THE DOCUMENTS MOTION? I'LL SECOND. WHICH ONE WAS THAT? BRUCE I THINK I AGREE. I THINK BRUCE KNOWS JUST BY A CLOSE. OKAY. AND DISCUSSION ON THE DOCUMENTS MOTION. CAN YOU THE ROLL, MR. KIRBY? YES MR. LARSON YES. MR. WALLACE YES. MR. SHELL YES. MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. THANK YOU. DO I LET'S SEE THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO YOUR MOTION ON THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, I HAVE TWO THINGS MODIFIED IN THE CONDITIONS. THAT ONE MEAL, I [00:30:08] MOVE FOR APPROVAL. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN 22, 2024. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT, ONE. SEE NOTING THIS HAS TO BE WORKED WITH STAFF , AND CONDITION SIX IS EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ALL NINE OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE ENGINEER'S REPORT THAT WERE MENTIONED ON PAGE EIGHT. ANY SECOND. OKAY ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION? CAN I THE ROLL, PLEASE? MR. KIRBY? YES, MR. WALLACE? YES. MR. LARSON. YES. MR. SHELL YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS THAT ONE C NEEDS TO BE WORKED WITH STAFF OR HAS TO BE WORKED WITH STAFF AND SIX NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED TO INCLUDE ALL ENGINEERING COMMENTS ON PAGE EIGHT. THANK YOU. I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD FOR Q 2420. 24, THE MOTION HAS 2043 ON IT. I'LL JUST SCRATCH THAT. THROUGH YOUR SECOND ON THE DOCUMENTS MOTION FOR THE CEO. SECOND AND DISCUSSION. OKAY. THE ROLL PLEASE, MR. KIRBY. YES. MR. SHELL? YES. MR. LARSON. YES, MR. WALLACE YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. NOTHING FANCY ABOUT THIS ONE, RIGHT? RIGHT. NOW, DO I HEAR A MOTION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE? MOVED TO APPROVE APPLICATION Q 24, 2024 WITH THE SINGLE CONDITION THAT'S SET FORTH IN STAFF REPORT. DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND AND DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY. THE ROLL, PLEASE. MR. WALLACE? YES, MR. SHELL? YES. MR. KIRBY YES. MR. LARSON YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE WITH THE CONDITION AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS INTO THE RECORD FOR VARIANCE. 25 2024. DO I HEAR A SECOND ON THE DOCUMENTS MOTION? SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE DOCUMENTS MOTION? OKAY. THE ROLL PLEASE, MR. KIRBY? YES. MR. LARSON? YES. MR. WALLACE YES. MR. SHELL YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO ADMIT THE DOCUMENTS. OKAY I MOVE FOR APPROVAL VARIANCE 20 OF AGAIN. 25, 2024 B THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE PART A, NOTING THAT THE VARIANCE APPLIES TO WOODCREST WAY AND MAY APPLY TO THE JOHNSTOWN ROAD SIDE, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL AND WITH A CLEAR SENSITIVITY TO THE JOHNSTOWN ROAD ELEVATION. I'LL SECOND THAT. FOR THE CONDITIONS, PLEASE. WITH A CLEAR SENSITIVITY TO JOHNSTOWN ROAD ELEVATION. THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? OKAY TO THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. KIRBY? YES, MR. SHELL? YES. MR. LARSON. YES, MR. WALLACE? YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE VARIANCE. 25 2024 B, AND THAT IT APPLIES TO WOODCREST WAY AND MAY APPLY TO JOHNSTOWN ROAD WITH A CLEAR SENSITIVITY FOR JOHNSTOWN FOR THE JOHNSTOWN ROAD ELEVATION, SUBJECT TO STAFF APPROVAL. SUBJECT. THANK YOU. GREAT, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD EVENING. YEAH. IT'S SMART OF YOU TO PUT IT RIGHT NEXT TO MY KIDS ARE VERY HAPPY. YEAH I'VE BEEN THINKING IT RIGHT THAT SINCE 1979. ALL RIGHT, WELL. YEAH, IT [VII. Other business] TAKES US TO OTHER BUSINESS, CITY CODE AMENDMENT 1187. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO WE WORKSHOPPED, [00:35:06] ALL OF THESE CODE AMENDMENTS 28A MONTH AND A HALF AGO, TWO MEETINGS AGO, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'LL SAY. SO, THAT WAS JUST WORKSHOPPING TONIGHT. WE'RE BRINGING IT FORMALLY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR YOUR REVIEW AND HOPEFULLY ADOPTION, SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVEN'T MADE ANY CHANGES TO THE CODE UPDATES. SO EVERYTHING IS THE SAME, WE'VE JUST CHANGED ONE THING FOR THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS REGARDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE. SO I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, AND THEN I'M GOING TO HAND IT OFF TO CHRIS TO GO OVER THE URBAN CENTER CODE, WITH YOU, WE WEREN'T GOING TO GO INTO ANY DETAIL TONIGHT SINCE WE WORKSHOPPED THESE, BUT JUST A QUICK RECAP ABOUT THESE. SO THE 1187 CODE UPDATES. SO AGAIN, THIS IS JUST UPDATING CODE TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND JUST TO MATCH WHAT OUR, WHAT WE ACTUALLY DO SUBMITTAL WISE TODAY. AGAIN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WERE ADOPTED PROBABLY 35 YEARS AGO. SO IT'S IN NEED OF A CLEANUP FOR SURE. AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY JUST TO CLEAN UP THINGS FOR SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS. THE TYPE OF DEPOSITS, CLARIFYING SOME DEFINITIONS AND TIME FRAMES. AND THEN ALSO THE ONE THING WE'RE DOING IS OPTIMIZING THE ACCEPTANCE PRACTICES. SO, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, THE INFRASTRUCTURE ACCEPTANCE. SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PER SE, BUT WE ARE CHANGING HOW INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE ACCEPTED. SO CURRENTLY INFRASTRUCTURE IS ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL AFTER EVERYTHING IS BUILT AND IN THE GROUND, THIS WOULD, CHANGE IT SO THAT INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD BE ACCEPTED VIA THE CITY ENGINEER AGAIN. AFTER ALL THE INSPECTIONS ARE DONE, IT'S BEEN VERIFIED BY STAFF THAT IT'S BEEN BUILT PER THE APPROVED PLAN. SO THIS IS ONE WAY THAT WE SEE, SORT OF UPGRADING OUR CODE, TO MATCH WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING AND TO SORT OF ELEVATE THAT APPROVAL PROCESS. THE OTHER, CODE THAT WE'RE ADDING TO THE 1187 IS OUR MINOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. SO AGAIN, NO CHANGES TO THIS. SO RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, OUR CODE, WHETHER YOU'RE DOING A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OR 100 LOT SUBDIVISION, EVERYBODY GETS TREATED THE SAME. THERE'S NO IN BETWEEN. WE MENTIONED THIS LAST TIME. IT'S A LITTLE WEIRD THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS ALREADY. I THINK PRETTY MUCH EVERY OTHER, CITY MUNICIPALITY IN CENTRAL AND PROBABLY THE STATE HAS SOME SORT OF MINOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION . WE ALREADY DO THIS FOR A COMMERCIAL PARCELS, SO AGAIN, THIS WOULD JUST SAY THAT YOU CAN, CREATE UP TO FIVE LOTS THAT ARE LESS THAN FIVE ACRES AND NOT NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS. SO IT'D BE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY STAFF, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH, WORKED WITH OUR LEGAL CONSULTANTS. THIS WOULD ALSO BE EXEMPTED FROM HAVING TO DO ANY PARKLAND OR OPEN SPACE, JUST LIKE YOU WOULD IF YOU DID A LOT SPLIT TODAY. SO IT'S FALLING INTO THAT CATEGORY, AND AGAIN, IT HAS TO BE, IT CAN ONLY BE APPROVED BY STAFF IF IT'S NOT CONTRARY TO ANY OTHER SUBDIVISION, ZONING OR APPLICABLE, REGULATIONS. SO IT'S NOT JUST A RUBBER STAMP. THEY STILL GOT TO MEET ALL THE OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT EXIST TODAY. AND THOSE WERE SOME OF THE EXAMPLES THAT I WENT THROUGH WITH EVERYONE LAST TIME. SO, HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS GOT OUR, MEMO, AND, HOPEFULLY THIS IS KIND OF A QUICK REFRESHER WITH THAT. I WAS JUST GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IF YOU GUYS HAD ANY QUESTIONS, FOR US, MOVING FORWARD, I HAD ONE QUESTION LAST TIME IN OUR DISCUSSION. WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING A MINIMUM OF 150FT OF STREET FRONTAGE TO BE THERE. I COULDN'T FIND THAT IN THE TEXT ANYWHERE. OR MAYBE I MISSED IT, I DIDN'T KNOW, YES, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO IT'S NOT THAT ACTUALLY IS NOT IN OUR SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. SO EACH, ZONING DISTRICT. SO WHETHER IT'S AN R1 OR R2 OR R3, HAS THEIR OWN STREET FRONTAGE. SO IF YOU WERE TO DO A MINOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, THEN WE WOULD LOOK AT WHATEVER THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR THAT SPECIFIC PARCEL. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ON A LOT BY LOT BASIS. SO THIS WON'T CHANGE THOSE LOT FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S THOSE WOULD REMAIN INTACT BUT IS COVERED OVER THERE OKAY. YEAH. THE EXISTING ZONING THAT IT'S THAT THE MAIN PARCELS ALREADY UNDER OKAY. ALL THE SUBTENDING PARCELS BECOME THAT SAME ZONE AND MUST MEET THAT ZONING CLASS. AND IT'S BUILT IN THERE. YEAH. SO 150 HAPPENS TO BE THE R1 FRONTAGE. YEAH. AS AN EXAMPLE. AND SO AGAIN THIS DOESN'T CHANGE. OH SORRY TO INTERRUPT. DOESN'T CHANGE ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PER SE. THIS IS KIND OF LIKE A WEIRD THING THAT WE'RE DOING AND THAT WE'RE CHANGING KIND OF PROCEDURES. RIGHT. SO IT'S ALL THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS FAR AS LOT SIZE, LOT FRONTAGE , DENSITY, THINGS LIKE THAT. WE'RE JUST ADDING, YOU KNOW, A NEW TOOL TO OUR TOOLBOX AS A STAFF TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE PROPERTY OWNER FRIENDLY, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, WANT TO SPLIT A LOT. TODAY. YEAH. YEAH. SO IN THE TOWNSHIP, FORMER TOWNSHIP LOTS WHERE THIS MOSTLY IS MOST LIKELY [00:40:03] TO APPLY IF SOMEONE BREAKS OFF A CHUNK FOR A FAMILY MEMBER, THEY CAN'T BREAK OFF JUST ENOUGH FOR THE HOUSE. IT HAS TO BE ENOUGH TO BE BY ITS OWN TO MATCH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS. YEAH, I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. IS IT. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE DEFINITION SECTION WHERE WE WHERE WE DEFINE MINOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, THE LAST CLAUSE SAYS AND DOES NOT INVOLVE NEW WIDENING OR THE EXTENSION OF ANY PUBLIC STREET. BUT WHEN YOU SORT OF SEPARATE THAT OUT, IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE ENGLISH SENSE, IT SEEMS TO ME. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT NEW STREETS, A NEW STREET, SO I JUST IF IT'S NOT TOO LATE, I WOULD TWEAK THIS LANGUAGE. I THINK IT SHOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS. IT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE CREATION OF A NEW STREET, THE WIDENING OF AN EXISTING STREET, OR THE EXTENSION OF ANY STREET. JUST TO CLARIFY IT, IT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME. SAME THING IN THE DEFINITION OF SUBDIVISION. I THINK IT SUFFERS FROM THE SAME, LACK OF CLARITY. AND THEN. GIVE ME A SECOND TO. SO THEN WHEN WE GET TO 1187 23, WHICH IS MINOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS, IT SAYS THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED UPON AN EXISTING ROAD, HAS FRONTAGE AND INVOLVES NO EXTENSION. BUT DO WE WANT WIDENING IN THERE OR NOT? I NOTICE IT WAS JUST MISSING, BUT SO IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE SAID EARLIER, AND OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T NEED NEW. WELL, AND IT DOESN'T SAY NEW EITHER. SO I'M JUST IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT. YEAH. THAT'S A GREAT CATCH. SO I THINK WE PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO SAY OR PROBABLY WE DO WANT TO INCLUDE THAT IT DOES NOT INVOLVE THE CREATION OF NEW STREETS OR THE EXTENSION OF ANY PUBLIC STREETS. HOWEVER, I WOULD SAY THE WIDENING IS, IS, I WOULD SAY THAT'S FINE, BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN HOMES ARE BUILT ALONG OLD TOWNSHIP ROADS, WE ACTUALLY DO REQUIRE THEM TO, YOU KNOW, TO BASICALLY DO A MINOR WIDENING IS WHAT I WOULD CALL LIKE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF REFRESH THE SHOULDER A LITTLE BIT. SO I THINK FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE PROBABLY SHOULD TAKE OUT THE, THE LANGUAGE AND UNDER THE DEFINITION SECTION THAT INCLUDES WIDENING. YEAH. NO ISSUE WITH THAT OBVIOUSLY. BUT JUST IN TERMS OF SO REALLY DIDN'T THINK IT THROUGH THAT MUCH. JUST NOTICING THE DIFFERENCES IN ONE TO RAISE THEM IF IT IF IT MADE A DIFFERENCE OR IF IT DIDN'T. YEAH. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION IN THE, 1180 703 ON PAGE FOUR, APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, LOOKS LIKE A SECTION OF THAT WAS SEEN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN MY COLOR VERSION. IT'S IN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT COLOR FONT. SO I'M ASSUMING IT WAS A SUBSEQUENT CHANGE IN THE RED LINE. BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS AND I NOTICED IT WAS DELETED. THE TIME FRAME WAS DELETED. I JUST WAS CURIOUS AS TO WHY IT WAS DELETED. I IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY NOTING IT HAD BEEN DELETED. YEAH, THEY'RE PROBABLY ABOUT FIVE STAFF MEMBERS. LIKE EDITING IT AT DIFFERENT TIMES. I THINK THE COLOR AND THE DELETION SORRY, IT'S PROBABLY CLEANUP. SO IT JUST NEEDED IT JUST NEEDED TO COME OUT AT SOME POINT. SORRY ABOUT THAT. YEAH NO, NO DON'T NO APOLOGY NECESSARY. I JUST NOTICED AGAIN, THIS IS NOT SUPER SUBSTANTIVE. I JUST MAKING SURE IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. MAKING SURE. YEAH, JUST MAKING SURE THERE ISN'T SOMETHING, AND THEN I NOTED THERE'S A COUPLE REFERENCES TO SUBDIVIDE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S DEFINED, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED. BUT AGAIN, IT'S JUST A WORD THAT IS NOT DEFINED. AND AS A LAWYER, SEEING THAT THERE'S A DEFINITION SECTION AND WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION, I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT IF IT'S IMPORTANT, ADD THE DEFINITION. IF YOU IF YOU AND OUR LEGAL COUNSEL DON'T THINK IT'S THINK IT'S CLEAR ENOUGH, THEN NO BIG DEAL. BUT I DID NOTE THAT THE WORD SUBDIVIDER IS REFERENCED A COUPLE TIMES, BUT NOT NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINED. AND OF COURSE IT ISN'T WITH A CAPITAL S, SO IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE. BUT, THAT'S IT. I THINK. YEP. THAT'S ALL. YEAH. WE CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF A SUBDIVIDER. I GUESS WE'VE FELT COMFORTABLE HISTORICALLY NOT HAVING THAT DEFINITION IN. BUT I MEAN, IT'S A GOOD POINT, NOW'S THE TIME TO RAISE IT. SO, YEAH, IF YOU GUYS FEEL COMFORTABLE APPROVING IT TONIGHT WITH A CONDITION THAT WE INVESTIGATE THAT FURTHER, JUST TO, YOU KNOW, DETERMINE THAT WE CAN THEN TAKE IT TO CITY COUNCIL AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT YOU GUYS CONDITIONED. AND I MEAN, THE [00:45:06] OTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS TO SAY SOMETHING MORE TO THE EFFECT OF, SAY, A PERSON SEEKING TO SUBDIVIDE UNDER THIS SECTION, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YEAH, IT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT WAY TO PHRASE IT WITHOUT. BUT SUBDIVIDERS SEEM TO BE SORT OF A SPECIAL PERSON TO ME. SO YEAH, JUST JUST AN