Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone and welcome to the April 15th meeting of the planning commission. We'll wait for the slide to get up and then we'll get started. Yeah, because I was going to say your clock wasn't quite Yeah, I was I was looking at that. I was like, what is it? All right. All right. So, we're calling to order our regular meeting. Uh, could I please have commissioners do roll call? Aaron Slade, Red Harbison, Lisa Christie, Chelsea Wo.

Okay. and I am your chair person for this evening, Christine Crawford. All right, commissioners, if we could please have are there any changes or edits to the minutes from our last meeting? And if not, could we please get a motion to accept? Motion to accept. Second. All right. All those in favor, please say I. I. Opposed. Great. Thank you. All right. Mr. Paradise, are there any changes to the agenda? No, ma'am.

Okay. That being said, um what we have first is a sub subdivision preliminary plaque from Woodstone at Bergen Place phases 2, four, and five. And we have a recusal uh for one of our commissioners, and that is on file with the city um as well. All right, that being said, Tommy, what would you like for us to know about this application?

All right, Madam Chairman, this is an extension of Woodstone Development. It is 32 town houses and 43 single family detached lots on 29.10 acres. It's off of Oak Brook Drive, Line Bars Drive, and Ripley Creek. You can see you also have a waiver request to um the required 20 foot minimum setback for lots 23 through 25. The request is for the minimum front setback be 15t. If you notice on here the shaded portion that is wetlands and then you have the buffer around the wetlands um denoted by that line. So you can see the buildable portion for those three lots when you add the 30-foot buffer there um really diminishes the bu building area and that's the request of the waiver. Uh the developer is uh my understanding has submitted an updated delineation, but staff is currently reviewing that and of course however that plays out um will be the final mark of where those wetlands are. And this is where it's at. You see phase two on the upper left, phase four, and then on the other side of the greenway is phase five.

Give you another look. And this gives you an idea better as well. And these roads all connect to existing roads that that I named. So while they dead end and culde-sac now the these won't they'll connect to the culde-sacs where the other ones previously dead ended. This gives you another idea. Here's the give you an idea of the street trees landscaping and the townhouse concepts. This is um what they're proposing on the town houses. So there's phase 2's 25 single family lots at 11.63 63 acres. Phase four is 18 single family lots at 9.84 acres and phase five is 32 town homes on 7.63 acres. Uh the planning commission is recommending approval of the preliminary plat or the major subdivision and u with the approval includes certification the use of the road name Stillwater Court. uh that the approval includes a minor waiver from the front setback requirements of Woodstone Bergen Place PD to allow a minimum front setback of 15 ft for lots 23, 24, and 25 in section 2 only. And also that any outstanding comments be addressed to the satisfaction of city staff. And there's a few minor things

out there that's normal, but it was right to come come before y'all. Any questions? I have a quick one. You mentioned that um there may be an update to the drawing I guess with regards to where the wetlands are. Is 15 feet. Is that s is that sufficient and adequate? Yes. That Okay. We're we're looking actually we're looking at it that we're anticipating it to go the other way. Oh, okay. Not not make it smaller to make it Okay. All right. the updated wetlandation is getting it away from the lot. Yeah.

And the engineer is here. He can answer that. But I believe we're anticipating it to give more buildable area on the lot, but still would need to waiver. Still require wavering. Yes. Correct. Okay. Any other questions, Mr. P?

All right. So, if um we could as the applicant comes forward, I'll go over the the procedures. So, we'd like the applicant to come forward, please give your name and address. Um we will ask you any questions that we may have immediately, then we'll open it up for public um comment and questions. We will ask all members of the public to do their same. Give their name and address return and then um at the end of that public commenting period would ask you to reply to all said comments and we will discuss proceed. All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh Philip Green, 1233 Augusta West Parkway. Um I'm the engineer of record on this project. Um just a a couple of notes. Um I know the wetlands have already been discussed. Um and when when this original that's the original pud layout um that was done for this property at the time the wetland's buffer was only required to be 10 ft. Of course things have changed and that buffer is now 30 feet and we've actually done what we could within the city guidelines uh for horizontal alignment of streets to move the road a little bit further away. Um, but there's only so much we could do with that short distance where we have to tie into the existing uh in the road there. So, with that 30 foot uh wetlands buffer, we now feel like we need just a little bit more room to actually put a house on those lots. So, that's sort of the the difference between the the original PD plan and where we are today. Um, other than that, I think we're falling um within reason and compliance with the original PD plan as far as the town section lots um and everything else. And the only other thing I wanted to sort of mention was um with that up on the screen is in in lie of the street trees um in talking with staff and the developer uh we're going to go with the subdivision trees and plant those trees in front yards of each house um which again would be certified before they get a Yeah, that's other than that is it's sort of the completion of the Woodstone subdivision. Um, as as Mr. Paradise mentioned, we're sort of tying dead end roads together. Um, everything will then have the uh the access to the to the greenway and be glad to answer any questions that that you might have.

