Planning Board - Regular Meeting

And can I have a motion for approval of the agenda?

A motion for approval of the agenda. Thank you. All in favor? I I I All right. Next up, uh since we have looked at the agenda, if there are any conflicts of interest on any items on the agenda this evening, checking with all the board members. Thank you. There are no conflicts of interest on any agenda items. All right, we can get started. Uh there are no old businesses that are open, so we can go to new business. And that is the consideration of text amendment TA012026.

Okay. Thank you, chair. Um I um tonight we're not going to have any decisions to be made on anything. Um we were hoping to be a little bit further along with this. Um but we've got a couple items that I want to go over with you tonight because it can be a little bit they're technically a little bit difficult to understand. So I want to explain them. Um, we may add a couple other items to this to bring to y'all at the next meeting. Um, we are we do have a number of amendments that we've been talking about doing. Um, and so we're going through the list and trying to kind of bring those in a group at a time so we're not constantly doing them, but we will probably have three or four different rounds that we'll bring to you guys over the next year. Um, so I want to go over these u tonight and then afterwards if there's any um questions or anything we can answer those. will also want to um run out all the stuff by the city attorney, the town attorney as well to make sure that um there's no legal issues with them. Um but um this petition is going to amend primarily chapters four, five, and 13 of the land development code. Um it's going to update various sections related to um minor subdivisions and lot coverage are what we're going to discuss tonight. Um we will probably be adding in some some language on private streets later on. Um changes are being recommended as part of a larger collection of amendments that staff is recommending uh be made to improve the function of the code and make development in Landon City more compatible with the comprehensive plan. Um no code is ever perfect. Um and I think the town has a really good um um really good code um that was developed a few years back and um it's just we've seen some things that need to be tweaked in it. So that's kind of what we're what we're doing. I'm going through it right now. Um the first we'd like to um we'd like to make some uh changes to minor subdivisions. Um the definition for

minor subdivisions is as follows. Um before this was a subdivision that had no more than nine lots. It also required no installation of private wastewater treatment facility or private water supply system for more than one lot or building site. no dedication of public rideway for the lots being created and no new installation of drainage improvements through one or more lots to serve one or more other lots. Um those are all pretty specific conditions. Um and I think they all the intent of this is primarily to make sure that you what you're subdividing is already largely serviced um by existing infrastructure that you don't have to have new infrastructure needed um to be added that has to be engineered and accounted for. Um that's really the intent of the minor subdivisions. Um so what it doesn't do on here is there's some exceptions in here. Um you know, we talk about public rideway. We've had um you know that they're uh we've had interest in commercial developments that have uh private streets that are going in as part of them, but they're recording the rideway. They're also subdividing lots off of it. And what we're what we've resulted in having one time with this already is a kind of a a paper street with paper lots. Um which we do have a number of in the town and we are going to try to address in some other sections of the ordinance, but right now we want to prevent creating more of them. Um, if you're subdividing property that requires a street, whether it's public or private, um, putting new water and sewer lines, um, storm water infrastructure, um, public easements, shared amenities, those types of things, things that the lots are going to need to function, um, as planned, um, that all of that is engineered and accounted for ahead of time u before the lots are sold. um you really we want to prevent somebody selling off lots when all this stuff still has to be put in place and our

ordinance largely does that. Um we've changed the verbiage a little bit to just try to kind of close some of those loopholes to make sure that it it does it all the way. Um so it still has nine lots. Um it does not require it it you can you can do a minor subdivision if if you have less than nine lots proposed. You do not require the dedication of public rideway or the installation or extension of public or private infrastructure and or shared amenities for the purpose of providing required access or service to the lots and that includes public and private streets required for access water and sewer lines except for private taps. Uh dedicated open space and shared amenities, public easements or lands to be deed to the town or other other agencies. Uh shared storm water drainage and detention features and other improvements. the zoning administrator or town engineer uh deem as requiring detailed plans and further review. Um as I mentioned um state law allows for um exempt subdivisions of various types. Um but it also permits the towns to distinguish between minor subdivisions and major subdivisions of land. Um our minor is as we've described it right there. Most towns have something similar anywhere from three to 10 to 15 lots in the minor. So, ours is kind of right in the middle. Um, and the intent of this is really to allow property owners to create small-scale subdivisions of land that do not require major increases in infrastructure or adoption by the board. Uh, it's a much faster process for both staff um, and it's more convenient for property owners as well. Um, staff, as I mentioned, identified some of those loopholes in the current LDC, which permits minor subdivisions utilizing private streets to be platted and lots sold without design or provision for infrastructure. These are commonly called paper streets and/or paper lots. Um, and then can't really see this too well here. Um, first one here, um, this would be a good