ISSUE. YEAH. I HAVE NO CONCERN ADDING THAT DEFINITION. YEAH. AND AGAIN, THIS IS ALL ABOUT CLARITY . SO WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THAT IN OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMENTS TO YOUR MOTION FOR 1187. DO WE NEED A MOTION. THIS WAS REQUESTED RIGHT. YEAH. YES PLEASE. ARE THERE ANY STAFF REPORTS WE SHOULD INCLUDE I0I GUESS THERE'S THE MEMO, THAT WE GAVE YOU WITH THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE CODE UPDATE ITSELF. SO NOT A STAFF REPORT PER SE. DO THEY NEED TO ADOPT THE. SINCE THE CODE UPDATE AND AN APPLICATION? YEAH. YOU MEAN, MOVE TO ADMIT IT INTO THE RECORD. YEAH I THINK YOU DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT MOVING TO ADMIT THAT IN THE RECORD BASED UPON THE PROCESS IS MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. OKAY SO THAT WAS A DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT. RIGHT. THAT'S A NEGATIVE. NEGATIVE GHOSTRIDER. TO YOUR MOTION FOR 1187. I MOVE OKAY I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE 1187 SUBJECT TO, DAVID'S CONCERN ABOUT DEFINING SUBDIVIDERS. OKAY. AND THE OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANGUAGE. YEAH, YEAH, THAT I BELIEVE STAFF'S GOING TO REVIEW PRIOR TO PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL. OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT, SINCE I ADDED THE COMMENTARY AND DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. CAN WE HEAR THE ROLL PLEASE, MR. SHELL. YES. MR. WALLACE. YES. MR. LARSEN. YES. MR. KIRBY YES. THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE THE CODE CHANGES, SUBJECT TO MR. WALLACE'S CONCERNS RAISED AT THIS MEETING. THANKS. MR. URBAN CENTER CODE. THANK YOU. SO, AS STEVE MENTIONED, THIS WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE WORKSHOP THAT YOU HAD WITH YOU GUYS A MONTH AND A HALF AGO, SO WE'RE, YOU CANNOT SEE THIS. I'M SO SORRY, THERE. HOPEFULLY HAVE A RED LINE COPY IN FRONT OF YOU. SO WE ISSUED THE SAME MEMO THAT WE, HAD SENT TO YOU GUYS AHEAD OF THAT WORKSHOP, AND THEN THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WE MADE TO THE ACTUAL, WORDING, MR. WALLACE POINTED OUT THE, THE USE OF THE WORD AMENITIES AND TRYING TO FIND WHERE IT WAS. THERE IT WAS THAT WAS REPLACED, WITH THE WORD PROGRAMED, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, IS THE SAME. NO OTHER CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. THEY GET MORE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE, TONIGHT. AND AGAIN, WE DON'T SEE THIS AS A CODE CHANGE. WE SEE THIS AS A CODE CLARIFIER. AND THEN AS PART OF THAT CLARIFICATION. SO A LOT OF THIS LANGUAGE IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INTENT IS CLEAR ALONG WITH IT. SO WE SEE THIS KIND OF LIKE BOLSTERING THE REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR. AND THE ARCHITECTURE THE CITY ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD REVIEWS THESE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS WITH THE INTENT IS BEHIND THOSE PARKS AND PRESERVATION AREAS THAT EXIST TODAY. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE ON THE 1.1.5, ABOUT 1200 LINEAR FEET TO THE OPEN SPACE OR PARKLAND, AND IT SAYS THESE SPACES SHALL BE PROGRAMED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, AS A COMMISSION, DO WE THINK WE NEED TO PUT ANY KIND OF MINIMUM SIZE TO THAT, OR DO YOU THINK THAT THAT'S SUFFICIENT? I WENT BACK. AND FORTH IN MY HEAD. I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THIS CONCERN, BUT I JUST WANT TO KIND OF OPEN THAT UP FOR DIALOG. I THINK WE'VE GOT THE SIZES ON SOME OF THESE MAILED DOWN BECAUSE IT'S IN THE TEXT WHERE IT GOES. AND SO THE GIANT PERIMETER AROUND WHAT USED TO BE CALLED THE LITTLE TRIANGLE IN THE MIDDLE, IT'S LIKE ALL THE GREEN SPACE KIND OF