Planning Committee - Regular Meeting

We'll call a meeting to order and I'll start by reading the opening statement. This is the regular public hearing of the Louisville Metro planning commission to her cases is advertised and documented for hearing today. Public notice have. been provided and materials have been available for review by the public. The following rules are in place for today's hearing. Please silence all cell phones. Please be courteous and respectful to the commission and your fellow citizens. For those participating virtually, chat messages are not part of the record and not monitored by all members. Please refrain from sending messages to the panel. If you have any questions or would like to speak on a case, you may send messages to the host. Today's proceedings are being recorded. Anyone wishing to address the commission must do so from the podium or virtually. There are time limits in effect for today's hearing. The applicant or their representative should have no more than 15 minutes for their presentation. Other persons in favor of the application should have a total of no more than three minutes per person. The opposition representative should have a total of no more than 15 minutes for their presentation. Other persons opposed to the application should have a total of no more than three minutes per person. Rebuttal by the applicant or their representative should be no more than 5 minutes. If you plan on speaking, please fill out a speaker's form as soon as possible. Those participating virtually must notify the host if they would like to speak. Priorities shall be given to the speaker cards in the order that they are received. Only those who have completed the speaker's form will be allowed to speak. Procedure shall be as follows. Staff will present a summary of the request. The applicant or representative will make a statement or presentation given the reasons for the request. Other persons in favor of the proposal will be heard. The opposition representative will be heard. Those opposed to the proposal will then be heard. The applicant or the representative will then have an opportunity for rebuttal of the opposition's testimony. No new testimony shall be given during rebuttal. If there are further questions by the opposition after rebuttal, please fill out a form provided. The commission may ask questions of the applicant representative or opposition at any time. Pursuant to KRS chapter 61 in the commission's bylaws, the commission's deliberation and voting today will be held immediately following the public hearing for each case. No party will be allowed to speak during the deliberations of this commission. Roll call please.

Stuber?

Here.

Steph?

Here.

Mims?

Here.

Lohan?

Here.

Lannert?

Present.

Benitez?

Here.

Fisher?

Here.

Sistrom?

Here. I'm going to ask the staff to stand up so I can swear you in. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth?

Yes.

Thank you. Before I start off with our minutes, if anyone is here for our Agenda item number 3, which is technically the 2nd case zone 22, 0, 0, 0, 6, 5, 5, and you haven't signed up to speak in your and you're representing this case. I would ask that you please sign up to speak. Now, I'll move our approval of our minutes from June 4th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Has anyone reviewed? Has everyone reviewed those minutes? And if so, are there any questions concerns? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Chair, I'd like to make a motion. We accept the plan commission minutes for 6426.

2nd, properly made motion a 2nd, roll call please.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Fisher. Yes, yes, sister.

Yes, moving into our public hearing our 1st case is 26 of men. 0, 0, 0, 2, which is amended to binding elements to add specific use listed under buying binding element. Number 15 for case number 24 zone. 0, 0, 1, 4, the location is 908 South English station road. Our case manager is Molly shirt. Molly. I'll turn it over to you.

Molly Share, Office of Planning Staff, 444 South 5th Street, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202. This is 26 Amend 2 at 908 South English Station Road. The request today is an amendment to the binding elements to add a specific use listed under binding element number 15 for case number 24, zone 14. The case, or the subject site is on CM commercial manufacturing in the neighborhood form district the sites about 12 and a half acres. The subject site was reasoned under 24 zone, 14 for proposed many warehouses and RV boat parking and the applicant is requested to add a specific use under this binding element. The bunny element currently reads the only permitted C1 C2 M1 or CM use allowed on the property shall be many storage and recreational vehicles and boat landscape trailer parking. The applicant would like to add and short term rental of the existing North building on site until such time as the mini storage building is constructed to this binding element. We're also here today because there's binding element number 18 on the site that requires review before planning commission with final action determined by Metro Council. This is a zoning map of the property. It's CM surrounded by residential. And this is an aerial view of the property. This is the subject view from South English Station Road and looking towards the entrance to that north building. And then this is another entrance farther south on English Station Road to the property. This is across the street at some new multifamily development. This is the view looking north on South English Station Road towards other multifamily subdivisions. And then the view looking south towards the I-65 overpass, or 64, my bad. This is the 24 Zone 14 approved plan. Staff finds that the request is adequately justified for approval based on the analysis contained in the standard of review. The proposal meets the guidelines of Plan 2040 and requirements of the LDC. Your required action for today is to recommend that the Louisville Metro Council approve or deny the amendment to binding elements. Any questions for staff?

Any questions, commissioners?

Questions. Thank you. All right. Nick.

Oh, yeah, signed up online.

So no, we have it. We have it. Yep. If you could raise your right hand for me, do you swear or affirm that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission? It's true.

I do.

I state your full name, address and zip for me.

Uh, Nick, probably ask. Oh, Barbara for tablet and Roberts 1000 North for spring Parkway, Louisville, Kentucky for 223. I'll go through a very short PowerPoint presentation, but just explain the genesis or how this original binding element on the use came about and then why we're requesting to amend that for the short term. I say short term because there are two homes on the property today. The one that we're requesting would go away once this mini storage building is constructed. But if you go to the next image here, so this shows where the property is, it is zoned CM. That was just what was rezoning 2 years ago. The main thing is there is. multifamily to the north, the lodges, and then across the street, which to the east there is multifamily, the stables, and then there is the interstate just to the south. So it is a property that is surrounded by multifamily or the interstate on the various sides. If you go to the next image, Here is the current Google Earth image of it. There are two houses on the property today. We are not requesting the ability to have a short-term rental on the southern of the two, just the northern one, the one that you indicated here. The main thing is, once this property was rezoned to CM, short-term rental is a permitted use, no longer a conditional use, but it would be a permitted use, but for the binding element that was put on this at the time of the The planning commission public hearing, which I'll show in just a 2nd as well, but this is the, the home, the existing home that is being requested for the, the short term rental use. If you go to the next image. Here is our approved development plan. The building at the top right of this is that that is that 3 story building when that is constructed the home that we're requesting the ability to have the short term rental on would. Go away, so this would be a request until such time as that building is constructed. If you go to the next image here, it shows our development plan over on. Aerial, and it shows kind of those multifamily. Both the North and East as well as this actually shows all the different construction going on because of these various different developments. You can see in the lighter tan here. If you go to the next image, 1 of the questions that you probably have is why hasn't this been built yet? We had worked on 3 different developments, all 3 mini storage and all 3 in this general area and. The 1st, which is the right Adam's property group that is a mini storage facility, a Shelbyville road, right? By cut off that is fully constructed and now leasing and under. Their lease up right currently and then the East government center is the. Uh, 1 that is under construction right now for a mini storage. So this is just simply it's a 1 that's still in the works. It just hasn't been, um, you know, it. Brought forward as of yet, but it still is intended to be built and intended to be built exactly as as planned. If you go to the next image, so the question of where the binding element that we're requesting to amend came about, that came about between LD&T, actually we had LD&T in every case, but LD&T and the Planning Commission, and it was really to address concerns in the staff report. And this is the staff report from that. And you'll note that in there it said that Concerns that staff had at the time of this was that, you know, by changing the zoning from R4 to CM, it could permit higher intensity and density commercial uses and light industrial uses. And basically, secondly, it said industrial zoning is generally inappropriate for this neighborhood. So what we were intending with this binding element was to eliminate the ability to have other intense C2 uses such as a bar or things of that nature, tattoo shop, et cetera, or any industrial use other than mini storage. But what we did when we were drafting that binding amendment was just very broad. We just said the only C1 or C2 or CM use allowed would be Um, many storage, and now we were just requesting to also have a caveat for short term rental. If you go to the next, uh. Image, this is our proposed language to what's not underlined is the language from that original case. And then the language and short term rental on the. The North building, and it says until such time as the mini storage building is constructed, acknowledging that this would no longer be used once this development occurs. If you go to the next next image, these are really similar. This is a view from South English station. It's kind of hard to see because of all the vegetation. But if you have 1 more, there's an image kind of from the driveway. This would be that existing home that would be requested to be allowed to use as a short term rental. And with that, I think I'll take any questions, but this is 1 that had what Metro Council calls a standard binding elements. So this would request why. It wasn't heard at, but it came here, but it will also go to Metro Council as well.