Commissioners, do you all have any questions for Mr. Green? the I guess there was a a connectivity to an adjacent lot originally there in the town home subdivision in phase five that road was continuing on and I guess those plans now it's cold to sacking in town I just wanted to wanted to make sure that wasn't going to be an issue the losing that connectivity. I know engineering will look at it looked like a regular lot.

Excuse me. I don't think we've got anything back there. So, it doesn't give me a problem. Gradew wise. It's a very It would be a very difficult problem. Any other questions for that? There being none, Mr. Green, we're going to open it up and then they call you right back.

All right. At this time, we'd like to open it up for a public uh comment and questions. If there are any questions, please come forward again. Say your name and address. There being none, Mr. Green, I think you are five for a moment. All right, commissioners, uh, we have any discussion, questions, thoughts?

One more question. Um, can you go back to the phase two slide where the street trees were shown that we're going we're going to do subdivision trees in L of that where that lot is, it's unbuildable with the wetlands. Is there a requirement for trees along that where a lot on that I guess next to 23 in between 22 and 23 the street tree was going right there it would be required but subdivision obviously that's not a lot that's not a tree oh I don't believe so

okay that was more Yeah, because we'll have trees in all the subdivisions, but we lose them there. Any other questions? All right. Do I have a motion?

I'll make a motion that we recommend approval of the major subdivision preliminary platitions of uh use road name Stillwater Court uh including the minor waiver on the front setback requirements to 15 foot front setback for lots 23, 24, and 25 in section two only and that all outstanding comments will be addressed to the satis satis satisfaction of city staff. Second. It has been moved and seconded. Any other comments? There being none, all those in favor, please say I. I all oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Sllay will rejoin us now for our tree preservation discussion.

Well, now we're back to quasi work session, study session. Um, and the memorandum I sent to you Um recommendation one did not change. Um recommendation number two um I changed some of the um to a 25- foot natural buffer along the common development adjacent to streets and a 15 foot undisturbed buffer existing between existing subdivisions. Um, there is something in the development code that if you're doing two, you can share a buffer. There's a section in there on buffers that allows you to split buffer. Um, and I think that's what y'all wanted on that, but I'm not sure. You know, are y'all good with one and are y'all ready to move with the two? So, in reading this, I know we kind of had some differing opinions when we talked about it before. I think personally, I love the idea of a buffer on a frontage road, a front of a neighborhood because I know it had Brooms or buffering or however we want to landscape. I don't know if 25 feet is too much because let's say those are two three doors. That's six foot worth of door. So if we do 25 feet on a front buffer just visually is that are we taking too much away from a builder developer for lot is is 15 feet better for frontage versus 25 ft. I'm just throwing this out. And then I don't know I like the idea of a buffer all the way around the neighborhood. Um and I don't know if 15t's too much but I know you guys said you got input from other

folks. So I don't know where that came from. Well, we we kind of copied Columbia County, but just this is the old field measurement. If you go from that corner there where the suspended ceiling starts, each one of those tiles is two feet. So, it go over to that second that would be the width of 25. That helps you any visually. Is that measurement from the trunk of the tree or the can the projected canopy

measurements from the property line to the edge of the buffer? Not trees, not the correct. And let me So then you talked about would we so if it's if there are adjacent subdivisions would they split the buffer? I guess that was the if they're being developed at the same time. That's the tricky part. You know, if if if you've got a existing subdivision there, well, they don't have a buffer, right?

If it's open woods there at the time, you may not need a buffer at that time. And then when the next guy comes in, he'll have to do all the buffer. It's very seldom do you have two backing up that's putting them in at the same time. So for instance, like Forest Bluff, not to knock them, but you know, when they cleared behind Cascade, they cleared right up to those people's property line. There would have had to been a buffer there. They would have had to left a buffer because it was woods back there. So just trying to give like a example. Correct. and and it would be as it's written now and you know whatever width y'all want. Um right now it's drafted at 15 feet.

