Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

And we're ready to go okay. Call the meeting to order can I have a roll call please.

Chair Wilson. I'm here Mister Hale here. Mister Burke here, Mister McKeon here, Mister Prescott here Mister Jasper here and Mister from here.

We have a set of minutes from August 1820 26 regular meeting doing your motion Mister chair.

Yes, Mr. Jasper. I make a motion to approve the minutes as submitted.

We have a motion to approve. Do I have a second? Second. We have a second by Mr. McKeon. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. All opposed the same. And the approval passes. I'm assuming we don't have any audience participation.

No, we do not.

Oh, right. I thought I was accurate about that. That brings us up to a variance petition number 26-34VZ, PAM Health Menace Signs. The staff is Nicole Tremblay, the agent is Kathy Song, Titan Sign Company. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. I do have a memorandum to read. This is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on August 15, 2026, as required by the City of Venice Land Development Code. Proof of publication is on file in the Planning and Zoning Office. And with that, I will open the public hearing. And can I ask the attorney to question the members, please?

Hello board members, how anybody had any conflict of interest regarding this petition. All right already let the record show that there's no conflict of interest has any members had any expert a communication and let's just start from left to right site visit only none.

So it was it only.

And with that. There's been a request for a continuance on this one.

Yes, just I mean open up a public comment if there is any on the record before you to the motion to continue and okay.

And is any.

Well, there's no public comment.

Okay with that do I hear a motion. Yes, Mister McCann.

A motion to continue variance petition number 36 test 34 BC to the next regularly scheduled planning Commission meeting on September 15th at the regularly scheduled meeting time.

We have a motion to approve the continuous by Mister McKeon do I have a second. The second by Mister Irwin. Any further discussion. Seeing none can we have a vote please. And that passes unanimously. The next two are very similar, so if there's no objection from Madam Attorney, I'll just run these simultaneously. All right, thank you. So we'll do both of these. I will, at the end, need two separate motions on the petitions. The first one is design alternative petition number 26-39DA. Lightning Fast Car Wash. The staff is Brittany Smith, the agent is Jackson Boone, the owner is 2001 Laurel, LLC. The next one is going to be site and development plan petition number 26-25SP, Lightning Fast Car Wash. Again, Brittany Smith, Jackson Boone, and 2001 Laurel, LLC. This also is a quasi-judicial hearing. We do have memorandums to read. Uh, this is to certify that the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on August 15th, 2026 as required by the city of Venice land development code. Proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office for the next one, which is, uh, 26 dash 25 SP. This is to certify the public hearing for this petition was appropriately advertised on August 15th, 2026 as required by the city of Venice land development code. Proof of publication is on file in the planning and zoning office. And so we have that. We've read that. And we've done that and that. And with that, I'll open both the public hearings. And could I have the attorney question board members, please?

Does any board member have any conflict of interest regarding these petitions? No. All right. Let the record show that there's no conflict of interest. Has there been any expert take communications? And again, we'll just go left to right.

Site visit only. Site visit only.

Site visit only. Site visit only.

Site visit only.

None. Thank you.

Okay. And we confirm speaker cards have been completed by all those who offer testimony. And with that, Brittany, take it away.