Any questions commissioners.

Not so much a question, but I do remember the case, Nick, and, um, and there was, as you've described a lot of concern about that level of zoning, but. But it's right for, um, for many stores, because it's really become this becomes neighborhood serving with the lodges signature point lifestyle communities. Um, you know, we, we, I guess. Kind of interpreted that it was really a good use for that location that served the neighborhood to the north.

So, and I think you're exactly right. And that what. Determination was that use being mini storage was appropriate, but what wouldn't be appropriate necessarily would be a small little strip center or a. You know, bar restaurant, anything else you could think of or industrial use. So that was the intent of it. But we were very broad in the drafting of the language. So it would also prohibit a short term residential use.

I think I got a question from knowledge since I'm not a knowledgeable person. Is this coming up for extension?

Yes, it would be very shortly.

Yes. Okay. Thanks.

It is very good question that meant to mention that it will be before August. So it would be the, we would have a request for our 1st extension of the development plan.

Okay. Thank you.

And which brings me to my question anyone else have any questions. Do you have a timeline or, you know, when the.

Many store to be built. I don't know exactly. I know that they are working on construction plans and they're in the process. But as far as I don't know the exact. The timing on it, and is this the same owner as the other 2 that you showed or is this a different owner different owner from the other 2 developments that I was referencing? Those were the developments we worked on, but completely different parties. This is the same applicant that we represented in this still owns the property and still plans to move forward with the development without any changes. It just hasn't hasn't occurred yet.

Okay. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay, do we have anyone signed up to speak online? All right, and we have no 1 else sign agenda.

I feel like I should just keep talking.

So, you know, you know, you shouldn't you dig in the hole here?

Don't mess him up.

Yeah. So, with that, is there any reason why we wouldn't close the public? All right, commissioners once again, our responsibility is to recommend to Louisville Metro Council approval denial that the amendment of binding element be changed to add this specific use listed under buying. And number 15 for case number 24 zone 0, 014 and once again, it's to add short term rental any questions or comments or emotion.

I think it's probably a good idea to have activity there at the site rather than the site to be abandoned. I agree. So I would support it.

Yeah, same here. And I would also remember one aspect of this property too is a non-conforming use when Mr. Vessels bought it because it was a tree service, Dave's tree service. So anyway, I'm ready to make a motion. Right here. Okay. So in the case of 26 amend 0002, I make a motion that we recommend to Louisville Metro Council approval of the amendment to the binding element number fifteen to allow a short term rental as a allowable use for this property. So I do that based on the staff report in our testimony today. I'll second probably make motion a second roll call please.

Yes, Fisher yes, low hand.

Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Yes.

Yes, yes, thank you. Next on our agenda is zone 22, 0, 0, 0, 6, 5, 5, which is a pill of a binding element citation with the location being 8, 3, 0, 0, Nash road. And our case manager is or Ferguson assistant county attorney. I'll turn it over to you.

Yes, Laura Ferguson, assistant county attorney, 200 South street suite, 300 North 4 0202. I believe we have a PowerPoint in the system.

So, this property, you can have a seat for a 2nd. All right. You need me to email it to you? Mike had done a PowerPoint earlier, like maybe yesterday or the day before. They do that in public hearing discussion. I'm going to forward it to you. It'll be the first attachment, which is the PowerPoint. It's got like the first PDF and it's got PowerPoint or PP in the name of it.

Right so this is a binding element appeal and eighty three hundred Nash road. You've seen this case several times. Um, this, this. Was a subject of a previous appeal back last year, and we followed the zoning case up until February of last year when there was the pole barn issue. So I'm going to just work my way through the PowerPoint. Next slide please. Um, so back in 2003, this was a rezone to M2 and a plan was approved in 2013 to permit an office and warehouse use next slide. Please. And so, uh, this is this is the history. This isn't the present 1. so we can just go through this pretty quickly. Next slide please. This was the 1st citation in 24 and photos back in 24 next slide. And then a citation again in 24. Next slide. And some photos from that time. Next slide. And then this more recently again in 24 for $2,000. Next slide. And some photos at that time. Next slide. And next slide. And then this was the one that we talked about for a good while in 2025 leading up till February of this year. Next slide, please. And then the next slide and the next slide. And then excited these photos are from the different days that this was continued to and this is the 1 where we had the pole barn. Next slide please. So, this brings us to the current citation, which was issued on April 6th. Next slide please. And again, part of the problem is this pole barn that's on the site that is neither on the old plan, nor on this, the current plan that's been filed next slide. Please. And this is the appeal letter, which was also in the system. He refers to a plan that Chris Crumpton filed. There is a plan that was submitted. There's both a rezoning and development plan that has been filed. The last activity on that was agency comments on April twenty ninth. Mostly dealing with the pole barn and that is the pole bar going to be removed or is the pole bar going to be incorporated into the plan? Because the plan is currently shown does not incorporate it. They have also applied for an after the fact building permit, but I believe the building permit is on hold until the plan. There's some sort of plan that goes with it. Um. And so then this is tilted, but you can still see the barn is still there. Um. I think some of the issues have been resolved potentially this issue could get resolved if and when the rezoning and the development plan moved through the process and are approved and complied with. But, um, where we kind of ran out in February was we were working with them to see how that application went and then the pole barn appeared. And at that point, the fine was upheld. So this is a new citation and really nothing's really. Changed the app with the property owners here, they may have some additional information, but from what I can see. The plan hasn't really moved forward since the end of April. And that's really what we need ultimately to get this into compliance. That's the original approved development plan. But again, the pole barn that's currently there, that's the subject of that later building permit isn't shown on that. And it's not on what's been filed. Next slide, please. Then this is just some general background. Next slide, please. The area of view, I think some of this issue has been cleaned up. So it doesn't match the aerial view. Next slide, please. And so, like, we normally do there's there's whether or not the citation was properly issued and if it is a decision on the fine again, the property owners here, they may have some additional information, which may give you a reason to. Defer the fine, but in the absence of that, I would recommend just upholding both the citation and the fine. Um, there may be people I can take questions. Um, I don't know if there's anyone online to speak to this, but if there's somebody okay, well, then we'll go to the property owner next. But unless you have questions for me.