DEFINES, OH, GREEN SPACE AS HOW BIG IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE MAP. THE GREEN AREA IN THAT PLACES IT I REALLY KIND OF CLARIFIES IT FOR WE HAVE A GOOD CLUE ABOUT HOW BIG IT IS AND WHERE IT IS, THEY CAN ADD MORE IF THEY WANT. NOTHING STOPS THE DEVELOPER FROM SAYING, WELL, ACTUALLY, I WANT MY GAZEBO IN THE DEAD CENTER OF THAT TRIANGLE. THEY PUT IT THERE. THEY COULD ADD TO IT IF THEY WANT. YEAH. AND YEAH, AND I THINK THAT CODE GIVES US STAFF THE ABILITY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN A OR B, THE ABILITY TO ADD ON MORE PARKLAND, JUST, YOU KNOW, IF IT ISN'T BEING MET. SO YEAH, I THINK THAT'S SORT OF THE COVER ALL FOR BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A CONCERN. I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO HEAR THE THOUGHTS ON IT. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS. IS IT HAVING LOOKED [00:50:06] AT THIS LANGUAGE, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST, LAST TIME AND I KNOW WE WENT. WE HAD A PRETTY, YOU KNOW, ROBUST DISCUSSION AROUND THIS. HERE THE LANGUAGE SAYS THE SPACES SHALL BE PROGRAMED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE RESIDENTS. SHOULD WE INCLUDE LANGUAGE? ALSO, THE CITY, OR NOT? THAT THE CITY? I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE VAGUE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST PROGRAMED TO THE RESIDENTS. BUT DOES THE CITY HAVE AN INTEREST THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO TOSS AN EXPRESS IN THERE , THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE? YEAH. AND PUT THEM IN THE ORDER THAT SURROUNDING AREA COMES FIRST ON THAT END. AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. YEAH. SO THAT WE DON'T FIND THAT. OH, IT'S THE PERFECT FOR SOMETHING ELSE. BUT THEY PUT A TOT LOT THERE WHEN WHAT WE REALLY NEEDED WAS A SOMETHING ELSE. YEAH FOR BOTH. RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH. WHAT DO WE WHAT DO WE WANT TO WHAT DO WE WANT TO PUT IN THERE. AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. VERY GOOD. THAT'S VERY END OF THE SENTENCE. YOUR MOTION TO RECOMMEND. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE URBAN CENTER CODE AMENDMENT RELATING TO VILLAGE CENTER, PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. WITH THE MODIFICATION JUST STATED. WITH THE MODIFICATION, WE JUST STATED YES OF COURSE, YES. AND CITY HALL. THANK YOU. I'LL SECOND THAT. AND DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. GOT A SECOND I THINK NEIL ALREADY. SECOND. YES. SORRY YOU GOT THIRD THOUGH. GOT THIRD IF YOU WANT IT. HE DID THAT. MR. WALLACE ON THE. WERE YOU THE MOVE AND KIRBY SECOND. YES. YES AND NEIL POINTED OUT THAT WE WERE ADDING LANGUAGE AND AFTER RESIDENTS AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE. YEAH AND YOUR LAPTOP MEANS I CAN'T SEE WHEN YOUR PEN IS MAKING IT. ALL RIGHT, IF YOU'RE READY. CAN WE HEAR THE ROLL, PLEASE, MR. WALLACE? YES. MR. KIRBY. YES. MR. SHELL. YES. MR. LARSON. YES, THE MOTION PASSES WITH FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE THE CODE CHANGES WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT AFTER THE WORD RESIDENTS AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE WILL BE INCLUDED. THANK YOU ALL MEMBERS FOR COMMENT. [VIII. Poll members for comment] BRUCE. NO COMMENT. DAVE DID YOU HAVE UPDATED? I WAS ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO. I WAS ACTUALLY OUT OF TOWN, SO I DIDN'T GO. SO YOU CAN GO, BUT I ACTUALLY HAVE A I READ ABOUT THE WORKSHOP. OH DO YOU. YEAH WE DO. YEAH. SORRY, I FORGOT TO MENTION THIS. DO YOU MIND IF WE GO FOR IT REAL QUICK? OKAY, SO WE DID HAVE A PUBLIC WORKSHOP. OH, THERE'S LATE ON MAY 14TH. IT FEELS LIKE IT WAS EONS AGO, BUT IT ALSO FEELS LIKE IT WAS LAST NIGHT, FOR THE US 62 INTERCHANGE