And your point being if they were developing two neighborhoods at once, they would each take responsibility for seven and a half feet of that. You you could split that if if if that were to occur, but that's not it's not often. Okay. I'll just say I like 25 and 15, but

staring at the ceiling. I know. Visually, yeah, I mean, that's the thing is like visuallying 25 from the seal on the ceiling does not look

bad. Um I mean if you live in an established neighborhood and they start clearing behind your house and you've lived there forever. I get why people wouldn't want a builder to clear every tree up to their property line. You just try to think like visualize like how much would they have to leave? 15 feet might only be essentially like one row of trees and depending on the size of the tree trying to think of like real world.

Now what this does do and and it's not necessarily a bad thing is you won't have lots backing up each other and that could be good or that could be that bad depending on the neighbors. Could they not always come to you and request a waiver from us for certain situations where that made sense? Anything in development code they can ask variance from. That wouldn't come to y'all. That would come to the board of zoning appeals.

Okay, I see. I'm all for the the tree. I just don't know if we want to make it too dense because I Columbia County the 25 ft if y'all go out there and like pay attention to the 25 feet on the frontage. It's it's pretty thick woods. I mean, so I like that. But is it are we taking too much away the builders and the lots? But that's just my

because because it is the and I understand because it is the 25 and then you got setbacks and then right so you layer all of that on you're talking about a good property that they can't and if the goal is to have a noise barrier not clear cut everything keep some greenery I think we accomplish that but do we want to take too much away too so or not take too much does expert.

So, do you think that there would be that? Do you think that 15 feet would accomplish that given our setbacks and everything else or do you think I mean it's really sight dependent on what's there in that buffer. I mean you could have a 25 foot buffer. You could have a 15oot buffer that's full of evergreen trees that you can't it is a pine. So it's it's really sight specific. I mean protecting I would say the 25

if I could add

good look just you know and I'll follow what you're saying. It could be just grass out there in that 25 foot buffer. Yeah. But there is um we're deemed necessary by the planning director. Additional measures may be required to provide an effective screen. So that gives the planning director the ability to require planting in that buffer if it's not already there.

I definitely like you split the difference at 20. I mean that's not Yeah. Split the difference at 20. I said, but I do like the the wider buffer like on the exterior of the comfortable 20 for all. All right. So, our recommendation would be that it be 20 instead of 25. And is are there any other changes for So is that 20 all the way around or 20 and 15? I can do 20 and 15.

20 and 15 rather. I'm sorry. 20 and 15. So the 25 to 20. Yeah, that's what I was on the back.

Okay. Okay. So, is there so is there interest in the 15 being changed to 10 the same language on plantingsity? Okay. Come on. No mean doesn't mean it will remain the minority. So, you have a strong preference for 10. And I again I like the idea of the buffer. I'm just you know just not taking so much away from a buildable site that's five more feet. And if it's just the in between I just don't know that we need 15. I get both sides.

Yeah. But I mean, but a variance requires hardship. Yeah. Hardship there. That's It's not just a Yeah. It's just I'd like I'd like it to be bigger. Like that's not that's not

I wish it were bigger. That's not So and I think that would like the one we just had. So there may be some hard wetlands other reasons why then those would fall in. But otherwise then this 15 from hence for just out here too is most likely this property would be deed to the HOA they would have to maintain it. So if you do have deadfall or if you have something again keep the buffer have that there but if we can eliminate a little less square footage of land for them to maintain that because there will be a maintenance aspect for sure for some of these neighborhoods. So, you know, visually 15 feet is great, but if you can cut five feet off, it's five less feet they have to maintain. And I'm just kind of thinking long term. We want it to look good. We want the neighbors to be happy, the residents, but that's kind of where I'm going with that, too. It's just a little less demand because you made me think of it. I don't know if there is. So if there is not an HOA then

if this is all new I would assume every neighborhood's going to have an HOA may not I mean not every neighborhood I mean there are some neighborhoods who get away I mean it's just a but then if you have a buffer then whoever owns the land would be responsible for it to

just thinking through the hurricane that's happened and we I think we all had neighborhoods like our neighborhood had HOA property that had issues and you know it's who's fixing this who's doing that and it was just and hopefully you know we'll never have that again but kind of brought some of those things to the forefront of common area and green space and I'll say per I'm probably also okay with 10 so I get the planning perspective, but I also um you know, you know that when you buy piece of property, your mind that your mind goes up to a certain place because I have gotten cold into forgetting

where my line is because nobody has built doesn't mean that I didn't know that when I bought it. Right. Right. So I So some of what we talk about is also just because people have gotten comfortable and forgotten where their property line is. Um yeah. So, so, so from that standpoint, I also think um I'm probably okay with I can be fine.