Any questions of Laura commissioners?

Well, I do, it'd be okay. Um, is Chris crumpton still on this case? Because it's, it seems like more than anything this needs some.

professional help, you know, to get it through the system, either get it rezoned or, you know, he's still on, he is still on the zoning application and that process, but not, you know, this is sort of separate from that.

Sure. I mean, I, and I,

but i have but again i checked yesterday and the last thing i saw in the system was there were agency comments issued um on i think april 29th and then there hasn't been any activity and we're in mid-june yeah three months ago but if you look at the comments the comments really are i think most of the issues have been resolved and really it's this remaining issue is what about the pole barn either the plan needs to be updated to reflect the pole barn and there may be some accompanying changes because of the pole barn or the pole barn needs to be shown on the plan is to be removed that that would be my summary of where it's at and just for beth has anybody have you heard from chris on this not lately and i've got um a question with use that road to the north which is not

Prevalent to this case, but, you know, try to get information. So I'm not, he's not actively engaged that I know of with me.

Looks like he may bailed on it. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions. Perfect. We will hear from the owner at this time. I'm asked you both to stand up for me and raise your right hand. Do you both swear and affirm that the testimony that you're going to give to this commission is the truth?

Yes.

Okay. I will ask that when you 1st, start speaking, whoever's going to speak 1st, give us your full name, address and zip code and you can continue. And then when the other person starts to speak, just give us your full name, address and zip code and then you can state your statement.

All right, my name is Jaime de Leon Perez. My address is 8300 Nashville in Louisville, Kentucky, 40214. I'm the owner of the property.

Okay, go ahead. Go ahead with your statement.

Yes, I was here because trying to appeal the fund because Mr. Chris Trumpton, he's still working on the rezoning process. And we are just addressing which MSD for disturbance For the property, and I already paid that have anything else. I really thought it would be to try and help me to translate understand because I'm not speaking English very good.

Perfect you want to state your full name address and zip code for us.

Um, my name is Mariana, the address is 80. 8, 3, 0, 0, national, um, 4, 2, 1, 4.

Okay, thank you. Um. So, commissioners, let's, I think we're at the point of questions. So any, any questions of the applicant.

I have quite a few.

Um, so the questions I have is, as, um, our assistant county attorney explained, um, this is not made any movement since April 29th and. What I need what we need to understand is, um, where are you on the in the process and what. Is going to be done with the pole barn, which seems to be the point of an issue with the site.

You look at it, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, his statement is that right now we are currently trying to figure out, um, the side of the property where we are currently trying to move on, but we can't move on because nobody knows who owns that property.

And the street.

There's, like, a street next to the property, our property, and we can't, like, move on or work, start working on it. If we don't know who owns it.

Or who it belongs to Mr. Mark and Mark is currently trying to figure out with some. Mark. Mr Chris Trump is working with Mark Pinto to find out who owns that street behind my property to get access to other property in the back. And we're ready to speak with my lawyer on the closing on the property. And he already give us a reference number to find out on the court who owns that property. It's why we can move on the on the resigning.

So is it the intent to keep the pole barn?

Yes. Actually, the Paul Murray was there before. We're only trying to enclose them because I'm trying to protect myself with the weather. He was trying to protect himself from the snow, basically.

There was something already there, but he was just trying to keep it steady.

Okay, and then when's the last time you had communication with Chris?

Just last week when he asked him to pay the disturbance permit.

He asked to pay for the disturbance permit? Yes, he already did with MSD. We are working with Bonnie.

On that case, a little bit out of order.

Okay, go go get ready to say the same thing. That sounds more like a construction detail. At this point, you know, unfortunately, we don't have all the people here and what really worries me about this whole case is that you continue to get fines and penalties and all we're looking for is to get this thing resolved. and it would be a whole lot better for those funds to be paying either an attorney or an engineer to get this thing done.

Just an opinion.

I don't have any other questions. Commissioners, do you? Anyone else? Okay. We don't have any other questions. You can just have a seat. We'll close. Unless you have something else, you have another statement? Sorry.

Yes, I'm trying to get my license, but they don't want to give it to me. Because I'm building near the line of the next property, but I'm still the owner of the Paul Moore. Because they told me they wanted me to get a license and I'm trying to get it, but they don't want to give it to me because I'm building very close to the line of the next property, but I'm still the same owner.

So he's trying to get up permission to continue working on it, but the street next to it, they, they think that we are trying to work on it, but we're like, working inside our property, not the street because we don't know who owns the street next to it. So he's trying to get permission to keep on working where he is now. With the whole construction and rezoning process.

And I also for the Paul born, you're saying I trying to pull the permit on the 3rd floor. I'm planning on Sunday. You don't want to give me the permit because I'm constructing close to the line. I'm at the next the next properties. I'm saying I'm the same owner.

Yeah, so just so you understand, it's a little bit bigger than that, because they won't give you the permit because this case, you don't have a correct development plan because it doesn't show the pole bar. So, it's, it's, you have to get through this process and get through the rezoning. Process with your new development plan, then you can pull a. a permit to finish your pole bar. So that's the concern is we're trying to understand where you are at currently with the rezoning piece of it. And I think that's where we're having a little bit of an issue and concern. It just seems like it hasn't moved since April. And so we're gonna have a conversation and close the public hearing and just discuss what we need to do to get this moving.

About a month ago, Chris has sent the planning

The planning, um, to Mark, he has sent the planning to Mark about a month ago. And we're just waiting for the agencies feedback to come in.

Well, it looks like the last agency submission and agency comments was April 29th, 2026. Yes, about 6 weeks ago. So, there's comments out there currently that has to be addressed, which once again, I think the main comment that needs to be addressed is the pole barn. To your point is going to stay has to be shown on the development plan.

What you want to do has to be. How do you. Where are you doing?

Mr. Chris yellow platico.

So, about the. Um, Chris already talked about it with Mark to do some further. Adjustments like you said no further adjustment further adjustments like. The planning.

I feel like, uh, Mr Chris hablando sobre ese form.