Good afternoon, Brittany Smith for the record, and I have signed a speaker's card. Today we're here to talk about Design Alternative 2639DA, Lightning Fast Car Wash. The agent is Jackson Boone, a Boone law firm, and the owner applicant is 2001 Laurel LLC and BOCC1 LLC. The project is located at 209 Holstein Street. The request is for modifications to section 2.39, section 3.53B5, and section 3.7.5, point B, point C, point B, E, and F, and section 4, table 4.5. The parcel size is approximately 1.15 acres with the feature land use of mixed use corridor and it is in the Laurel West zoning district of the Laurel Road neighborhood. This is associated with petition 2625 SP that we'll be looking over next. And for the aerial map, I actually have something, Amanda, can you pull this up on the overhead for me? I don't know if it'll all fit. Just to give you a little bit more detailed orientation, seeing the petitions that are currently in review or that have already been approved, lightning fast car washes hatched in blue here, and you'll see that that's next to the Mavis Auto. that has recently been approved and has a lot in between, but Panda Express. So these are the storefronts that you'll see that are directly north of the Laurel West Nokomis School. So I just wanted to give you a little bit better orientation of the area instead of just the general parcel that you see on all that cleared land. Okay, project description, this is listing again all the modifications to the sections. I won't read them all to you again as we just did that. So modification to the maximum side yard setback in chapter 87, table 2.39. You'll see here in this image outlined in orange, they're requesting to exceed the maximum 55 foot side yard setback to allow for 120, approximately 128 foot side setback on that western property line. So a car wash is a long and narrow building and meeting the side setbacks of the Laurel West zoning district is difficult. But they did need that Laurel West zoning in order to be able to have this as a conditional use for the car wash, which is a typical amenity that we see in a commercial use area. So for section 3.53B5, they are requesting to exceed the 1.5 square foot of building frontage limit for wall signage. Again, this has to do with the unique nature of the building. If we were basing this off of the long side of the building, then they would be able to have a much larger sign. But since the front sign is on that narrow part, They would be required to have 61 square feet for their sign, but usually the code allows a little bit more. They are requesting 79 square feet approximately for their signage, and this is their prime sign for the store, and as you can see, it fits that building frontage there. Here, another thing that we had come up is that in section four, the 4.5 mixed use district buffer type requirement is a three. Since this is a mixed use zoning of Laurel West next to a traditional zoning district of CG, a type three buffer would be required. However, if the whole property was zoned CG, there would be no buffer requirement. So the applicant is requesting that they be allowed to have a buffer type one instead of the buffer type three that you would usually see. Again, reminding you that this is a commercial use next to a commercial use. And it would look probably a little silly to have a fence and some of those additional requirements of that type three buffer when they're both commercial uses. And then here they're requesting to reduce the width of the terminal islands from 10 feet to 8.8 feet to provide the required landscaping within the terminal islands elsewhere on the site. So while they are requesting to have smaller terminal islands they are still going to meet their code requirements for landscaping they're going to put those on the the perimeter of the site you'll see enhanced buffering there it's just with the layout of the car wash itself and how they have the vacuum stalls lined up this dimension works best for how they have the site designed For planning analysis, we're going to look primarily at the land development code and I'll go into comprehensive plan consistency when we get to the site plan. So the subject petition has been processed with the procedural requirements of Chapter 87 to consider the design alternative. In addition, the petition has been reviewed by the TRC and no issues were identified regarding compliance with the land development code. These are design alternative by nature, so they aren't to the black and white of the code, but this option is available to applicants if their designs are different and they request relief. So in conclusion, upon review of the petitions and the associated documents, the comprehensive plan, land development code, staff report analysis, and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for planning commission to take action on design alternative petition 2639DA. And then I will go into the site plan next. So this is site development plan petition number 2625SP for lightning fast car wash with the same agent and the same owner applicant. This is a request for construction of a car wash and the associated improvements. The proposed is a 5,211 square foot automated