example of a minor subdivision. You have a single lot. It's on a street. It has sewer and water in front of it. And all you're doing is dividing that up. And then each one can do their own private taps to the to the street like right there. That's a standard very uh simple minor subdivision. um what you've got here and it's hard to see but these are actually several different lots and streets. You can't see the streets, you can't see the homes because it is a paper subdivision. It was divided on paper and they can sell these lots right now, but there's no streets going to them. So, it's it's it's very difficult to coordinate for streets to be put in and very expensive to be put in because you have many different owners and none of them they all have to have that infrastructure. So, you really want to try to prevent that as much as possible. So that's the purpose for the new language. The other item that we wanted to talk about was lot coverage and conservation subdivisions. Um go ahead and show the ordinance the changes right here and then I'll explain it. Um this is in section 4.12. This is in R2 residential. Um it's also was also changed in R1 and R3 in the dimensional tables. Um, this is lot coverage, which is all of your imperous area um on the lot, your house, your driveway, your patios, your decks, your sheds, pools, all that stuff. Um, uh, normally in R2, um, you're allowed to have 50%. Um this right here um that uh the parenthesis with the asterisk uh percent um we're changing that and adding in conservation subdivisions. Um see section 59 for standards. Um currently we allow this in R3. We allow a increase because you're you're doing a cluster subdivision. Your lots are smaller. You still have to get some of the um all all the things you would

typically have with a home on that lot. Um, we did it in R3, but we never wrote it into the code for R1 and R2. We realized we think that was an oversight, so we're going back and putting that in now. Um, this is what section 59 says on it. Um, and rather than giving it a static just a percent, um, which could end up with much higher numbers of um, impervious surface on some of the larger lots. um we've created a uh a proportional uh change to it um whereby if you're doing a conservation subdivision R1 or R2 for each percent uh you can increase the lot coverage by 1% for each 1,000 square foot reduction in lot size. Um and then similarly in the R3 um it is increased by 2% for each 1,000 square foot reduction in lot size from the minimum standard lot size. As I mentioned um this uh increased lot coverage is already permitted in R3 conservation subdivisions but not R1 and R2. Standard lot coverages may not be sufficient for all aspects of single family living on smaller lots permitted by Wright and conservation subdivisions. Proportional increase in percentage of lots provides more flexible buildable areas and gets lots as lots get smaller while still providing a larger reduction in overall impervious surface in the subdivision. an across the board increase as we mentioned if you had 40 or 50% and then suddenly you allowed 65% some of those larger lots you're going to have a lot more uh impervious that you could get on them. Um this actually just kind of keeps it a little bit more even as your lots get smaller. Um R3 uh is also slightly modified. Um it does have that number on there but we've

changed it to the 2% just so it's kind of consistent um across the board there. R4, we're not proposing a change. Um, I wanted to explain because I don't know that you guys have dealt with the conservation subdivisions. Um, we have really three different types of major subdivisions. We have a standard subdivision. Uh, then we have a uh cluster subdivision um which allows for some lot reductions um with new open space. But the the conservation subdivision really does the most to preserve large tracks of land uh by allowing much smaller parcels that they kind of cluster together um and then uh you've got some large expanses. You can have farmland, you can have um wooded areas, creeks, um habitat um and that can be preserved with the conservation easement. Um what you see here is our our typical standard subdivision. This would be a this is like a 5acre parcel right here in R1. So it allows one unit per acre with the minimum size lots are 100 by 200. So they're a little bit less than a half acre. The rest of this you're going to have your streets, your infrastructure, your storm water, and then your required open space. When you go to the conservation, it allows you to make lots much smaller at 40 by 100. Still five of them. So, it's still the same overall um density, but allows you to um conserve a much larger piece of land. It's already in place. It is a byite um change that by subdivision can be done in our in our ordinance. Um but some of the numbers just don't really work out. Um these are the average lot sizes with the gray being the lot coverage when you include averagesized home, driveway, um you know, little patio, what have you. This is what you have left that you could build on. You could see each one of these is quite flexible. Anybody living in any one of these would be able to add an additional driveway, add a shed, add a patio, enlarge their home,