So, 25 goes to 20 and 15 goes to that work for you, Tommy? Whatever you say, boss. I'm with you. Okay. Okay. And then um the last one we have Rhett's law. Excuse me. I said we're going to call recommendation three and Rhett's law

and for lack of a better um and Mr. Harson sent me a copy of Georgetown counties this afternoon. Um I was I'm was trying to keep it simple and um basically it the definition of a grand tree and we were using 40 24 in DBH or greater of anything other than a pine that may be too large. You may want it smaller to be honest with you. I was just picking a number

to start the conversation there. And then the other things that we did or I was recommending for drafting was um amending section 7.3.3 that all landscape plans shall show existing grand trees any grand tree proposed to be removed. I was trying to u in full disclosure trying to looking at the cost to the developers and affordability on housing and trying to keep from a full-blown survey or tree survey. So if you all want that, I'll be glad to put it in there. But whenever y'all were talking, I had gotten the impression that was one of y'all's issues as well. I want to go there. And then 7.3.2 amended to add.7. And this would prohibit um grand tree removal except for these six conditions. Um it would cover both developed property, undeveloped property. It would cover anywhere in the city, residential or commercial. That was what I understood from y'all when I when we left last time. So, if y'all want to dial it back or if you do something different, you know, that is certainly there. Um, and I think Mr. Harson, I mean, if you got some changes, too, because I know you've drilled into this stuff a lot and know a lot more about it than I do. Um but anyway, that's just something I threw out there for discussion and um excuse me to try to start the conversation as they say.

I'll start um on the first the definition of the grand tree, any tree other than pine.

Um that would pull in like sweet gums and some other less desirable species. So, I didn't know if we could get Roy to help on that a little bit. I want to shorten that list of other oaks, live oaks, cedars. Would you um and I'm just thinking of consistency. I know in Aken we had approved tree list then we had a protected tree list which was much larger than what we allowed you to put in. Do you would you want that here or would you prefer to go with protecting those trees that's allowed to be put in for a new development

or develop a bigger list? I'd have to study that put in list. Okay. and also uh the DBH, you know, the number there. So that sounds like one tile. So it sounds like 20 I do feel like this is a 24.

Yeah. Well, especially and then 24 in and then I think the maybe the list of protected trees or what that is exactly because I would sort of rather the language lean towards you can take it down unless it's one of these as opposed to you can take down anything unless it's

how do we keep the designers honest on the tree survey on a large track of land. How do we know without requiring a tree survey? How can we make sure that we're not missing that? Let me ask this. Would that be a tree survey for all new developments or tree survey for like developments of a certain size? Minimum required for all and which isn't a big deal for a commercial developer

single family. Yeah. Yeah. But we're talking about only for Well, now what would you talk about individual live? I mean like so you know by one small tree I'm just asking the question how we keep how that feels hard how we keep it right on a but we still I mean but there are I know with the individual lot that's a good because you have to get

a grading clearing permit you know Yes. For a development or commercial sites, you do for a single family build. You do not when they have to get a grading permit when they put a subdivision in, but you don't get one when you build on the lot. A and if you I call them legacy lots that they they're existing in in in town and somebody decides to build on that lot they don't have to do a grading permit. Sort of when a grading permit is required then you have to

Well, I'm just trying to say like at what point are eyes on the on the lot to catch like if there's something there. That's what I'm just from our side. And I know that tree surveys can vary in cost. I just survey

I'm not again but not that's the individual not required to bring a land surveyor and most people include myself until we talked about this tree. If you told me I have a tree survey, I'd be like, "A what?" And and a grand tree is a what? And what are you trying to tell me? And well, and I'm thinking probably tied into a grading permit. Can't if they trip the requirement for a grading permit would require tree survey. And that's just an idea. I like that one. I do too because I think that that's what we're targeting anyway, not the individual home. Yeah. you go with that R.

The rule is still there that they need to protect it, but they So, when someone applies, let's just go back to the individual homeowner applies for a building permit. Is there a checklist that goes with that when they make application for that for building permit?

We don't see it in our office. Those are reviewed by the engineering department. All right. So, I'm just trying to drill down and um get my guard rails here. So, your the tree survey is for trees 24 dBH and higher is all that needs to be depicted on the tree survey or whatever we pick as that diameter. Right. Okay. We end up reducing that. In your research, what what did you see? What was Did it start at 18 and go up or anything from 18

because I read Okay. The one in Edgefield was 24.