single tunnel car wash building with associated vacuum stations and pay station kiosks. Here's an aerial map of the project, although we reviewed its orientation when we looked at the design alternative. Here is a copy of the site plan showing the building there on the eastern portion of the property. And then the parking stalls are all, or the parking spaces here are all vacuum parking spaces while keeping in mind that they have left room for their employee parking as well. And it does meet the range for parking allowable for this type of petition. Here are the elevations. You can see here that the sign that they are requesting is that one sign in the front. And now we're gonna look at existing and proposed conditions with the future land use zoning map and the surrounding land uses. So here's your future land use map showing mixed use corridor surrounding the property to the west, the north, and to the east. And then to the south, we have moderate density residential. Looking at the zoning map here, you'll see the property is zoned Laurel West. And surrounding it on the west, the north, and the east is commercial general zoning. And then to the south is government use county zoning. surrounding uses, everything here, so to the east, you have the Mavis Tire, and then to the north and to the west, wait, I got the directions mixed up. Okay, to the west is Mavis, to the east is a vacant, has not yet had an applicant, and then to the north is also just vacant commercial, and then to the south is Laurel Nokomis School. For planning analysis, we'll look at comprehensive plan consistency, land development code compliance, and concurrency and mobility. So for comprehensive plan consistency, we looked at strategy LU 1.2.9C for mixed-use corridor. The subject property is located within the mixed-use corridor future land use designation. This designation supports both horizontal and vertical mixed-use development and no limits non-residential uses to commercial and institutional professional uses. As far as intensity and density, non-residential intensity has a FAR of 0.5 on average or one designation wide. This project is proposed at 0.104, which is well below the allowable FAR. So conclusions of finding a fact with consistency with the comprehensive plan analysis of the land use elements strategies applicable to the next use quarter future land use designation strategies found in the lower neighborhood and other plan elements have been provided this analysis should be taken into consideration upon determining comprehensive plan consistency. For land development code compliance, this was processed with the procedural requirements contained in the code and reviewed by TRC. The proposed plan has been reviewed for compliance with regulations included but not limiting to setbacks, except for the design alternative that you looked at. Land area, height, lot coverage, parking, lighting, and landscaping requirements. And then, of course, mentioning that the petition does have design alternatives, which were read to you previously. Responses to land use compatibility analysis and decision criteria have been included in your staff report and are in the agenda for your review. For land development code standards, you can see that on the front setback, the side setback on the east and the rear setback, building height and parking, the applicant is within the allowable limits by code. And the design alternative was requested for that western setback. So in conclusions of finding a fact with the land development code regulations, the site and development plan has been reviewed and deemed compliant by the TRC and any issues identified during TRC review have been addressed through this process. For concurrency here, the potable water and the sanitary sewer are provided by the county, so the applicant has been working through the necessary routes to ensure that they're meeting those needs with the county services. For public works, compliance has been confirmed from their standpoint, and with drainage, the compliance has been confirmed with engineering. For concurrency and mobility, no issues were identified regarding adequate public facilities. To accommodate the project per section five of the land development code regulations, the applicant has provided traffic impact statement. And the impact of the project is 102 PM peak hour trips. They're well within the overall approved traffic. For trips, I believe the last number that I have seen from our traffic consultant is that we have roughly around 800 trips left before we have to start looking at having additional traffic information. But this applicant is well within the limit. So traffic was reviewed by city staff and the city's traffic consultant and was deemed compliant. So in conclusion, upon review of the petition and the associated documents, the comprehensive plan, the land development regulations, staff report and analysis, and testimony provided during the public hearing, there is sufficient information on the record for the Planning Commission to take action on site and development plan petition 2625SP. Are there any questions with either of the presentations, the site plan or the design alternative that you have for me?