etc. Things that the normal person would want to do. When you get down to conservation, you can barely even get a this is already a reduced size house. Um then you can barely even get a onecar um driveway with a tiny little sitting area out back on there. um in your R1, your R2 is similar. R3, you do have a little bit of um when once you once you go to the 75% that they allow, um you can actually use pretty much all of it. And then R4 we didn't feel was necessary because you can already use an awful lot of that land. And then on top of that, um you're allowed to do town homes and duplexes and other things. So that density is kind of already built in there. We're really focused on the lower density. um districts. And this just kind of shows you um if you if you add in what we the percentages that we've done, it would allow for, you know, you get you could maybe enlarge the house a little bit. You could put a you get two cars parked there. Everybody has concerns about parking. This would take care of that. Um a little more area for hardscaping and stuff in your yard, decks and whatnot. So, it allows for a little more flexibility. Um and the trade-off in this again is the much larger conservation tracks of land. Um these are likely to be clustered. So overall relatively low impact even with the increased um uh lot coverage. Um this does show because it is not a static percent. This just kind of shows as your uh lot sizes decrease. This right now is the minimum. Um so you could do 8,000 square feet. As you can see, if you went from 40% to 55 60% with a reduction here, this would be a lot larger. Your 8,000, this would go well above 8,000. Um, so allowing a little more gradual proportional um increase as you um decrease in size,

make sure that you still have a buildable area on your lot. Um, so those are the changes for the three uh districts that we've got there. Not a drastic change, but something that we wanted to address. And uh that's it for the two ordinances we have right now. We are going to have a couple other we're going to bring in, but I wanted to go ahead and run through this with you guys so you're familiar with it ahead of time. Did you have any questions about this? Was this Did I describe it well enough? Any questions? Anyone? Thank you, Kevin. Thank you. Okay, you have a question.

Can we go back to one of the slides? Uh where the first slide where the conservation lot uh yeah five acre parcel with minimum lots. So this conservation land that will be then not owned by the parcel owners but it'll be by owned by the town. can either be owned by the town, it can be it can go into a conservation easement which is down here. You guys may have the Kataba Kataba land trust maybe. Um there's different ways that it can be done, but it has to go into a permanent easement over that whatever portion they decide to dedicate is that has to go into a conservation easement

from the maintenance and everything standpoint. Who will own it is what my question was. Yeah, I mean conservation ements can can change hands. You can people different people can own them and stuff, but you can't it specifically spells out what can be done there and that's legally locked in and that runs with the land afterwards. So, it's a it's a permanent a permanent change, permanent thing. Understood. Yeah. Okay. Any questions? You have a question? No. Okay. Okay. Good. You're good. Thank you.

Okay. Moving on to the next item. Okay, Joe, can you zoom in just a little bit? Okay. All right. Um, so so and I've got the two items that are on there. I've got minor subdivisions and then I've also got the um the lot coverage as well crossed off. I wanted to go through our list that we've got right now of proposed LDC amendments. Um, it is growing. We added another one on this week. Um, but I wanted to let you know this is open. If there are items that you guys see that need to be addressed in our LDC, we can, you know, we can take a look at this and can add on as we go through it. Um, we are definitely not going to catch everything. Um, and you know, as we've got it open and we're tinkering around with things, it's good to go ahead and and try to cover what we can. Um, open space. Um, and I I'll just be honest. We have a lot of different things that control open space. We have and and trees and tree saves and buffering and uh park space. Now we've got conservation space. There's a lot of different things floating around there. Um it's confusing to me. Um I mean it's it's it's all in there and it's laid out, but it's a little bit confusing I think to the layman and I think we need to try to kind of simplify that. Um and uh so we're gonna we're going to try to take a look at trying to combine some of the different sections that we have and find ways that we can uh clarify a little bit better exactly how open space is determined um for uh for new developments. Uh heritage tree save. Um this is one we're looking at. Um we do need to this does this this will need substantial legal review. anytime you're getting in and messing with um with trees on private property, you always want to have um make sure that your attorney has uh reviewed it. Um but we are looking at what Weddington did there where they've actually um they've got