Theirs read very similar to this. Anything other than a pine. I think the other way you're right. and and and I that's a cut and paste. All right. So, those are the only changes to recommendation three. Potential list of list of trees and tying.

I'll bring all right. All right. Now, and I've got a qu This is a question on my path forward. One and two is pretty I think ready to go. I want to bring I'd like to bring three back and get eyes on. Do you want me to advertise for a text amendment next time and bring one and two or do you want to proceed with all three? Let's do all three at the same time.

Sounds like a winner. Let me find my papers.

Are we ready to move to next? We are. Okay. I'm going to need paper. All right. So, we're going on to sign regulations. All right.

And u this is something that the board of zoning appeals had requested that I bring to y'all to look at. We have have had several u I'm trying to think of the name. It's where tractor supply is on Edgefield Highway. um that is we have we're getting some good redevelopment in in that shopping center. But part of the issue is is when you look at the total amount of signage there on a shopping center, you're allowed a maximum of um a th00and square feet. Well, let me when you start adding these up, that's 164.54 square feet. Burlington. I forget what that one was. And then you have all of these on there. You get up and then you got you got Tractor Supply. That's 192. Hobby Lobby 170 from seven. It gets above a thousand real quick. And so

this is table 9.3. that we go to to look at. Um, and in addition to that, there's another section that allows wall sign maximum square feet to be a be a,000 or 5% of the ground floor area or one square foot or linear foot of street frontage, whichever is less on a shopping center. Well, that usually that thousand or less. So what we have looked at is this is the definition of a of a shopping center. Um basically it's a store with multiple tenant spaces and they get their um deliveries in the back. Um what we were suggesting as far as starting the conversation maybe is amending 9.6 6.2 signage allowed by district and add the underlined in there that says where except where a single parcel contains more than one business, each business may have a front wall sign not exceeding 10% of the square footage of tenant front facade. That would be 10% of that. If it's 20 feet by 10 feet, you know, that's 200 square feet. You could have 20 foot sign. If if if it's 200 by 10, use 10% of whatever that is. My math isn't so good. Um that is and where the 10% comes from is whenever you look at wall signs in here, wall signs areas are 10% in everything other than the downtown mixed use one and two. So that

is in um this is less than 10% or about 10%. um the Burlington and I'm sorry these are from a another PowerPoint from the BZA where we used them and there's the one in the top left is the one you're looking at but that Burlington not the big red area okay but the Burlington deals brands whatever underneath it that is less than 10%. We would not count that entire red area. It would just be the Burlington area that would be measured for the sign.

And then this gives you some ideas of the square footage of some signs that's in that same shopping center and what the um trying to give you an idea, Dr. Crawford, of some scale there. And hopefully I'm I'm hitting the mark here. I'm sorry. No, no. But gives you gives you kind of an idea there. So, I know this is the first bite at the apple and it might be something you want to think about. Um, I'm not saying that what I put out there is the right way to go. Um, but that's that's the recommendation that we kind of vetted through staff.

My only thought is if we're saying like up to 10%, we have a cap on that. So you can't do a 7,000 foot sign, you know, if it's 10%. But that, you know, 10% up to like the biggest sign will I don't know what what Marshall's was, you know, that's a pretty big sign. So you know, yeah, at least have a cap on that. So it's not something that's just my only thought. Yeah. Um, and is this in reading the notes with the sign variances, is this the primary the primary thing that we're getting the requests on the variances? They've had two, okay, for the for this particular shopping center. Okay. And they've got another one coming.

Okay. Um, and uh it's it's not untypical with um legacy shopping centers that we have this issue trying to fit in and make the numbers work. Um, I have taken uh, you know, a grandfathered sign can be replaced and and I've taken the position that if it's if they had a sign up there before and they put the same size back, we're good. Um, but when they change, right,

the design where where I can't do that, that's when we get into it. And I I think the cap part is important because it would also be applicable to new. So I you don't want you know just for lack of example you had a super duper Walmart that was huge then you may not want you may not want though they have all that square footage may not want a 400 square foot super duper Walmart plus. Oh, I do think changing it per individual storefront that makes sense

versus to I just think but if big box comes back in I just don't I mean I guess it would change it back um accordingly but otherwise I'm comfortable with it. I think I just think what would be the what would you see as being an appropriate up to Well, it's it's per storefront, right? So, it's Yeah, you would measure the tenant space. Yeah. So, it's for the tenants. I'm just saying if you happen to get one large

and if we use like the the Marshall's example, if that's would you say 300 something feet, you know, visually, what's the biggest we want to see, you know, lit up at night? You know, what's that? Is 300 sufficient? Can you go back? Did we not have that one? Yeah, he did. Okay. Yeah, I think you had the size on it, but And that might just be a little more research on us. Like that's 164 square feet.