Questions on either of the petitions.

Okay, Mr. Flagey. In reference to the signage, is there a monument signed as well in addition to the building signage?

So the monument sign, yes, is part of their application as in the signage plan that's one of the agenda attachments, and that is following the specifications that we saw when we did the design alternative for the Venice Crossing signs. Their monument sign would be to those specifications.

Thank you. Any other questions for me. Thank you ma'am appreciate it.

For the record Jackson been agent and attorney for the applicant. Bernie did a very good job typically I don't like coming up here and saying They did a really good job of reflecting the record, the ins and outs, but she did, and I want to note her for that. All right, so here today for BOCC1 LLC, which is the applicant, which is for the Lightning Car Wash Site and Development Plan and Associated Design Alternative. I'm joined here today with the project team, including Lance O'Fallon and Kyle Suddarth, representatives of Lightning Fast Car Wash. Project Engineer Andrew Pluto with Kimley Horn, Bassett LE, Transportation Engineer with Kimley Horn, and Jim Collins, Planner with our firm. subject property it's approximately 1.15 acres the future land use designation is mixed use corridor zoning designation is laurel west and it's located within the laurel road neighborhood as you will recall this parcel received the conditional use approval for the car wash use in october of last year which leads us to being here today in front of you with the site development plan and the design alternative As one of the out parcels in Venice crossing the subject property fronts Laurel Road as Bernie already touched on at your last meeting you all had the Mavis site development plan which was approved which is they're located to the West there are the additional out parcels going towards the East and then to the North is more of that Venice crossing commercial center property that's all zone CG however we are zoned for West as you all are well aware. So for the proposed site development plan again acreage 1.15 acres more or less. Modern car wash layout I know we did the Tommy's car wash in front of you all that we're still on the planning commission. back then that was the first modern car wash proposed in the city so if you take what you remember from that to today it's it's the same as far as how the layout is for the property. We have the 5200 single square foot single story rectangular car wash tunnel building there located on the eastern side of the site it has a north south orientation which frankly is dictated by the geometry of the site. Um, you have the self service vacuum and parking area there in the center and the main ingress egress drive location is there on the western side coming from Holstein Street. That's where the access is. So as you can see and quickly surmise vehicles enter the site here in the northwest, they're routed in a counterclockwise manner. They go to the pay station kiosks here at the south. they make their payment they go through the car wash tunnel building they exit they're then routed into the vacuum and parking station area and then they're routed to exit going taking a right and then coming back to the ingress egress area there is signage and there is painting on the asphalt here to make it clear that there is no entrance to the centrally located site portion of the site however that's where if you really crunched the materials that's where the dumpster is located and therefore that's where the garbage truck comes in and out. So that access has been reviewed in the circulation has been reviewed by the fire department no issues have been raised. Setbacks are provided in compliance with the Laurel West standards aside from the Western side yard setback where we are proposing to exceed the 50 foot maximum setback standard. I'll cover that in greater detail later in my presentation. The single story car wash building is approximately 30 feet in height. That's lower than the maximum 46 feet of building height in the Laurel West zoning district. As Brittany stated, lot coverage is well under the maximum permitted with a 0.104 as opposed to a 1.0 maximum FAR for the site. And a connection to county water and sewer utilities is being made, which is the utility provider for everything within the Venice Crossing Commercial Center. Stormwater has been designed as part of the approved master system for the commercial center, and that has already received city and SWFMUD approvals. Also as touched in the staff presentation, the proposed trip generation for the car wash has been reviewed and approved by the city's transportation consultant. Again, we have 102 p.m. peak hour trips. Those are coming out of the 1,208 approved p.m. peak hour trips for the overall center. A site development plan has been reviewed for concurrency with all applicable facility types. No concerns have been raised and it has been reviewed by staff for compliance with the LDC and aside from the design alternative request, it fully complies with the code. So using that as a jump off point, I'll now then get into the design alternatives. As Brittany stated, there are four design alternative requests in connection with our site development plan. We have one a modification to the table 239 Laurel West development standard regulations for that maximum