So, basically, they're currently discussing that Chris and Mark are currently discussing about the planning.

But the form for the.

Okay, thank you. Um, okay with that, we'll, we'll close the public hearing. You can have a seat for a 2nd. Um, permissions, I'll close the public hearing. Um, no 1 has any other questions of the applicant. Hearing none, we'll consider the public hearing closed. Once again, our responsibility is to know that the fine was issued properly, uphold the fine, and or waive the fine and the citation, or we can continue this on. I think we don't have all the right parties to tell us where we're truly at on this case is my main concern. I think they think they're trying to get something done, but once again, I'm not sure where they're truly at.

And I know Mr. Mims asked me about what the status of the review and so forth was. And Bluestone, Chris Compton's firm, it's not uncommon for their cases to take longer and some of our other firms to get through. And a six-week turn, a wait of months would not be unusual. So I'm just throwing that out there that we can't, we shouldn't let that necessarily affect what decision we make. And I've looked to try to find out quickly if I can figure out who that road belongs to. And a lot of times we can't. It's buried pretty deep. I would hope, I might be wrong in saying that. I think there was an old deed that needed to be looked up, but I may be incorrect about that. I'm not really sure. I think Commissioner Strzok does have a point, though, without Mark Pinto and so forth. Maybe there's more conversation going on than we're aware of.

Anyone else? Well, okay, so the mark that's being references Mark, and so I see it still work for planning and design service. Okay. Just not here today. Okay. And then this, you know, this road matter. Now, as a road, I, you know, I don't know how that's influenced in this case. In other words, unless they need a variance of some sort.

Well, in the redevelopment plan. That they're submitting the train to get through zoning. They are using most root access their property. So, if they don't have rights to use that easement. To be, I think, like, the front part of the site is going to be 1 activity and the 2nd, half of the site is going to be another activity. Are the truck has the trucks have to come down that most road to enter. That's been a sticking point at least with public works with why we're not ready to let the plan move forward.

Is there are there other are there other options though?

I mean, well, I'm trying to think off without looking at it, but it seems like if you come in off Nash in the way they had the development plan laid out, you could not maneuver a truck. Around the buildings.

I'm sort of like you. I think trying to dredge up Mouser Road at this point and figure out who owns it and how to gain title to it is going to probably need a good appraiser. Anyway, I don't know. It just seems like this needs attention by Chris.

We need to get both parties in here.

I feel like they're trying. But we don't have all the details, so it's kind of, in my opinion, hard to uphold. Anything without all the details, so I would be in favor of.

You know, pushing it down the line a little bit, you could either continue the case, or you could uphold the citation and defer decision on the fine. To a later date, that's those are sort of the 2 if you're talking trying to get more information.

I mean, I think that's, I think that's probably the right thing to do, because I feel like, like I said, I think they're trying to fix everything, but they're running into roadblocks and we don't have all the details from all the necessary parties. So I think the best thing to do is to continue it.

I agree push it on and get the next time we bring it in here, bring the other parties in with it. So they can explain what's going on.

Yeah, in my opinion, I think upholding the citation, because I think it was properly issued is the right thing to do. I hate for them to continue to spend money without us hearing from Chris. So my opinion is we hold the fine. Chris and them don't show up next time, then we have to move on.

Well, yeah, and I guess that would be the only final thing I would say is that can can I ask our team here? Can can someone ask Mark or maybe you all please have Chris engaged?

Yeah, I'll, I'll talk to him after this meeting and try to help him help reach out to let him know that.

You really need him to get in here and email him sometimes I've emailed Chris directly when I think there was 1 other time where Chris's information was needed. So we continued it and I specifically emailed Chris and said, you need to be here on this statement. It was so I'm happy to do that as well.

And usually mark is here on most planning commissions. It's just, it was a weird docket with nothing.

Yeah, just today. So can we have him here on?

Yeah, I'll talk to him to make sure that he'll be available as well. When this does come back around.

Perfect. So, I think what we're really trying to understand is the current condition, right? And I don't think we need to say, give them time to do something. When is our next available?

July 16th, I think is the next regular meeting. I don't know how full or not full it is.

So, the 16th is our next meeting. It's relatively full. I think we have room for this if you want, but there's a number of text amendments that we plan on scheduling for that. The 30th, which is still in July that agenda is very light right now. So. Either 1, but the 30th would probably be better.

Yeah, I think I think the 30th would be a no excuse. Right? I think it's pretty far out there. So, um, commissioners with that, um. If the motion is to uphold the citation, hold the fine and continue this until a date, it is July 30th with that. I'll continue questions and comments. If there are any, if not, I will take a motion.

I'll make a motion. In case number ENF zone 000655, I make a motion that we move it to July 30th.

In that motion, we need to state that we're upholding the citation?

You can either continue the whole thing to July 30th, or you could move to uphold the citation and then just continue the fine discussion to July 30th.

Either one's fine. Which one is your intent?

Just move the whole thing to the 30th.

Okay. I hear that motion, which is to continue this case to July 30th. Okay, look for a 2nd, 2nd, probably made motion in 2nd, roll call please.

Yes, yes.

Sorry.

Yes, yes. Fisher yes. Step yes. Yes, low hand. Yes, sister.

Yes. So what we've just done is we have continued this until July 30th. So we're asking definitely you and you all to come back, but then we're also. Please make sure that both Chris make sure that Chris Crumpton is here. We'll make sure that Mark Pinto's here on our side. We'll also reach out to Chris, but it's really your responsibility to employee upon him to be here. And then what we're looking for is to understand where the case sits, where the plan is, where the, um, whether the pole barn is gonna stay what your next steps is and what the timeline is on that. Okay. All right, thank you commissioners. If you don't mind, can we take a 5 minute recess before talking about the upcoming public current? And this is business session by the way. All right 5 minutes.

All right.