some pretty um hefty regulation on on uh on trees and heritage trees and saving those on private property. Um so we're going to take a look at that. Uh try to give those more teeth where we can, understanding that the state does have specific laws on on um on trees and and private property as well. um connectivity. Um I think our ordinance does a pretty good job at addressing connectivity right now for whatever reason. Um in the past we haven't always stuck to it. So we really really need to have some high more stringent standards on connectivity. Um, I think it I can certainly not blame it 100%, but I do think that it substantially impacts traffic on our major roads here. Um, and so we we want to try to we want to try to write that into ordinance, uh, and improve that wherever we can. So, we're going to be taking a look at that. Um, cottage dwellings, um, something we currently have in there right now. Um, uh, we kind of a broad definition on those. Um, but, you know, how do we get the product that we want out of those? What do we want the design on those to be? Um, we'll also need legal review and to avoid legal barriers to single family design wherever we can. Um, we may need to review the definition of cottage homes as well. It's a little more uh broad um than what I'm I'm used to. Um, parking requirements that could be Pandora's box, I don't know. Um, uh, we we kind of hear it both ways when it comes to minimums and maximums. Um, what are the materials, pavement, gravel, etc. Um and then consistency with engineering standards. Uh this is one that keeps coming up. We keep seeing um with development as well as from the boards. Uh residential curb cuts. Um, specifically, uh, really what staff's looking at this

is, um, you cannot directly, uh, design where somebody puts a, um, a garage or something like that on a single family home or on a town home, specifically on some of these smaller lots. Um, you can, however, control um, within reason to where uh, curb cuts to the street are made um, and the grouping of those curb cuts, you know, how far apart they are. of the spacing, all that. Um, we could take a look at that. Um, done this in in several other places. Um, I think you get some better design than what we're getting in from some of our town home products right now. Um, help preserve the streetscape a little bit. U planting areas, um, sidewalk, all that stuff. Um, you can you can look at um, they call them uh, up in New Jersey it's it's bayon boxes and it's just it's parking. It's a sea of concrete from the unit all the way out to the street and it's nothing but parking,

right? We don't want that.

Um and and I we you can't do that specifically here right now, but I I I do think we are getting some approximations of it. So, um I'd like to take a look at that as much as possible. If we can encourage alley use um on our town homes, I think it's a good thing, but we do need to have some compromise there. Um sidewalks, um we're looking at more consistent requirements. We require them in all of our developments right now. Um, are they being built with, you know, smaller scale uh minor um minor subdivisions and single family homes? I don't know that they're always going in. Um, what about the potential for fee and loos um if we have some some projects where maybe there's nothing that would connect anywhere around there, they can pay into a fee and loo similar to what we do already with our traffic mitigation. Um, and that could be an optional thing. um doesn't have to be required, but a lot of times homeowners will take advantage of that uh rather than having to go through the hassle of putting a um uh a sidewalk in that doesn't go anywhere. So, there's some ideas. Um minimum development standard for paper uh streets and lots um kind of what we talked about earlier. We do have um we're we're definitely not that bad compared to a lot of other towns in North Carolina. Historically back, you go back to the 30s, 40s, 50s, you would get a lot of uh lot of lots that were that were platted out and recorded and recorded with streets and nothing was ever put in place. We don't have a whole lot of that that happens right now and the changes that we're making are going to help to prevent more of it. But we do have a decent amount um in some of the downtown areas. Um, and I think we need to look at our u development standards for those lots um to make sure that, you know, we're getting um we're getting standard infrastructure installed with those as they come in. But what's a what's a uh a reasonably equitable way to do that? Um if you are uh all the way down at the end of a undeveloped street, you have a