Well, and we look at here, you got tractor supply, that's 100. But then again, remember this is we're looking at the the major sign. Some of these boxes may have several secondary signs and and they're all cumulative if you have a big box Walmart. Yeah.

It certainly should be no more than a Walmart, which what I would think. And then if it is something like a Walmart that you may have some extra, you know, if they have to ask for something beyond that then because I think that would be the exception and we're not going to have a whole lot of space for that. Even the infill I think we're running out of um infill spots. So all right. So then does that mean that maximum are we hearing a maximum of 300? I would want to go look at some stuff and probably come back to that personally, but that's two less than 200.

Well, but he's saying that with the the auxiliary being added to it, right? So like the hobby lobby is 177.5, but you got to add that's taking you just on the hobby lobby, right? So that's what I'm saying. So then do you want to say so 250 would get us kind of where we already are in essence 300 maybe give you a little leeway if you've got somebody else that takes over huge dead space I I don't know Mr. Mr. Paradise, what zone is or like areas this for? Um the these are zoned general commercial. Okay. General commercial.

But the way the way it was written, it would apply to any zone. Um that is other than residential. No, this isn't just for shopping center. And the reason I wrote it that way is for those um actually the proposal he was just defining

doesn't define it as a shopping center because I think of um storefronts where you have half a dozen stores but they get the deliveries in the front so that's not a shopping center but they've got the same issue you know and The one that's coming to mind is where the doughut place is up on Knox Avenue, I think it is. Oh, um yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Where you've got several tenant spaces there. Um so that you're not one tenant doesn't

eat up next the next door neighbors. My only thing is if we say 300, if it's a cumulative sign, let's say somebody like a Burlington size just says I'm put all my 300 on the front that maybe we restricted a little bit and then they can ask if they have to add more to that cumulative number just like when we were talking about the lumens and the glow. We don't want it too Vegasy. So to restrict it and then you can kind of go out.

Well, so then 250 would put us back where we were. I mean, so do you want it to 200 or because that's even because then that means Hobby Lobby would have had to got away or for the extra Hobby Lobby. So I right and I don't I'm sure that means there's no other. So if you think of it as 200 would cap tractor supply where it is. If you made it 250 they'd have room for maybe pull up here kind of signage, right?

Um 300 maybe that's too much. But then so I just you want to do two 250 three I mean what's the c? Because I do think I'm not a fan of huge signs but I also realistically think that 200 is getting close to being some of these big

with the 177. Yeah. No, so in and of itself is fine, but it's when you start getting the additional, right? Try to supply, you know, pull up. I mean, they have different I'm leaning towards 250 and then if they want to go beyond Or or why don't you just not define the supplementals have to be less than the 10% up to the 10% you can have the supplementals but your main signage has to be capped at 250

have a little more yeah I like that then a little more control over that yeah you still got the so 10% cap main sign greater than 250 200. I'm just asking. I mean,

the one thing that concerns me is sometimes, especially with big box, like I would even argue it's the case on the five below, sometimes if your space is like your front facade is huge and then you're capped at this big of a sign, you look like worse than you would if you were able to make it fit over the front. And so I hate to say such a small number because it re it adds up very quickly because we're looking at this picture zoomed right up onto the thing. But you got to think you're driving down Edgefield Road looking at that and some of its design choices. Right. So the five below their entire sign counts whereas the Burlington because they're using paint their actual sign pieces not Exactly.

Right. But but but that's also you know that's a brand that's a much larger issue right than than I'm not today I would be fine with I think

I'm good with Y 250 Yes. So, the the main sign being larger, no larger than 250 and still up to a total of 10%.

Try to have something worded for you next. All right. All right. So, all hearts and minds clear, I think. All right. Great work everyone. Thank you. And Tommy with that uh staff report. Well, we've created about 35 lots this month and um issued a good many addresses and development keeps moving.

Well, uh as always, we thank you all for what you do and continue to do. Uh and with that I will uh adjourn. Thank you.