All right, good afternoon. Brian Davis little Metro office of planning. So we. As you all know, I have a item for coming up that we're trying to figure out the best way and want to get your feedback on on, you know, as we try to prepare to schedule public hearings for the matter. And so. We've been tossing around a couple of different ideas in our office, you know. With this with the item, you know, 1, we have talked about having multiple hearings in different locations out in the community. And so we again are looking for feedback to try and figure out the best way to do that. We had a conversation last week with Andre just to kind of get some feedback from him. And so I think the idea is to have. At least 2 listening or 2 public hearings where we go out and accept testimony on the item out in the community. We also think it would be a good idea to have an online meeting as well. So that if people can't make it to 1 of the locations, they would rather. to try to testify online, then we would meet here at the old jail, but then that way we have the capability in order to properly do an online meeting and accept online testimony. So, the thought is that there would be these 3 meetings to accept public testimony on the item and then at the conclusion of those 3, we would continue the item to a regular meeting at which time we would, we would make a, you know, some sort of recommendation on the item. Um. So we've polled you all in order to get availability. So, you know, we were looking at the last week of July and then the first two weeks of August. And so we've started looking at venues. Obviously, the old jail we've got, we can have. And so our thinking on that one is that we would maybe piggyback onto a regular meeting day. So either July 30th or August 6th. Uh, August 6th, um, so we'd have like, uh, normal business, uh, at 1 o'clock like normal, but then we would reconvene at 530 here. We could arrange to have food brought in for you all between meetings. Uh, and then, um. You know, we would have our online meeting at 1 of those are 1 venue that we've been looking at and we've sent a notification to you all about that. When the only time it was available in the 3 week period was on August 5th. And so we, we have. we've reserved that space for that date so that's the only date that's kind of in concrete right now uh in terms of like the the you know that window uh but again you know we want to get feedback from you all to see you know what kind of recommendations you have uh you know i know that security is is something that we will work with um uh our security provider uh as well as with the lmpd uh in order to make sure that we have people on site just because you know we are expecting large numbers of people uh potentially at the public hearings um and then uh i don't know i i want to hear from you all and see what you think about uh about this plan and and you know we can we can go from there teondre if you want to lead off since you know we've already had some conversations and share some of the thoughts that you had then you know we can maybe get started that way yeah i'll just i'll make my comment kind of brief yeah i

As Brian said, I think we should have the availability for the public out in the community is due to the, this being a hot button issue. So I think we should have those meetings in the community as well as allow it to be. Online the online meeting and with all the meetings, you only get 1 chance to speak and we would not take what we call as we normally do applicant neutral opposition. It'll just be everyone can just when you just sign up to speak, you get 3 minutes, you'll speak for those 3 minutes and you can concede or. Give your time away. It'll be 3 minutes use it or lose it for each person to speak. And as said, due to the not only the contentious nature of of this particular. Um, topic, but also just so we can digest is the main reason so we can digest all the testimony. Then we come back and make a make a decision based on based on that. So.

So, the would be the decision is to change it in the text.

Well, it'd be adding text, but yeah, yeah. It's around the text.

Yeah. Yeah.

Right.

To Metro Council and the other cities with zoning authority about changes in the language.

Okay, let me let me I'm a little slow in the uptake here. This is concerning the data center regulations. Okay. All right, so, yeah, and I mean, this is the 1 of the hottest issues throughout the country and regrettably, I think little planning was, it was kind of in the lead of all this and. All these other communities have kind of probably taken a good work that you've you all done and. and have moved ahead of us. I mean, Warren County, you know, Woodford County, Fayette County, you know, they're all dealing with the same thing. This is much beyond the land use issue. I mean, this is about the kind of structural changes in, you know, society. And I mean, I understand us. I'd rather stick with what we're doing is this sort of inappropriate land use and not gravitate into all the other you know, tentacles that, you know, surround this issue because they really don't apply to the land development code. Um, I think what applies to the land development code is well, I don't want to create testimony here, but so 1st of all, I think we've got to get this right. And, uh, and I appreciate your very conscious way of looking at this. And so if we have to have multiple hearings, then I think that's the way it needs to be. And we got to get we got to get this land use part of it. Correct.

So, so let me just get this clear. We're going to have 3 meetings on data centers.

Yeah, we would be taking public testimony on just that item.

Uh, in these sessions are going to be divided up or the same people going to be able to appear.

Right? We, we would, we would set ground rules. So, and that's that's part of what we're wanting to talk about today. So we would set ground rules. You know, people would only have. You know, X amount of time to speak, uh, like town or he said we wouldn't do. In favor, or in opposition to, because people may have, you know, just like 1 thing that they have a concern about so they can come in and speak about that. And so we're not gonna make people check a box in terms of that.

Um, well, then we would do we had of this was that. They had signs and everything. They were a horribly rude crowd that we're trying to get their point across right here in. So, we're going to sit through 3 sessions of that.

Actually, it's so yes, it'll be 3 sessions and the reason for that is. So, this is for the text amendment that was for a specific site.

Yes. And but the same group of people are going to be no, no, no, this will be much broader.

This will be much broader because this is a community wide. So, the, the, the, the issue that we're going to have. and this is why we a couple reasons why i'm still in favor of going out into the community because we did just say have one number one the time you're going to have probably quadruple if not multiply exponentially the number of people to testify so that's an extremely and you got to let everybody testify That's an extremely long night or day, night. Then secondly, room. We have to make sure we accommodate the space. Otherwise, we'll end up in an issue down the road. And so with that being said, and then thirdly, to make it fair to our citizens, let me say it, I say the word fair, to make it, Uh, accessible to our citizens, let me say that, um, that live in different parts of our city. Um, I feel that that that is what's kind of needed to go to them as well. So, um, yes, it's 3, um, time, um, availability and then also, um, for that.

And if it helps, it's going to be the same draft at all the meetings. for the public to comment on. It's not changing from one meeting to the next. So the thought is while we go to different spots, if you speak at one of the meetings and get your three minutes, you don't come to one of the next meetings and speak again. You have your three minutes and you can pick which of the meetings you show up for. But there's no benefit to, we don't want somebody to try to speak multiple times when it's still the same draft that everybody's looking at. What we're trying to do is create accessibility.

Is there any other governmental official meeting? Is Metro Council going to have meetings? We're going to have all the meetings for this issue of changing.

They'll probably have their normal Metro Council meeting, which is open to the public as well.

And this is subject to the writings that we have that... We have created right that the changes to the text and the rules regulations.

This is the proposed changes that staff posted last week.

Yeah, on June 9th. Yeah. Yeah. So, at the end of each meeting, are we going to just go home and digest this? Are we going to we're not going to make rulings until the end of the right?

Yeah. At each of like, the, you know, the, at the 3 meetings, you know, we. Staff would do a staff would do a standard presentation at each 1. uh, you know, we, and then we would discuss kind of the ground rules for for testimony. But then at the end of testimony each night, you would continue the case to the next meeting.

And so well, there's not an applicant in this case right there. No. So these are all. And time. what we're proposing, right?

Not necessarily. Some people are in favor of this in our community, believe it or not. This is a chance to give the community an opportunity to voice their Opinion to the regulations in which we're going to set. So it's not, it's not as Laura and Brian said, it's not a matter of for or against working from everyone. Right? And we're not going to ask them if they're for against, we're going to hear their testimony for a set period of time, which we got to talk about that. I said, 3 minutes, but we need to talk about what that looks like. So, no, there is no applicant. We are the ones presenting the test text amendment. However. there will be people i know there will be people in the community that will speak for this well if 500 people show up and they all get three minutes we're going to be here a while okay so that gives me two questions

The 1st question is when you sign up. Online or what have you to speak, or can we make it you have to sign up online ahead of time to speak not day of now and can you say this is we have 3 pick which 1 you want to speak at. And that's it. because the same people are gonna be coming in all three of them. So is there a way to limit your testimony to one of the three? Secondly, is there a way to say, The meeting is from X to X, and there's 3 minutes per people. So we'll allow 50 people. I don't know what the number is. You had, you know, I think 3 minutes, 2 to 3 minutes is fine, but. If, like Bill said, if you give 500 people, and they all have 2 to 3 minutes, that's what I'm saying. If it's 3 hour meeting 4 hour meeting, that will give you a lot of X amount of people. And if that's full, then you pick another date of the 3. if that's full, you pick another the other 1 of the 3. does that make sense?