side yard setback of 50 feet. We're requesting a western side yard setback of 128.4 feet. Our second design alternative request is a modification to the table for 5 mixed use buffer type requirements that request is to reduce what would be required as a type 3 buffer down to a type one buffer but with additional plantings and I'll touch on that in greater detail. And then we have another design alternative request. This is concerning the wall signage. Section 353B5, the wall signage standards for a wall sign greater than 1.5 square foot for linear frontage or 150 square feet total, whichever is less, for buildings that are less than 60,000 square feet. Again, we are requesting a design alternative to permit one wall sign for the site of a total of 79.3125 square feet. And then last we have a modification to the call in the parking lot terminal island standards of the code is like the so it's section 3, 7, 5, B, 3, B, E, and F. Those are the specific design standards for parking lot terminal islands. I'll go over that in greater detail, but that's simply to allow for a reduction in minimum with The standard minimum width is 10 ft. We're asking to reduce that to 8.8 ft for one of the terminal islands. And then the other component of the request is to relocate the landscape plantings within those terminal islands to other areas on site. So the first 2 design alternative requests that they're largely attributable to the Laurel West zoning in those specific standards. The first one here it's very simple to understand about the side yard setback but as Brittany mentioned and she kind of beat me to it the Modern car wash building or operations in the way there the sites are laid out They have a tunnel building in the way to make plan the site from an efficiency standpoint is the tunnel building? Typically will go on one side of the site and then you're going to have your centrally located parking and vacuum station so it Here that the layout speaks for itself, but what I what I thought was interesting too is Looking at the the laurel west zoning standards And those were envisioned to be campus wide as if this whole area was going to be a mixed-use master planned area It's being developed as a commercial center so you have the larger parcels in the back and you have that row of out parcels there along Laurel Road and so the 50 foot maximum side yard setback standard again if this was being developed as a mixed-use campus it could make sense how you would place these buildings however frankly it's not practical in the implementation of a commercial center which which is what we have here today um even with the out parcels being more narrow than long and linear still a 50 foot maximum side yard setback is impractical as you can see by the site plan and then in this in this instance as we touched on with the unique layout of a car wash operation that speaks to itself but even more interestingly because you always hear me say i'm always curious about context So the Mavis and the Panda Express, they're within the CG zoning. They're two QSR, you know, vehicle heavy oriented uses. Those both would require relief from the standard if it was imposed on them. And that doesn't mean that's apples to apples because they have CG zoning and we have Laurel West. But if you're looking at this from just like a formulaic standard for these out parcels, the two out parcels that have already been approved for the commercial center they at least have one side yard set back that's greater than 50 feet so here um simply largely attributable to the layout and the proposed use but i think it's something that in implementation in the commercial center really is great in theory but in practice doesn't exactly fit The second design alternative request, so this is for the buffer standards, because Laurel West and the code has specific standards about perimeter, you know, your buffer is your perimeter, right? But it speaks to zoning when they're, Butting it adjacent similar or same zoning the code typically requires no buffer I looked at it again today the only zoning district in the city if it's the same zoning district next to the same that requires a buffer is Pud and that requires type 2 So here if this was commercial general or CM let's say it's the new commercial code next to CM or commercial general general there's no buffer required if this was Laurel West next to Laurel West there would be no buffer required so it would be easy for an applicant to say hey. there really shouldn't be any buffer at all. We wanna request to waive this entire buffer standard. But I'll give credit to the applicant here that what they proposed to do was take the type three buffer, which is 15 feet wide, has specific trees, both canopy and understory and shrub plantings, and it also has a six foot fence requirement. They said, let's make this make sense as one piece of this puzzle of an out parcel within the commercial center, They kept the planting requirements, but they've reduced it to 7.5 feet and they've eliminated the fence. Brittany did a good job saying the fence, if you looked at it, it would stick out like a sore thumb. in the middle of a commercial center. And that's why I've brought the language here for these buffers, buffer number two and buffer number four. If you wanted to look closely, you can see what would be required and then look at what's provided. And we've met