lot and you're required to build, you know, 500 feet of street and then everybody else that's in there doesn't have to. It's a balancing act. So, there's different ways that you can do that. Um, private streets, um, overall, I don't think it's a major issue, but we do have some private streets that I think are a little bit questionable in nature. Um, and I do have some concern about, um, their long-term um, use in the city. Um, and I think we probably need to take a look at just kind of making sure that we limit those uses to specific situations and we don't have uh private streets that become um, you know, minor major collectors that are, you know, uh, it can be blocked off and access lost or the town has to come through and repave and adopt them 20 or 30 years down the road. So, um, take a look at that. Um, I think we I think we might want to um be more specific about when we allow those uh street trees. This will probably be one of the last items we do. Um, I would love it to come with open space and heritage trees, everything else, but it's going to be contingent on the study that um, uh, Blair is working on with uh, public services right now. Um really looking at some of our neighborhoods or we have a lot of street trees and finding out um you know are standards um on placement and and size of trees are they good? Do they need to be amended? Um I think that's probably going to it could potentially result in some minor changes in our in our in our code as well. Um minimal residential uses. Um really what we're looking for here is we have some smaller older lots that are non-conforming and I'm afraid that it they are with our ordinance as it is right now which is really well written but I think is more geared towards new larger scale development some of these kind of they you know they

they don't really fit into that mold and I don't know how much practical use can occur on them. Um, so I think whenever possible, I try to find some kind of minimum use that's allowed in that district. Um, within reason. I mean, you can't have a 10 x10 lot and put a house on it. You know, that's too small. But there are several of these that I think you could you could allow for some reasonable uses uh as a as a minimum. Um, and that keeps you from having to come in for variances every time one of these things comes up. It's just a you know, it's just just kind of a pain. um refining the EC district. Something else we've talked about, um a large portion of our undeveloped land that is has been annexed into the city right now is in the EC district, which is the employment center district. Um I think right now it's kind of a catch-all and I think it it's great in many ways. Um however, I don't know that a large portion of it is actually going to end up becoming employment center. So, we were looking at ways that we could encourage flexibility with that and then potentially allow for um make sure that we're we're hitting some of the goals of the city of getting more commercial development and retail development um where they could balance out uh the retail with um with single family if there was special criteria on that. We don't have any details right now. It's just kind of one of the things we're looking at to create some more flexibility in there as these areas build out. Um, if you guys have any other suggestions, we'll be happy to talk about them. Um, be happy to put them put them on here and take a look at them, too. So,

doesn't have to be tonight. If you have any that come up, we can discuss them at the next meeting, too. And we'll be moving forward with this over the next several months. Right. This will be an ongoing u additional I think it'll I think it'll take the it'll take the year probably to make our way through these Uh, I have a question. Are we prioritizing any of these and then making going through the list or

Yeah, I I'm probably going to try to get the two that we're working on and I think the private streets and maybe one other I'm going to put in there and then afterwards I think we are probably going to have to prioritize a couple of them. Um, some of them, as I mentioned, um, we're doing some work on and that we really need some more information before we try to go in there and mess with them too much. Um, so those would probably be later on, but we do have a couple others that I think should probably be prioritized first. Um, and hopefully at the next meeting, we'll come up with something a little bit more refined for you on that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Um, this is, um, something that, um, Keith, I had a couple things before you, you did that, if you got a second. Um,

okay. A few concerns I've I've seen in some previous things that were done is regarding clustering. I think the rules of the clustering are or set up in such a way that what what we've seen is some places have gone in and looked at land that's basically unusable anyway. And they've counted that as part of their clustering and we're going to save the trees. We're doing an assault for you. And then they cram in a bunch of houses all together in other spots. And it seems like our rules are established to encourage leaving more greenery behind. Yet it's being taken advantage of from the other way where they're just basically saying, "Hey, we've got this stuff that's not used." They don't even examine that. And then now they cram in eight or nine houses per lot or per acre instead of that. It seems like the rules don't um allow for going in and officially really examining the property and making sure that they don't just come out and say, "Hey, we're going to do this." and then not

okay and and also along with that is the fee in loo is another thing I I believe there was a situation where they said um we wanted to leave trees but rather than rather than leaving them we'll just pay a fine basically and just cut them all down. So these guys we know they're coming in and they want to make as much profit as possible. They're going to take a calculator to these things and see realize and say it's cheaper for us to just go ahead and pay money for for a fee in Lou instead of leaving the trees, you know, because it it's so much easier to wipe everything out. Okay. We do have a penalty though.