Yeah, so I'm gonna answer that with opinion and then. We'll go from there, but you'll see where I'm going with where I think the time should not be anything less than our normal public hearing. We can add time, but I don't think it should be 2. I think it should be 3 or 5. right? That's once again, my opinion. Secondly, I don't, I'm not in favor. I've seen Joe shaking his head that yes, you can limit the meeting from this time to this time. This is about the community right and hearing from our community. Definitely. We don't want people speaking twice and we'll have to manage that. Right? That's that's us to manage and say, nope, your name was and keep a running list of names and alphabetical order. So, it can be quickly referenced of who spoke before some kind of throwing that out there now and then remembering faces, right? That's the other part. But then, but then also, I don't think that it is the right thing to do to the community to say, well, if you weren't able to speak at this 1, you got to come to the next 1 and speak because once again, that's the part of going into the community. So. Brand it long night, 500 people times 3 minutes. I'm not really now for it, but yet then again, I think that no 1 in the community can say that the planning commission did something behind their back rush something through and they didn't get to make their opinion heard. That's that's my stand. That's where I stand on it.

Just to add 1 thing though. The reason why I acknowledge that is some of the venues we're looking at. We'll have a hard stop for us this space we could use all night long. We're in control of it. It's a metro facility, but when we're going out into the suburban areas, we're going to have to use a non metro facility and there might be a hard stop given to us by that facility. So, if that's something. That matters, we're going to have to try to work with those facilities as we identify them.

Well, and I understand that and. In that case, that's different. And then what I would say is whatever the hard stop is, is not us. It's the facility. Right? And then if those facilities require a hard stop, then to the point, we're going to have to do that. But then the overspill would have to come come to this 1. right? Um, right. And which could make even longer time, but.

It's hazardous duty pay, right?

That's a Brian question. Yes, sir. I do have one question. Hold on. Mr. Lanner has been waiting patiently.

If we recall correctly, When the airport expanded, the planning commission met at 6 p.m. and went to 6 a.m. the next morning to allow everyone to speak. I think, and I stand to be corrected, that everyone was allowed, was told to make their point concisely within two minutes. That way they could handle 30 people per hour. And 2 minutes is enough to make a point and then allow the next person to stand up and express their opinion. But I don't think we can put limits on this. I think we need to be prepared to go all night. And to fairly hear everyone who've taken time out of their lives to come speak. you know, if we cut them off at 10 or 11 o'clock, I don't know that that's appropriate. In a representative republic, we need to let everyone have their chance, but I do think we should attempt to have them do this in two minutes.

I, you know, I doubt if I'll be here if it goes from six to six, 12 hour session. I mean, I don't think that's realistic. And these points, And I'm just going to go ahead and say it there. These are redundant points. They're going to come up that they're really restricted about 5 different things. And a lot of it is supported by their own hysteria. Points that are disproven very easily or don't exist so I don't I don't know if there's a better way to handle it or a fairer way to handle it. But, you know, taking these issues to a point where. Trying to be fair is punitive to other people that are there. Doesn't make much sense. I don't know.

We're not going to be taking any questions. It's not going to be back and forth. It's just simply. Testimony correct? So, if they want to get up there and. Make their point for 3 minutes, they're going to say this is, you know, killing children, blah, blah, blah. I mean, everybody had to take it. Listen.

Yeah, and so I'm not actually counter to what Bill is saying. I think he's right. I think you're going to hear a lot of duplication. I'm not going to say that it's not meaningless duplication because once again, this is a very important issue for our city and I think that even more so Back to Commissioner Mims point, we should only be looking at the zoning piece of it. But once again, it is a open what we call a public hearing and we've we're always getting people saying something that has nothing to do with nothing sometimes. So, but I think that's our, I think that's our, I hate to put it this way. I think that's our job. Right? I think that's our responsibility. But with the limits, let me finish. But with the limits and the understanding that whatever timeline we set, you can't repeat, I'm sorry, you can't testify multiple times, et cetera, et cetera. I think that, you know, whatever they get up and saying the stars spring a banner in their two minutes, then that's their right as a citizen upon this data center, right? That's just my thought.

So, does is allowing, um. Thinking I was going to say written testimony, but. Does that all if I can't make any of those 3 dates. Then I want to submit, you know, here's my testimony. Does that does that you can still submit written test? Yeah, we have all the, we have a comment forms that we're accepting you in the fact of giving everybody the opportunity to speak because there's going to be people can't make any all 3, you know, so.

I took that in consideration when we were having this, I didn't think it was not an option. I was thinking that was still going to happen. Once again, the community going out into the community for me was mainly about accessibility and breaking it up to To the point of not trying not to be here until 6. A. M. but on 1 meeting, so it was about breaking it up and then also about accessibility for me being in the community.

I think we have to do it. I agree with everything. Everybody has said, I think we have to do it. I, I like the 2 minutes better. Because it's either you're for or against these, it's the same argument to Bill's point, that's the same arguments on either side of the coin. And you're going to hear it 400,000 times. But I think it'd be better to have a limit. If there's a limit at the end, we're cutting it off, we're cutting it off. But I think we need to do it and I think we're doing it the right way. I am in a little bit different boat than everybody else. So I'm not gonna, I shouldn't give my opinion one way or the other, because with coaching that starts with Ballard at July 15th, I'm busy at night. So I'm gonna have to come in late if we go till six in the morning or miss altogether, depending on what's going on. So, but I think it's the right thing to do. In two minutes, you're done, move on. You can't do it again. You can't go again. If you wanna do it again, send your written testimony and move on with life. Yes, sir.

Oh, I got a couple 1st, I'll go ahead. 1st, this is adopted to the land development code. Is this going to affect campground? Or campground road was done and gone. All right, so this is from here on out 2nd, you're going to have. I'm going to have to have crowd control because it's going to get out of hand. So we had set the rules straight at the beginning. Any outburst need to leave. And these people are going to be coached before they get in here what to say by the activist that wants to stop this. They're going to stop these people. And I agree. If you speak at one meeting, you don't get to speak at the next two. It needs to be stopped. And it's nothing against the people, but why go to three meetings and say the same thing you're going to say and take somebody else's place speaking?

And I think it also defeats the point of having the three meetings to break up the crowd and give everybody an opportunity to speak if you have the same 100 people show up at all three.

I know y'all are going to be police presence, but I don't think one officer is going to do it.