FOCUS AREA PLAN, SO THIS WAS IF YOU WERE THERE. I KNOW NEIL WAS THERE. I DON'T KNOW HANS. HANS WAS THERE AS WELL, OTHERS OTHERS OF YOU WERE THERE. I APOLOGIZE IF I DIDN'T SEE YOU, THIS WAS ACTUALLY THE MOST HEAVILY ATTENDED, PUBLIC OUTREACH EVENT WE'VE EVER HAD FOR ANY, PLANNING PROJECT. EVEN THE ENTIRE CITYWIDE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROJECT, THIS WAS HELD AT THE HYATT CENTER. SO WE HAD A SAFE, VERY CONSERVATIVE NUMBER WAS WELL OVER 150 PEOPLE WERE PACKED INTO THE HYATT CENTER. IF YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT, IF YOU SAW ME THERE, YOU PROBABLY COULD TELL THAT THERE WERE 150 PEOPLE THERE. AND I WAS STRESSED OUT ABOUT EVERYONE, BUT, IT WAS A REALLY, REALLY, REALLY GOOD EVENT, IT WAS A STATION BASED, PUBLIC WORKSHOP, IT WAS IT WAS AWESOME. WE HAD, TONS AND TONS OF STAFF MEMBERS THERE, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE PICTURED, THERE'S STEVE THERE, SIERRA AND ADRIAN, AGAIN, THANK YOU TO HANS AND NEIL AND THE OTHERS THAT CAME OUT TO HELP SUPPORT US TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, WE HAVE, OUR SURVEY, WENT LIVE. YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN IT ON SOCIAL MEDIA. SO WE HAVE A POST WORKSHOP SURVEY THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. I MADE THIS SLIDE. WHEN DID WE MEET LAST? TWO WEEKS AGO, AND THE SURVEY HAD BEEN OPEN FOR ABOUT A WEEK, AND WE HAVE 260 SURVEY RESPONSES AND JUST ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF OF IT BEING OPEN. I DID NOT, UNFORTUNATELY, GET A NUMBER, TODAY, BUT THAT EVEN JUST ALONG THAT SURVEY NUMBER, THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S INCREDIBLE. IS IT STILL OPEN FOR IT IS STILL OPEN, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT, THERE'S A QR CODE RIGHT THERE. YOU CAN SCAN IT WITH YOUR PHONE, THE SURVEY WILL BE OPEN UNTIL THE END OF THIS WEEK, SO FEEL FREE TO SHARE THIS OUT WITH FOLKS, ANYBODY THAT YOU KNOW. BUT AGAIN, I WISH I HAD AN UPDATED SURVEY NUMBER, BUT THE TWO NUMBERS COMBINED, YOU KNOW, SO FAR, WE'RE OVER. WELL OVER. I [00:55:04] BELIEVE THEY SAID AT LEAST 500 PEOPLE HAVE KIND OF PARTICIPATED IN SOME WAY, SHAPE OR FORM SO FAR. TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR PLUS LONG, EFFORT OF OUR ENGAGEMENT, ALBANY STRATEGIC PLAN, I THINK WE HAD A TOTAL, YOU KNOW, NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED WAS ABOUT 1300. SO, YOU KNOW, FOR A SMALLER PLAN LIKE THIS, THIS IS THIS THIS TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT IS REALLY INCREDIBLE . SO, JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU GUYS AN UPDATE ON THIS, WE HOPE TO HAVE OUR NEXT, PUBLIC WORKSHOP SOMETIME IN THE EARLY FALL, THE CITY IS HAS CONTRACTED WITH A, FIRM OUT OF SAINT LOUIS TO DO A RETAIL MARKET STUDY, THAT'LL BE KIND OF DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS, THIS PLANNING PROJECT, SO WE HOPE TO, YOU KNOW, SHARE THE RESULTS OF THE PLAN, BUT ALSO SHARE SOME OF THAT WORK, AND OUR UPCOMING SESSION LATER THIS, LATER THIS, THIS YEAR. SO AND WE'RE WORKING ON HOMEWORK FOR OUR STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS AS WELL. DON'T WORRY. IT'LL BE FUN. YES, IT'LL BE FUN. WE'LL SEND YOU GUYS OUT ON YOUR LITTLE FIELD TRIPS. SO. VERY GOOD, YEAH. SO, YEAH, JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU GUYS. IT WAS A IT WAS A GREAT TIME, BUT, AND JUST TO BE CLEAR TOO, SO, CHRIS, LIKE, ORGANIZED THIS WHOLE THING. I MEAN, IT WAS A HUGE SUCCESS. HE DID JUST AN ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL JOB COORDINATING AND PUTTING THIS ALL TOGETHER. SO THAT WAS FABULOUS JOB, CHRIS. YEAH WELL DONE. BOARD MEMBERS FOR COMMENT SECTION. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. ALL * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.