the planting requirements, but we're reducing it. We think that's both good from an aesthetic standpoint and it's also meeting the code. You know, design alternatives talk about superior design and efficiency. I think this clearly meets that standard. The third design alternative is to increase the square footage for the single proposed wall signage or wall sign for the site. This request is attributable to the unique nature and design of the car wash site where the geometry of the site necessitates a north-south orientation of the tunnel building, placing the narrowest portion of the building along the frontage of Laurel Road rather than the wider western or eastern side. If the geometry of the site was different in the building was oriented east west along Laurel Road frontage similar to the layout of the Tommy's car wash on the bypass I had that when we were preparing trigger in my mind that the Tommy's car wash because that parcel is so long along the bypass they were able to have that more linear frontage orientation. Here, because of the way this site is oriented, just the sheer geometry of it, it necessitates this north-south orientation. So what that does, it places the narrowest portion of the site to face Laurel Road. That's where we're able to generate our square footage for the signage. If we had a different site, and I know this is cherry picking in the sense of if we had a different site, but if we were using the eastern or the western side of the building, we would have a 204 square foot allowance for wall signage. Because we're using this narrower southern side of the building, our signage is capped at 61 square feet per the code. So the request is to allow a wall sign of 79.3125 square feet. And I agree. I'm glad Brittany said in staff's opinion that the signage provided is within scale. It's not, you know, otherworldly here within the building. And again, it's the single sign. We're not requesting signage on the eastern side, the western side, or the northern side. But I also was curious about how this signage square footage compared to what's already been approved in Venice Crossings. So this 79.3125 square feet for the signage is considerably less than the wall signage that's been approved for Mavis. They have 140 square feet of signage. And Panda Express, which actually has 149 square feet of signage. So we're really trying to, proposes wall sign here that meets the site. It's not asking for two more. Frankly, it's less than almost less than half of what the neighboring approved Mavis has, and it's certainly less than what Panda Express has for signage. This last design alternative request. This is concerning the parking lot terminal islands. Um, there's two parts of this request again. One is to narrow the minimum width from 10 ft to 8.8 ft. And the other one is to relocate what are the required plantings within those islands to the perimeters of the site. Mason tip to the western and eastern boundaries. The request is largely attributable to the unique nature of a car wash site where vacuum and floor mat washer equipment are located within the terminal islands. You can see that on the terminal island to the north and then you can see it here in the terminal island to the south. And that's because these sites are more operational from an efficiency standpoint rather than what you see and what would be a standard public's parking lot where the terminal islands are merely passive. Again, we're not requesting to eliminate the landscape plantings from there, simply asking to relocate them, put them towards the boundaries on the eastern and western side where we believe that's more aesthetically pleasing and it helps create additional buffering. So these proposed design alternatives are consistent with the purpose and intent of the LDRs in the comprehensive plan. They allow for superior design, efficiency, and performance of the site as a modern car wash development, and they pose no material negative impact on adjacent uses and no negative impact on the level of service standards. The proposed site and development plan and design alternatives are consistent with a comprehensive plan, including strategy LU129C and LULR111B, and they are compliant with the land development code, including the section 194A, decision criteria and the section 1113A design alternative decision criteria. They're also consistent with the 12CA compatibility criteria. We respectfully request your approval and I'm available for any questions you all may have. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Any questions for Mr. Boone? Looks like you did a really good job. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And the audience participation signed up on this one, thank you. And I'm assuming no additional staff comments. Thank you. All right you with that close the public hearings and I will need to separate motions. So the first one. They will have a moot hope to excuse me construction, yeah. The first one is going to be for design alternative petition number 26-39DA. Yes, sir. Mr. McCann.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided, double P, during the public hearing, the planning commission sitting as local planning agency finds this petition complies with the design alternative criteria in section 1.11.3 of the land development code and therefore moves to approve design alternative petition number 26-39DA.