I 100% agree with that. And to your point, I think that having before each meeting 10 minutes With the officers to understand that when we add someone to be removed, that's what we expect. Not because I know there was 1 meeting. We were like, come on, remove, remove them. And we kept saying that over and over and officer never did it.

We definitely need a set of guidelines to be ready to all 3 meetings. So they, they don't say, well, you picked on us. This was I agree.

I agree.

It was the guidelines that were read. You didn't abide by the guidelines. It's time to leave.

I agree. And I think I think that that's extremely important. And then that we're on the same page with security.

I'll just say security when they start talking about campgrounds. So now that's. Yep, it's done. We're establishing rules from here on out.

And that's a good point. I think that needs part of the beginning.

Yeah.

It should be said as beginning. Campground Road has nothing to do with this. You cannot change a project. And we got caught. We got caught. I mean, they came in with a plan for a data center and we did not have.

Modernized rules.

Exactly. They went as close as they could as a telecommunication center or phone center or whatever. And that's the closest they could get to it. I mean, it wasn't their fault. It wasn't our fault. It's just we weren't up to snuff on something that's brand new coming out. And we're establishing from here on out guidelines. And I imagine this will be looked at all over the state. I see the governor is putting his input in about them supplying their own electric, their own water. There's 2 or 3 or 4 things he is listed. I've read that.

I'm sorry, just real quick at the bill was getting ready to say something and we kept talking. Um, you did you have some.

Well, I, I was going to ask the question, it was mentioned that we would be here in. And receive the public through, you know, the Internet.

Is is that possible to that's for the 1 meeting that the 1 meeting where the comments would be coming in online and we would be physically here. Then there's gonna be 2 other meetings where we will be physically.

Somewhere else without online testimony only in person and my biggest problem with the meeting is not necessarily at the meeting because it's all taped and everything. It's going to the car. I think what will help your car and driving home at some weird time.

I think what will help is 2 fold. Normally we have a rule that if you speak, you need to stay for your testimony to be counted. But since we're not taking action until a 4th meeting entirely regular planning commission here. Each time will be upfront that there's no action being taken today and they can leave after take giving their testimony. So there's no expectation that we're going to vote on something at the end. So I think they're less likely to stick around at the end.

You just touched on something there. The fourth meeting where we hold on it.

Yes, which would be like a 1 o'clock here.

But are we going to allow testimony from the people? No. Okay, that's just what I'm going to say.

We are continuing it, and the only thing that's going to happen here is deliberation and a vote, and we're going to make that clear at each of those other three meetings.

And I agree. I mean, that's what I was going to say. If they show up for the meeting for testimony, then if they've already spoken.

They can show up to watch, but they can't speak.

But they also need to be told, too, at that meeting that this is, We're not taking input from the crowd.

1 other point that I'd like to make is is what if we decide that we're going to divide the responsibility amongst the. Planning commission members and say, do you just need a quorum there? And instead of making all 3 meetings. You would only make 2, but you watch the 3rd on video.

That's what you would do. You need it. watch all three, but if you want to divide up who's physically at what meeting and who's going to watch the video of the meeting, that could be an option. But by the time you, if you want to vote, you're going to have to have seen all three.

I can make them all, but the first week office.

So, yeah, we, we do need to nail it down. Cause I'm, I'm, I'm, that's fine. This year.

And I'll be in part of this. Do we have a consensus on three dates?

Uh, thank you. So, uh, We can get a quorum on every day that I emailed out to you all. Like I mentioned, the only one that we've nailed down is the 5th. So I think what would be good to hear from you all right now is, do you want to have the online meeting on the 6th of August, or do you want to have that on July 30th? I didn't know, because back-to-back nights, since we would be having the one on the 5th, I didn't know if you want to be down here for the next night doing an online. Or if you'd rather have it that week before on the 30th, so.

So, give us all the dates again just so everybody's on the same page.

Sure. Let's see.

I know we got July 30th, August 5th.

So I basically asked about every Monday through Thursday. Starting July 27th through August 13th is what I asked you all about. And then, like I said, we have quorum for. Based on your yeses or nos, we can get quorum on every day during that period. So it was the week of July 27th. And so I asked about the 27th through the 30th. The week of August 3rd, I asked about the 3rd through the 6th. And then the week of August 10th, and I asked about 10th through the 13th. And I've got my handy dandy spreadsheet here.

What was that am I asking?

The 10th through the 13th. Yes.

Well, and then what would be our vote date?

If we were to do the hearings on those dates, then we would be looking at August 20th as the date that we would have our vote here in chambers.

Right.

Yeah, so so for me, I, I think I sent you this, I'm, I'm, I'm leaving on the 12th and won't be back until the 19th. So, right?

Yeah. Yeah. I had you down as for that 3rd week. I had used those for everything. Yeah. Okay. And that, that 3rd, that, that, that week of August 10th, that was the, I would call that with the most challenging week to get quorum with that because they're especially like, on the 13th, we had 4 people that said no. And then, yeah, but.

So, if we set the dates today, which I think we should, so if we do. So, July, the 27th, is that is that a date?

You said that is yes.

Okay. And then what was your, what was your corner?

Uh, everyone, but commissioner bond that responded was available that day.

Okay. So why don't we say July 27th? Okay. And then keeping in mind, we have a planning commission meeting on the 30th. So we would have that meeting and then the other 1 was August. 3rd, August 5th for the night. Night. Yeah. Yeah. We're talking tonight. Yeah. These are in the evening. Yes. Yep. So, August 5th, what was your numbers?

Everyone except David.

Okay, so we'll take August 5th. We have our quorum and then. What was our next 1?

well, and then and then the last 1 would be the online. Meeting and inside it, and we don't have to pair it with a regular meeting. I just off through that out. But if you would rather do that online meeting that following week, then we can, we can make that happen. I mean, it's old jail. We can use it whenever we want to.

So, could could we do the regular meeting on the 10th?

The, uh, I'm sorry the online meeting on the 10th. Yeah, there's no reason why we can't do that on the 10th.

What's your what's your corn look like?

Um, 123. I've got bill. Are you available that day? 6 or 7, depending on Bill's availability.

What did I set me? Brian? Don't don't count me on anything.

If I told if I said that incorrectly, when you're and we have 5 on the 10th, 5 or 6, depending on Bill, you were a no on that.

Okay. So actually, I don't leave until the 12th. I probably just blocked that whole week off. Okay. So I could do the 10th.

Okay. All right.

If we wanted on the 10th, there is a. A vap stat meeting, but it. Well, before doing anything meeting, yeah, I think we should be okay. I just don't know if those run later if they're even going to have the 1st.

What's the 1st date again?

Um, the 27th, so we've said the 27.

27th of July. Yes.

Yeah. And the 3rd, no, the 5th 5th. I'm sorry. And then the 5th, and then then we're looking at the 10th, August 10. okay. That's it. That's the other thing too, Brian. Normally we do our night hearings at 6 and I'm just throwing it out there.