They have to replant them. Yeah. I don't know if we have a fee and loo on the trees, but they do if you go in there and and take them out like while if you got your plant approved and then you go in there and start taking them out, you do have to replant them. That's right. That's that's what I remember from the previous years.

And we I think we might have had them kind of be moved around some in that instance, too. So, I do know I I I think the open space I think that's a a very good point. Um um our our cluster, we're actually going to get rid of the cluster. Um, but with the the the current legislation on down zoning, we were kind of scared to pull it out. Um, because I think we kind of address it with our conservation subdivision now. Um, but the so the cluster still it's still something everybody can use, but we can definitely take a look at it. Um, they they're supposed to use developable land um in their as part of their open space. Now, a lot of places will allow for some flexibility and say it's got to be 50% developable when you can have another x amount of it that's you know 50% whatever that's got flood plane but it can't all be that you have to have some some good land that's in there. So we can definitely take a look at that. Um I don't know what the percentage is. What's the percentage right now?

But we did remove cluster cluster. Okay. Janet, could you say that on the mic since we're live streaming this history a little bit better so she can explain it?

So, uh, when we came up with the conservation subdivision policy, we had removed cluster subdivisions from our land development code. Uh, but that was the same period of time when the state legislature um retroactively prevented down zoning. Um, so we had to add cluster subdivisions back in. So now we have three options. We have, you know, regular subdivision, cluster, or conservation. Okay.

And there's one other thing I had a concern on. I don't know if this is something that that's covered in in the land LDC or it's something else, but um it's affected us folks that live on the other side of the tracks is there's been a um some of the developers actually I don't know if it's rather the developers we can't figure out because there was multiple projects going on at the same time and there was a lot of burning being done. So, we know there's a state code that allows you to burn up the trees, burn up the leftovers and the things like that because it affects and helps out the the the farmers because, you know, the the white dust and all that helps really out to go with

with all of the the farmland. But because Waxaw now has no longer have much farmland and anybody that comes in and they starts burning something on a particular lot and all that's floating out throughout the entire town, it's it's it's covering up all the people's homes. I know in our our entire neighborhood, we had days and days in a row where literally we'd come in and our cars are covered in white soot and there's black smoke blowing across the town the entire time. and we're trying to figure out is that something that's the should be the fire department working on that or is that something that we put in the LDC that says you're not supposed to do that or what the story is?

Uh t typically well what I'm used to with that at least um is that typically you get a you confirm that you either get a permit or you very at least give a the heads up to the fire marshal

um beforehand. um they usually have some requirements when you're doing open burn on that that you have um a way to extinguish it and you actually have somebody on site uh at all times as well to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Um some places do permits as well. Um others just kind of make sure that you've got that stuff taken care of. Um there there can be other criteria with that too, including proximity to neighborhoods and things like that. Time is when you're burning, all those different things. Um I don't know specifically what ours are here. Um, I'll talk with the fire marshall. Um, and if need be, we can we can take that up to uh the u the Waxaw fire department as well.

Yeah, that would be helpful. And also, if they could even make an announcement to the public because we literally get killed with this stuff, it's like you you finally get a good a nice day to open your windows up and you open them up and all of a sudden you got smoke covering your entire house on the inside of it. We had no idea that they were going to be doing burning. Yeah. So, it'd be nice if they would announce it some way, shape, or form to warn people if you're going to do it. Yeah, it makes perfect sense. Um, I think we should have some restrictions on it when you have this many neighborhoods that are that close together and everything. If the state allows us to, I think we should probably explore, you know, doing something like that with it. Yeah. If we don't have it already. Yeah, that'd be great.