I have a motion to approve by Mister McKeon do I have a second. And Mister Hale will be our second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any additional discussion? Seeing none, can I have a vote please? And that one passes unanimously. And that will then bring us to site and development plan petition number 26-25SP. Do I hear a motion? Yes, Mister Jasper.

Based on review of the application materials, the staff report and testimony and evidence provided during the public hearing, the Planning Commission, sitting as a local planning agency, finds this petition complies with the land development go including these decision criteria in section one point 9.4 and therefore moves to approve site and development plan partition number 26 dash 25 SP.

Thank you we have a motion to approve by Mister Jasper do I hear a second.

Mister chairman. Second motion.

And we have a second by Mr. Hale. We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, can I have a vote, please? And that one also passes unanimously.

Congratulations.

Welcome, Mr. Clark.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Roger Clark, Planning and Zoning Director. It's kind of like alphabet soup you had today on some of those, code citations I see. Next meeting, you will have a meeting, for the next meeting it's on the 16th. That meeting will be, you'll have the parks master plan consultants will be here. to do the presentation i don't know i remember last time i let you know that they were going to be presenting to the citizen advisory board a couple weeks ago i don't know if any of you saw that but it'll basically be the same presentation but they will be here to present kind of what the parks master plan is the process that they've been going through where they're at at this point uh and get any comments back from from you all so that'll be the next meeting We also have a couple applications on there. We have a rezoning, which is a pretty simple rezoning. It's a property that is in the city, has been in for a long time, and just needs to be rezoned. Nothing else happening on that property. And then we have a single family lot that's going to be annexed, comp plan rezoned. So you do have also some applications for that meeting. So I do want to Ask you all, you know we went through quite a long process thanks to Amy Nelson, planning manager. She did a lot of work on the comp plan update that took us a year or two. Got it approved by the recommendation by you all and also got it approved by the state. after city council approved it and they also adopted it. So we have our comp plan is updated. One of the key items that we were trying to accomplish was to get it ADA compatible so that we could put it on the website. That was that was our biggest goal because we were able to make a whole lot of changes to the comprehensive plan It's a good document has been working well for us But we finally did get that approved Amy's been continuing to work on it to make sure you know every item is a da compatible we now have it on our website and It's on there separated by elements, and then it's also as one document. So if you go on the city's website, you can now access the comprehensive plan. And that's gonna be the most up-to-date document, because as you know, the comp plan was created to not just sit on a shelf, it was a working document. And we have used it a lot and we have made changes to it several times because property owners have the ability to request a land use change. So what I wanted to ask you today, does anybody feel, since it's available online now, that you need a hard copy? And I can tell you, the one online is gonna be the most up to date. We're not gonna provide repl, replacement pages cuz that's just, that's a lot of work that we really don't think we need to do. But if you would like a hard copy, we would certainly copy one for you. But if you want to rely on the website, then you're welcome to do that as well. So if anybody here, raise your hand or let me know. um does anybody here want a hard copy no something else to clutter up your your home okay you some of you can remember when we used to get the physical plans and i know some of you kept them and kept them and kept them and they sure they cluttered your house yes mr mckeon yes i like the idea of the electronic version do you want the books back Certainly, absolutely. We take those because we can sometimes use the notebooks. So sure, we'll definitely take those back and the divider pages. Anyone else? No copies for y'all? Sounds good, I appreciate that. If you tuned into city council last meeting, you probably heard that council has decided to put a moratorium on data centers to give staff some time to come up with some regulations. Obviously they're the hot topic in the public right now and there's a lot of discussion about them, a lot of moratoriums as well. So I think there'll be an ordinance coming back to actually adopt that moratorium, but they've already indicated verbally that yes, They want to do an 18-month moratorium. I'm not sure if it's going to end up being that long, but that will give staff some time to develop code for the LDRs and bring them back to you for recommendation to council. So that will be something that's going to be coming down the line. With that, I don't have anything else unless you have any questions for me.

I was at that meeting also and I see there's one of our former petitions is coming back to us.

Yes, they remanded the Ajax property back to staff. So what we will be doing is meeting with the applicants and seeing what, you know, they may be revising in their site development plan. And we'll be doing a full review of it again before it comes back again to you all.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Any comments by yes, Mister Hill.

I have a curiosity question okay. On the vehicle routing exhibits that could show the site plan. Do they assume that the parking spots are all empty when they do that analysis or and the reason I ask is occasionally the red line gets very very very close to a parking spot. So I was just it's a curiosity question my educational curiosity question.

Typically it's a it's a software program that does that that takes our largest vehicle because we want to make sure that that garbage trucks get through there and then our biggest fire vehicle and that's that's how that program is run and it puts the food there and yeah, I agree with you sometimes comes pretty close to the lines, but I think if for the most part if they can get in there, they're going to they're going to get in there so.

But I was just curious because you picked up. Ford 350 as the typical vehicle, and those are large vehicles, especially if they have a trailer hitch hanging out behind them. It adds an extra footer so it can lift in a car.

Yeah, absolutely. I think, obviously, the main reviewer of that item is fire, so they look at that, but sometimes it's not a requirement that they can go through the site if they can access it from multiple sides, so.

Thank you. Any other questions for Roger? No. Any other comments by the commissioners?

No.

Seeing none, we are adjourned. Yeah, but I knew it would be a pretty quick one today.