Can we pull it up to 5 and still be in night hearing compliance? If you all are okay with that, we can set it anytime we want because it's a special meeting. We just have to advertise it.

Is that an issue for anyone that said yes to the 27th, the 5th, and the 10th? No? Yeah, so let's put can we pull it up?

Yeah, I think I had actually had in my notes here ask about 5 o'clock.

So, yeah, perfect.

August 5th is we have that we have a location. I don't want to throw it out there just yet because we're still analyzing everything. But yeah, we, it will not be here. It will be off site. Uh, no, uh, no, so you, you, uh, you're out that week. You'd have to, I can send you that video to watch.

Yeah, that'd be good. Yeah. No. Yeah.

We'll, we'll be recording all. Yeah, no, we, we, uh. We, we will have the video available. Uh, you know, when we're away from the old jail, we'll, we'll put those up a meal available immediately.

So the public well, and if it's not going to full planning commission for deliberation and a recommendation until August 20th, you'll have and these things are. The 5th, July 27th, August 5th and August 10th, there'll be time. Between then and the 20th to fit in to watch whichever meeting you've missed.

In 19th, I'm sorry is the 19th the 19th would be our in person 1 o'clock 20. sorry in person 1 o'clock deliberation make a decision. And can we put that at the end of the agenda?

We put everyone.

Yeah, yeah, I think I think that should be at the end of that agenda. Short agenda. Yeah. To that point.

Well, we'll see what we get. We do. Yeah. Yeah.

No, no, I'm saying, yeah, I'm, I'm agreeing with you.

August, I mean, July 27.

Yes, and that location, it'll either be here or remote or out. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, but we, again, we're still working on the venues, but it. That'll be a way that will definitely be a way. Like I said, we have, we've been working with a place on reserving that 1. so that will definitely not be here. So. And then that'll be either here or at our other location out in the community. We got to, again, find that and find availability, but we'll find something that works. That'll be our regular meeting, yes.

Brian. No testimony.

No testimony, business set, deliberation, and vote. That's all. Thank you. Yes, Steve.

Brian, we're just listening at these public hearings. Correct. We are not commenting.

We are just listening, yes.

So I would suggest that.

Online I think we settled on 55 the earliest 5 o'clock. Yeah, we'll do that. And then we will. Well, again, we will try to accommodate, but we'll see what we can find in the other venue. uh on the august 10th date uh and then if that if that if we find that then we'll we'll start right

Okay, I have a question not to because again, I don't have much of a skin in the game. What does it do anything? Attendance wise for any of the 3. If you do the online 1st, that's what Bill was. I don't know what you're just saying. Yeah.

I guess the only problem is right name because this will probably all go out at the same time. I'm almost. I could be wrong. I'm about 80% sure that you would have more attendance in person than you will online. I think people are going to want to show up. The media is going to be here direct. They're going to want to show up in person to talk about this. I believe online is actually going to be less than in person show up and show out. Yeah. Yeah. There you go. I was trying not to say that, but, yeah.

You only speak once.

Yep. Some amount of people and if they have 3, maybe. I know this is a emotional discussion that's going to be occurring, but I would say there's a certain amount of fun. They're going to have to maintain that same start of excitement.

Well, your hardliners are going to talk first, and then they're going to coach the ones that come in and talk in the second and the third. They're going to tell them what to say.

Brian, what parts of the county will the 2 off site meetings be located?

I mean, generally speaking, we're doing 1 East 1 West.

So, just. Close this off, we're going to meet at 5 o'clock on July 27th, August 5th, August 10th. We'll leave it to Brian to get back with us on the venues. He's going to shoot for July 27th to be the online meeting. So, to the point, we can get that out the way. The ground rules will be two minutes speaking time, no duplication of any individual. Also, no giving your time away. You don't have to stay for the entire hearing. And then the only way we'll shut it down is if the venue requires us to shut down at a specific time.

We're going to have a presentation at each one.

Brief presentation. The rules and the presentation, which the presentation is outlining why we're here and what's... We will not deliberate until August the 20th, which I was coming on to, which will be our vote. I'll leave it up to. The planning staff, whether they put anything else on the agenda, but to the point that was made, we're probably going to have to have a lengthy conversation. So, if the agenda could be none to light, that would be good.

And don't forget outburst. Don't forget outburst.

Yeah, I'll let it be. That's just part of.

Yeah. And it might be corn. It might. I mean, we'll have it. On a screen, but it might be wise to post a board. Put it on a board.

I think that's why I think it's important if I, if I fall off, let me say it a different way. If I hit the lottery, because I will not know. I'm sorry planning commissioners. If I hit the lottery, I'm out. I can't go by my jet, but. whoever's running the meeting, no matter what you have posted, it's important that, first of all, that we let our rules be our rules, no matter who's, and then secondly, that we're in constant and that our security understands what our expectations are of them. That's where it's going to come in.

I'm not trying to tell you how to do it, but just some guidelines that are printed that people can sit there while they're stewing and read. Yeah. The rules, and then they get up, get out last where's the rules right there.

One more thing. We have everybody.

Yeah. Oh, yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, I would think since it's sworn testimony, you're going to take them in batches of five or 10 anyway, swear them all in to speed up the meeting and then have them come up like five or 10 at a time.

That's what we do anyway. Yeah. Yeah. That's what we do.

We take them in the order that they're received.

we'll order them my only question would be learning from the campground road do you want the speaker cards to ask for a full address or not yes for but we we need to make it make it plain that it it's the address in which they want to receive notices regarding this particular case it can be it really wouldn't be any further notice because we're going to set the schedule out there would be For all intents and purposes, no further written notice that would be going out to their physical address. Because we're going to announce the schedule. We don't know when council is going to meet, but we don't notice that.

I think we still say that because for a couple of reasons is the minute we let up on address and zip code, then I can see just like that 1 time. Well, I don't want to give mine and I'm not giving mine. Well, so just whatever address you want to receive communication regarding this case, if we don't ever send it out, then we just don't send it out then. But then that way we know we have an address and be your cousins. I don't care. just go over and get your mail.

I don't know if any of the other commissioners went through Topgolf, but staff certainly did. And overall, that ran. I picture this having a lot of parallels, and so I think the staff is equipped to deal with these large crowds and this emotion and so forth. We've been through it before.

All right anything else on this and I think it'll help because at each of these 1st, 3 meetings, we're going to part of the rules and upfront is no decision is going to be made tonight. The decision will be made at August 20th, but there will be no testimony at that meeting. I think those are the 2 things we got to drive home. No decision tonight. The decision will be made, but at that meeting, there's going to be no testimony.

All right anything else. All right, we don't need a vote. We're good on this, right?

Right? Yeah. No vote by consensus. I think perfect.

Well, with that, I'm looking for a motion to adjourn.