It could just be some bad actors out there that aren't doing what they're supposed to, but I'm not sure. No comment. Okay. Thank you, Joe. Next up, um Okay. Um I wanted to talk a little bit about the um planning board uh workshops. Um Deepoa, we talked about this um with Scott and um and the mayor. Um and I think some Trey was there too. Um

and um wanted to get back to doing some training um for y'all. Um, it's it's good for y'all, it's good for us because we get to go back through the source material and remind ourselves some of this stuff as well. Um, and I think right now there's a couple different things we'd like to do. Um, first, I think we want to start doing a uh board training workshop. Um, we were thinking the first Tuesday of the month at 6:30 here at town hall. Um, so it' be another another Tuesday. Um, but I think it'll be worthwhile. There will be no decisions made. It be very informal. Um, a lot of the stuff that we have is going to be um resources from uh school of government. Um, some of it's just YouTube videos. Um, other stuff is are things that we can actually go through and talk with you all about, but a lot of it will be just kind of watching videos that pertain to things that you do here. Um, there may be some small quizzes and stuff. We're not going to grade you. Um, and um, so we we've put together kind of a a rough timeline. I put subject to change. This is not finalized whatsoever. We are still making change. We just talked about it the other day. And so we really need time to dig in and kind of develop a curriculum that's going to work well. Um and um I'm proposing we do this through the end of the year. Um and then we take another look at at the end of the year if it's something we um I think I think we should be doing it at least a little bit every year. Um but you know, we could talk about it. Do we want to go to uh every other month or a quarterly thing or is there other subject matter that you guys want to want to go back over? Um and we will also try to develop um kind of a summarized version for onboarding. I think we'll be good to come out of this. Um so what we were looking at was uh we'd like to do kind of a a city planning historical context for y'all. The first meeting it be very broad watching a bunch of videos of old cities and stuff and from Egypt and Rome and everything else. Um and working on our way up but to get a little bit of history of how things kind of came to

be. Um then we take a look at uh local land use planning uh basics of uh local land development regulation. We've got some um uh some modules on that from the school of government. U we could also take some time talking about the waxall comprehensive plan and the LDC um which should uh be a good time to talk about those after going through those modules because you can kind of see exactly what the point of it is and then how we how we structured ours. Um we need to have one on the types of land use decisions. This is really getting into kind of the nuts and bolts of what y'all do. Um, legal procedures for resoning, legal considerations for resoning. At the next meeting, we'd like to do quasi judicial process. Um, and that includes deciding on quasi judicial cases. Um, have a meeting for uh Robert's rules of order and rules of procedure. Maybe this one should be sooner. I don't know, but um I think we need to have it at some point. Um, and we'd also like to have one on long range plans. Um, we've got comprehensive plans and land use plans, but there's a lot of other stuff that we do here to plan that this board is involved in. Um, transportation, parks and recreation, downtown master plan, those types of things. They all are closely tied. And so, we'd like to give a kind of a summary of those to y'all and um, yeah, just kind of go through those. So, we got some others that'll be we'll be adding on here. Um, we're open to suggestions on this. Um, and we'll try to get something finalized for y'all before the next uh but well, we'll try to get something finalized for you within the next week or two. And we're going to try to have that first uh meeting um in April if we can.

Thank you for putting this together. I think it it it's comprehensive and we can of course with everybody's inputs we can decide the sequence but uh this is great. Okay. And this will be a joint session with the board of commissioners and um the planning board, right? So, I think we're going to leave this open. There's some that I might recommend they come to more than others, right? Um quasi judicial

um resoning cases. I think those are important that they hear those, but we're going to leave it open for them if they want to come. They're certainly invited to come. Don't have to. Um um I'd like to after we kind of get into this a little bit um talk about um having a joint actual joint planning meeting with them. Um maybe maybe fall, maybe late summer, early fall I think would be a good time for that. Give us enough time to kind of prepare. Yeah, would be good. By then I think the new team members and everybody will be more into the thanks to the training and more meetings happening. We all will be aligned. That way we'll have a interactive uh and productive meeting with the board of commissioners.

Yep. Absolutely. All right. That's all I've got. No decisions tonight. Great. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you for putting all this together and presenting to us. Sure. Any other items that anybody has? If not, this will be the quickest meeting on the record. Can I have a We are ready to adjourn the meeting. So can I have a motion to adjurnn the meeting? Motion to adjourn the meeting. All in favor? I I thank you everyone. Meeting is adjourned.